1927-03-24

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Parent.
Report of the joint committee of both Houses on the printing of parliament.-Mr. Marcil.

Mr. F. W. HAY (North Perth) moved:: That the first report of the special committee to inquire into the claims of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
32649-95*


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 214, to incorporate Guardian Trust Company.-Mr. Kay.

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

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the government order an investigation or enquiry into a riot or mutiny of inmates of Portsmouth penitentiary on Saturday, January 22 last, as reported in the press?
2.	What were the causes thereof?
3.	How many inmates were involved, how many were penalized, and how?
4.	Under whose instructions were these penalties imposed, if any, and under what statute?
5.	Is it the custom for assize grand juries to visit these institutions, and if not, why?
6.	Are these institutions inspected, and by whom ?
7.	Who are the inspectors, what are their duties, what are their qualifications, and what salaries are paid them?
8.	Are inmates classified and how?
9.	What special classification is there for first offenders?
10.	Are the terms of motion of last session adopted by this House to grant pay to dependent relatives being carried out, and, if so, how?
11.	Is the government considering a complete reorganization of the whole staff of the aforesaid institution?
12.	Will the whole question of prison reform be referred to a commission to investigate and report on in the next recess of parliament, or is it under consideration?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	The matter has already been fully reported on and the staff of the Kingston penitentiary congratulated by me for the way in which they handled the situation.
2.	Insubordination on the part of inmates working in one of the shops.
3.	(a) 114 were more or less involved, (b) and (c) This information is treated as strictly confidential and ought not to be furnished excepting upon an order of the House.
Some thirty inmates could have been sent out to court and given long terms of imprisonment for what they did, but in penitentiaries, the object is to deal as leniently with inmates as they themselves, by their conduct, will permit.
The warden of a penitentiary has not an enviable task; in fact his task is a most difficult one, and at times calls for very stem and drastic action in order that the place may
Questions

be made safe for the great majority of fairly * decent men who are sentenced to incarceration therein.
. No bruta'ity is permitted in Canadian penitentiarif j.
The super intendent was at the penitentiary on January IS last, and was in almost every portion of i and did not receive one complaint from any inmate regarding any subject.
4.	By the authority of the warden under chapter 147, the Penitentiaries Act, also section 179 of the penitentiary regulations.
5.	(a) No. (b) Grand juries are appointed by and acting for provincial governments. They have, therefore, no jurisdiction in Dominion government institutions.
6.	(a) Yes. (b) by the superintendent and inspectors of penitentiaries, engineers of penitentiaries and auditor.
7.	(a) Mr. Gilbert V. Smith, Mr. H. C. Fatt and Mr. E. R. Jackson, (b) To thoroughly inspect everything in connection with the administration of a penitentiary and report to the superintendent the result of such inspection. (c) Mr. G. V. Smith has over 30 years' experience in penitentiary work. He is well qualified for the position of inspector. Mr. H. C. Fiatt is inspector and auditor. He has over 30 years' experience in penitentiaries and in the handling of the criminal. Mr. E. R. Jackson is industrial inspector,'and has apart [DOT]from his duties as inspector generally the inspection of the various industries, (d) Salaries of inspectors range from $2,820 to $3,300 per annum.
8.	Inmates are classified in so far as is possible within the one and same institution.
9.	First offenders are segregated in so far as possible in the trade shops where they are under close observation of an officer continually.
10.	The means and methods of carrying out the recommendations of parliament are under consideration.
11.	No.
12.	No. The handling of the criminal is today recognized as a science and as experts from all countries openly state that the Canadian penitentiary system is in advance of that seen elsewhere it is respectfully submitted that no commission to investigate Canadian penitentiaries is, either desirable or necessary.


COLD LAKE GUARDIAN OF FISHERIES
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Did L. W. Shaw apply on the 13th of September, 1926, for the position of guardian of Fisheries for Cold Lake?
2.	Being a family man and a member of the
[M. Lapointe.)
Canadian expeditionary force for nearly five years, for what reason was he refused the position?
3.	Were there any other applications in before that made by L. W. Shaw? If so, how many and from whom?
4.	Did L. W. Shaw send references supporting his application on 18th of October, 1926?
5.	On what grounds was Mr. Turcotte of St. Paul de Metis appointed to the position of guardian of fisheries in preference to L. W. Shaw, when the former lives many miles away, while the latter lives at Cold Lake?
6.	Is Mr. Turcotte a single man?
7.	Did he serve in the Canadian expeditionary force?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The appointment of Mr. Turcotte was considered advisable.
3.	Yes. Two; Mr. Stanley McKenzie, dated September 1, and D. H. O'Meara, dated September 10.
4.	Yes.
5.	Answered by No. 2.
6.	Yes.
7.	No.


AUTHORITY OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Did the government receive from the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia a copy of a resolution unanimously passed by the Legislature of that province on December 17, 1924, the last paragraph of which read as follows,-
''Be it further resolved, That the government of the Dominion of Canada be respectfully requested to grant adherence on the part of Canada to no treaty or binding international obligation in any form whatsoever having the effect of limiting the authority or power of provincial legislatures in respect of the regulation of social and industrial activities within the provinces; and, further, that the government of the Dominion of Canada be respectfully requested to forthwith take the action necessary to bring about the denunciation of any and all treaties in so far as the terms and provisions of the same have the effect of depriving the Dominion of Canada of the power of regulation. control and prohibition of Asiatic immigration"?
2.	Has the government taken any steps towards carrying out the desires of the British Columbia legislature as therein expressed?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The representations of the legislature are receiving the careful consideration of the government.


CANADIAN INTERESTS IN CHINA
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What	is	the	approximate	number	of
Canadian nationals in China?
2.	What	is	the	approximate	amount	of
Canadian investments in China?

C.N.R.-Freight Rates
3.	Has the government considered the advisability of raising the status of the Canadian commissioner in China to that of consul?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No detailed census is taken in China, and no information is available as to the number of Canadian nationals. The Chinese maritime3 customs estimates the number of British subjects in China at about 14,000.
2.	No information.
3.	The general question is receiving the consideration of the government.


LEEDS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Have charges of political partisanship been made against any government employees in the county of Leeds, Ontario?
2.	What is the name or names of the party or parties making such charges?
3.	Have such charges been made in writing?
4.	Has one Arthur G. Parish been appointed or authorized to investigate such charges?
5.	Will the parties charged be allowed to have counsel on such investigation?
6.	Will the commissioner take a shorthand record of the evidence and proceedings?
7.	Is it the intention of the government to dismiss any employees who may be found by said commissioner to have been guilty of political partisanship?


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: Stands as order for return.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: This seems to be a very simple question capable of a short and complete answer, and I see no reason why it should stand as an order for return.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The main reason is that inquiry must be made from all departments. I have no objection to allowing it to stand as a question, but it may take a little time to get the information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would rather have it stand as a question.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Stands.
Question stands.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
Hudson's bay company
Mr. KELLNER:: 1.	Has the Hudson's Bay Company obtained any crown lands in Canada since 1921?
2.	If so, in what provinces, in what districts in each province, and what was the date of transfer?
3.	By what authority were these lands transferred?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved,
1.	That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the tariff of tolls to be charged on certain lines of railway now operated as a part of the Canadian National railways and situated within the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and the lines of railway similarly operated in the province of Quebec extending from the southern provincial boundary near Metapedia and near Cour-chesne to Diamond Junction and Levis.
2.	That for accounting purposes the revenues and expenses of the said eastern lines shall be kept separately from all other accounts respecting the construction, operation or management of the Canadian National railways and in the event of any deficit occurring in any fiscal year in respect of the eastern lines, the amount of such deficit shall be included in a separate item in the estimates submitted to parliament for or on behalf of the Canadian National railways at the first session of parliament following the close of such fiscal year.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to incorporate the Halifax Harbour Commissioners, and to make provision for the improvement, management and regulation of the harbour of Halifax, in the province of Nova Scotia.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to incorporate the St. John Harbour Commissioners, and to make provision for the improvement, management and regulation of the harbour of St. John, in the province of New Brunswick.
1498	COMMONS
Civil Service Superannuation Act
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution: Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the act respecting compensation where employees of His Majesty are killed or suffered injuries while performing their duties (1918, c. 15), to provide that compensation to employees in Prince Edward Island shall be the same as to employees in New Brunswick, and that any compensation awarded and any remuneration and expenses payable to any board, officer or other authority in this regard may be paid out of any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it' is expedient to amend the Special War Revenue Act, 1915, to provide for a more adequate enforcement of the act; to prevent evasion of taxes; to impose additional penalties for neglecting to file returns and for default in payments or the destruction of records; and to make provision for the recovery of amounts due.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House. Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Fruit Act (1923, c. 15), to provide by regulation for the inspection of fruit intended for export, and the issuing of an export certificate or permit therefor, and for the fees for such inspection certificate or permit.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the [Mr. Cardin.J
subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, 1923, and to make further provisions as to membership in live stock exchanges, the inclusion of co-operative associations, the rules, regulations and by-laws to be applicable to such exchanges, and penalties for violation of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of Mines) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide encouragement for the production of a domestic fuel by heat treatment from coal mined in Canada, by means of cash payments made to those who produce such fuel in new plants from Canadian coal.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924, and to make such further provisions respecting allowances, benefits and contributions as may be deemed necessary for a better administration of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

Private Members' Day

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide annuities for the widows of certain civil servants.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Canada Grain Act (1925, c. 33) in respect to the issue of warehouse receipts by a private terminal to the shipper or his consignee, and as to the contents of warehouse receipts issued by the person operating any country elevator.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the provisions of the Pension Act relating to the Federal Appeal Board, and to designate the number of members of which the board shall consist, the duration of their term of office, and their eligibility for reappointment.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Monday, the 28th of March instant, and Wednesday, the 30th of March instant, and every Monday and Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices
of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all business except questions by members and notices of motions for production of papers.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: I
would suggest that this motion stand in abeyance for some time at least, for various reasons. The Prime Minister and the House will remember, first, that the number of private members' days has been considerably curtailed because of the Christmas adjournment, and secondly, the time has been largely taken up by the discussion of the Georgian bay canal bill. I suggest to the minister that, for some time at least, private members be permitted to retain Monday, and I ask the Prime Minister to give this matter consideration before pressing the motion to a vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand my hon. friend is agreeable to having the motion carried so far as Wednesday is concerned, but would like to have the question in regard to Monday stand for the present?


Robert Gardiner: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to go contrary to the wishes of the House in the matter. I am quite willing to amend the motion to take Wednesday of next week as a government day; but I propose that on the Wednesdays following government motions shall have precedence, leaving over for further consideration the question as to reserving Monday for private members. I would therefore move:
That on Wednesday, the sixth of April next and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
Motion as amended agreed to.



IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Is the right hon. the Prime Minister in a position to state approximately when the recent report of the Imperial conference will be submitted to the House for consideration?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Tuesday, of
next week, on the orders of the day, might be an appropriate time at which to take up the proceedings of the Imperial conference. As to procedure, the government has thought it would probably suit the convenience of the House if, on motion to go into supply, a statement were made with respect to the Imperial conference proceedings and hon. members could speak with reference thereto
Imperial Conference

before the Speaker leaves the chair. Thereafter we would go into supply, on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, at which time incidental matters could be taken up more in detail. I think it would be advisable to adopt the procedure I have mentioned.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is it not the intention of the government to submit to the House a resolution approving of the terms of the Imperial conference report?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In this respect the government intends to follow the example of the parliament at Westminster, an example which I think has been followed by the parliaments of the various dominions, including this country, on former occasions. There has not been, except with reference to a specific part of any report, any formal resolution in regard to the proceedings. The government therefore does not propose to bring in any formal resolution with regard to the proceedings as a whole. If any hon. member wishes to introduce a formal resolution either approving of or taking exception to any feature of the report of the conference he is of course, at liberty to do so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will that be on an amendment to the motion to go into supply?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: An amendment can if desired be moved at that time; on the motion to go into supply an amendment can be made, as the hon. member knows. It is for each hon. member for himself to decide the time at which he shall bring in a motion and what form it shall take.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the Opposition):: I think we have all understood that some form of ratification by this parliament was necessary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Hugh Guthrie: How will the Imperial
authorities know whether we approve or disapprove of it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have just
said the procedure in all the parliaments in the empire is identical on this respect. The government of Great Britain has not submitted to the British parliament a formal resolution with respect to the conference; neither have the governments of Australia, South Africa, New Zealand or any other country. With respect to the present report we do not propose to adopt a course of procedure different from that adopted by the other parts of the empire.


Hugh Guthrie: After the conference of
1923 we had resolutions on the order paper

in respect to the treaty-making power, or the manner in which the treaty should be signed, the work of the conference, and we expressly ratified it in this House by resolution. What is to be the notice to the various overseas dominions that the parliament of Great Britain has accepted this proposal as binding? How are we to know when it comes into force unless some special action is taken by the parliament of Great Britain and by the parliaments of the overseas dominions? It is not in force now.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I point out to my hon. friend that
in Great Britain they found it necessary to have legislation on one particular matter only, and that was with regard to changing the title of His Majesty the King. I understand a bill has been passed by the British House of Commons in regard to that. As regards other matters upon which legislation is not necessary nothing has been done. If any hon. member wishes to criticize he is at liberty to do so.


Hugh Guthrie: Criticize what? There is nothing to criticize. There is no resolution before this parliament.



BRITISH COLUMBIA HALIBUT FISHERY


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: My attention was called the
other day to an item appearing in a British Columbia paper regarding fears expressed by some people that large numbers of Japanese were going into halibut fishing. We have no definite information in regard to that.
In answer to a question asked by my hon. friend from Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Tolmie), I may say that halibut fishing is carried on mostly beyond the territorial limits, and we have no real authority in regard to that. No licenses are issued for halibut fishing, and as the law stands to-day we have no authority to say who is and who is not entitled to engage in halibut fishing in that district.



WEST INDIES TRADE AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 17, consideration in committee of Bill No. 142, respecting the Canadian National steamships, and to provide for the establishment of West Indies service.-Mr. Johnston in the chair.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
Mr. DUNNING:: Mr. Chairman, this bill
was practically completed in committee, and progress was reported in order that the government might give consideration to the inclusion of an amendment of a similar character to that which has been incorporated in the branch line bills. This amendment will result in adding a new section, No. 9. It reads as follows:
The company shall adopt the principle of competitive bids or tenders in respect of
(a)	the construction, reconstruction or alteration of the said boats or any of them in so far as the company decides not to perform such work or any part thereof with its own forces;
(b)	the sale or other disposition of the securities, but the company shall not, subject to the provisions of section 4 (d) of this act, be bound to accept either the highest or the lowest or any bid or tender made or obtained, nor be precluded from negotiating for better prices or terms.
Members of the railway committee will recall that with the exception that it applies to boats instead of lines of railway this is in the same form as the section adopted with respect to each of the branch line bills. The inclusion of this section will involve renumbering the other sections.
New section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 124, respecting the construction of Canadian National railway lines between St. Felicien and Mistassini river and between Herbertville and Savanne Falls, both in the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: The following has
been substituted as new section 7:
The company shall adopt the principle of competitive bids or tenders in respect of-[DOT]
(a)	The construction of the said line of railway in so far as the company decides not to perform such work or any part thereof with its own forces;
(b)	The sale or other disposition of the securities, but the company shall not, subject to
the provisions of section 6 (d) of this act, be bound to accept either the highest or the lowest or any bid or tender made or obtained, nor be precluded from negotiating for better prices or terms.
New section agreed to.


John Frederick Johnston: Old clause 7 becomes
clause 8.
Section 8 agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 126 respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line between Grand'Mere and East Burrills in the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I think it would facilitate your work on this and the other branch line bills if you would call sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on of each bill, which are identical. Then we could discuss the schedule, if anyone desires to do so, which of course is different in each bill.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.


John Frederick Johnston: New clause 7 is the
same as in the other branch line bill, No. 124.
New section agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
On the schedule.


Mr. STEVENS:: Mr. Chairman, in regard
to the schedule, I pointed out before the railway committee that the cost of this piece of construction is exceedingly heavy. It will be noted that this branch line of 7.9 miles in length is to cost $1,683,000, or $213,038 per mile. I am advised that the nature of the country is not such as to warrant this heavy expenditure. However, it was pointed out in the railway committee that this exceedingly high cost was largely due to certain very heavy fills and cuts. The objection I took there was that the improvement is of the nature of a final or permanent improvement to a railway which might be considered as of finished character and in first-class financial condition, and is not warranted in connection with a railway that essentially should be built as economically as possible. Therefore
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

my position before the railway committee was that this expenditure is unjustifiable at this time, that the company might well expend the $1,600,000 on much more needed work elsewhere, and that this particular type of ultimate improvement could wait until the railway is in better financial condition. Furthermore, I would point out that if a three-mile section of the Canadian Pacific is used the balance of this branch line, namely, 4.8 miles, will cost $1,327,000 or about $270,000 per mile. Some of us who have followed railway construction bills through parliament for many years believe this to be the highest cost per mile proposed in any charter that has gone through this House. Personally I consider it an exorbitant charge and one which is unjustifiable under present conditions.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend expresses now the same views he gave in the committee. I can only put forward in answer to him the statement of the responsible officers of the road as to the immediate advantage to be gained by making this improvement, which will bring its own immediate justification. The hon. member takes the view that such an improvement as this cut-off would be justified only in connection with a road which is complete and in excellent financial condition. The officials of the railway, on the other hand, demonstrate that they can by means of this expenditure double their trainload behind the engine and thereby substantially reduce operating costs. They are satisfied, and they have demonstrated to my satisfaction, that this expenditure will immediately return more than 12 per cent upon the outlay in the way of reduced operating costs, and will increase the volume of business over the territory affected. That is my only justification for the proposed expenditure and my only answer to the criticism of the hon. gentleman. We regard this as an improvement of the kind that should constantly be made on the Canadian National lines-that is, an improvement in connection with which it can be demonstrated that the returns in reduced cost of operation will more than pay interest on the money spent.


Hugh Guthrie: A good many members are not on the committee and would like some information as to why the cost of constructing this seven miles is so enormous. It has been stated that this projected work will cost more than any other seven miles of railway in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know that that is true.


Hugh Guthrie: It has been so stated. I should like the minister to gratify my curiosity by giving me some information explaining why the road should cost between two hundred and three hundred thousand dollars a mile to construct. The country is not difficult. The Canadian Pacific Railway has constructed a line through practically the same country and the cost of operation in this case is not anything like the amount proposed in this bill; it would not be more than a quarter of it. Again I would ask for an explanation of the expenditure of this enormous sum of money on so short a line of road.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot check the accuracy of my hon. friend's statement regarding the cost of the Canadian Pacific Railway line in the territory. I trust he will supply me with precise information in that regard, if he has it, because it will be of assistance to me in judging whether or not the permanent officials of the Canadian National are correct in their presentation to me. With regard to the general question, the present grade on the main line is 1.5 per cent, and this work will reduce it to six-tenths of one per cent. The road was built in its present location because, as is often the case, it would have cost too much money at the time of its construction to produce a six-tenth grade. The hill, therefore, was climbed. The chief engineer of the Canadian National Railways informed the committee the other day that the cost of the work was almost altogether due to heavy cut and fill, with banks in the neighbourhood of fifty feet high on a portion of the construction. If my hon. friend's statement is correct, that the Canadian Pacific Railway have built through similar territory or through territory adjacent thereto at a quarter of the cost, I should certainly like to have the particulars and also the year in which construction took place.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister could get it if he applied to the Canadian Pacific Railway. They have given the information to others and would not hesitate to give it to the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend has it.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that I
should be at liberty to disclose the letter. I do not think they would object to giving the information.


Mr. BROWN:: Is it not true that an explanation of the seemingly high cost per mile was the fact, as pointed out, that $185,000 was
used in the raising of a bridge at the end of

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
the line? This would reduce the seemingly high cost of $213,000 per mile to about $175,000.


Hugh Guthrie: There may be an explanation but I should like to know what it is.


Mr. KAISER:: Has the minister taken
steps to see whether running rights can be obtained over the Canadian Pacific line? The Canadian Pacific railway runs from Shaw-inigan Falls to Grand'Mere, and if running rights were secured over that line it would leave less than two miles of railway construction for the Canadian National. The duplicating of railway lines in this country is a matter of serious consequence to the people, particularly in Ontario. We realize there that the solution of our railway problem lies, not in the duplication of lines, but in cooperation between the existing railways.


Charles Avery Dunning: Approaches have been
made by the Canadian National to the Canadian Pacific for running rights over three miles of the Canadian Pacific Railway line adjacent to this branch.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the
House go into committee on Bill No. 126, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line between Pilkington and Niagara Junction in the province of Ontario.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 127, respecting the construction of a ' Canadian National railway line between Weybum and Radville, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 128, respecting the construction of a Canadian
National railway line between Willow Brook and township 27, range 9, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into , committee on Bill No. 129, respecting the construction Of a Canadian National railway line between Sturgis and Crooked River and Mistatim in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 130, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line between Crooked River and Mistatim and township 48 in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister
of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 131 respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line between Shell Brook and Kilwinning and township 50 in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 132, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line between Turtleford and Ilafford and1 Richard in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Canada Evidence Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 133, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line between Kindersley and Glidden in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committtee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the thirdi time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 134, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line between Spruce Lake and township 53 in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 135, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line between Hudson Bay Junction and townships 39 or 40 in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the thirdi time and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 136, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line between Elk Point and township 55 in the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 137, respecting the construction of a Canadian

National railway line between Ashmont and Bonnyville in the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 138, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line between Bretona and Clover Bar in the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LUGIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 56, to amend the Indian Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CANNON:: The amendment introduced by the Senate is that the words "prima facie" shall be added before the word evidence in the third line of a clause. As the clause read, it might be interpreted as meaning that the evidence would be conclusive. With the words "prima facie" added, it means that the evidence may be rebutted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) moved the second reading of Bill No. 152, to amend the Canada Evidence Act as respects bank books and records.
Mr. SPENCER:: May we have an explanation of this?


Lucien Cannon: This bill was before the
House last year, and if I am not mistaken, it was adopted by the House. It had been previously passed by the Senate. It is based on the English law dealing with similar matters. Its object is to allow banks to produce in court certified copies of their books instead of having to produce the originals, as they do now. This is simply in

Vancouver Harbour Commission
order to facilitate the production of evidence. If the original has to be produced for some special reason, the bill provides that the judge may then give an order to that effect and the original will have to be produced. The only difference between the English law and this law as proposed is that our law applies only to criminal proceedings, because there only does our jurisdiction lie, while in England the same act covers both criminal and civil cases.


Robert Gardiner: Have these copies to
be certified?


Lucien Cannon: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize a loan to the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners in an amount not exceeding $4,000,000 to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon the approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Hugh Guthrie: Will the minister give us a general statement with regard to this loan of $4,000,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The details are as follows:
Addition to No. 3 elevator including acquiring additional property necessary in order to complete new lease with United Grain
Growers	$
Water front development at D.L. 274 North Vancouver	
Extension of Terminal railway right of way through the Burrard
Dry Dock Company's plant on the north shore	
Extension conveyor's system Ballantyne pier, sacking plant and
marine leg	
Construction work on South Shore terminal right of way. including
purchase price of Clam Shell's scow	
Development at Hastings mill site including construction of coastwise pier warehouse and quay wall	
Contingencies	
850.000	00
500.000	00
200.000	00
200,000 00
100,000 00
385,000 00 355,047 51
Ballantyne pier office building	 12,916 36
Fish oil storage	 24,973 20
Grain loading equipment No. 1 jetty	 25,000 00
Settlement British Oriental Company lease case		112,000 00
To amount for construction and completion North Shore Terminal
railway expended or to be expended	 1,308,370 54
Purchase price and remodeling tug St. Catherines	 75,000 00

To retire debentures with Imperial Bank of Canada and secured
by debentures on No. 3 elevator	
Unapproved over-expenditure No. 3 elevator	
Amount required to transfer interest paid on construction from
revenue account to capital account	 * [DOT]
Construction of Terminal railway from Ballantyne pier to Lapointe
pier and authorized only to be paid for out of revenue	
Land purchased for right of way for Terminal railway and charged
to revenue account	
Improvements made to No. 1 elevator at time of taking over elevator
and property chargeable to capital account	
Signal station prospect point properly chargeable to capital account. Amount required to take care of over-expenditures of approved estimates to November 30, 1926	
650,000 00 343,784 82
414,300 45
102,858 69
20,355 48
56,724 35 9,191 85
139,887 70

Total	
Less amount provided for by loan and for which the approval of appropriations has not been given	
Loan required to balance all accounts as above



$5,883,410 95 1,883,410 95 4.000,000 00 $5,883,410 95 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Vancouver Harbour Commission
Hugh Guthrie: I am not taking any objection to the loan, but I should like to find out how the account stands at present as between the commission and the government. Are the interest payments kept up, and is the sinking fund maintained?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh yes. The harbour commission was very successful in its operations last year. The revenue for 1926 was $2,193,670.12, and the expenditure $1,193,007.77, leaving a balance of revenue over expenditure of $1,000,662.41. On account of bank interest there was paid $26,903.40 and for sinking fund $200,000.
There remains a balance in favour of the commission after all payments have been met of over $92,000; so that the year has been very successful and very profitable. To meet their obligations they have provided a sinking fund of a little over $SOO,000.


Hugh Guthrie: Do you know the total obligation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total is $15,000,000.


Hugh Guthrie: No arrears?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No arrears.


Mr. KELLNER:: Is part of this money to De expended to satisfy the legal claim of the Oriental Grain Company?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, the amount of $112,000. This claim has been submitted to the counsel of the harbour commission in Vancouver, and we have been advised by the Justice department that the commission should make a settlement of that claim.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The case has not actually been in court. Has it been settled out of court?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not yet.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Do you intend to settle it out of court?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, we have been advised by the Justice department to do so.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I desire to make a remark with reference to that. In the first place the harbour commission purchased the old Woodward elevator for what is known as the Oriental Grain Company, and hon. members from Alberta will know who they are. We have the member for East Edmonton (Mr. Blatchford), president, and we have Frank Walker associated with him, Mr. Tobin who represented Wetaskiwin last year, and two or three others. They got a lease of that elevator, and, according to the information we have, proceeded to operate, but after

a short time they accused the government or the harbour commission of violating the law and brought this action for $250,000. I do not know who is responsible for the mix-up, but certainly it was a very questionable business for the harbour commissioners to purchase the elevator in the first place, and then to lease it on an understanding that turned out as this has done. I question very seriously if this money is going to be used as suggested.


Mr. BENNETT:: If the minister will read the report of the Royal Grain Commission he will find some pertinent observations with reference to this enterprise. It never was legally and properly organized. This property was turned over to a few political favourites -that is the honest fact in regard to it-of the harbour commission, and it is operated in such a way as to enable the alleged owners of it to assert the claim against the commission for interfering with them in the management of the enterprise. This was one of the worst jobs ever perpetrated on a free people. I have not the details before me, but I will obtain them. I will produce the report of the grain commission and show the circumstances in connection with it. I suggest that the minister make no settlement with these people under the present conditions without a thorough public inquiry with relation to the matter from its inception till to-day. It will not bear the light of day. Everybody in western Canada who is familiar with the facts knows that. When the bill is under consideration I will bring the matter to the minister's attention. I am speaking solely about the Woodward elevator matter and the Oriental Grain Company.


Robert Gardiner: Will my hon. friend tell me whether this company was ever organized?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My recollection is that the charter was secured from the Secretary of State's department, but the observations in the Royal Grain Commissioner's report will indicate what was thought about it by the grain commissioner; considering the amount of capital that was paid in, in compliance with the terms of the act, his view was that the company was not legally or properly constituted.


Robert Gardiner: What has the minister to say to a charge of that description?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not in a position to argue that matter. There may be something in what the hon. member has said; I am not in a position to contradict him at present. This was done by the harbour commission,

Vancouver Harbour Commission
dealing with the affairs of the company at that time. To-day we ask to have placed at our disposal $112,000 to meet the requirements but that does not mean that we will spend that amount. Before any money can be paid out the approval of the Department of Marine and Fisheries must be obtained; we are only taking authority to pay it if we find we have to. But we rely upon the advice of the counsel of the harbour commission and one independent counsel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will you give the names of the counsel?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Farris, Farris, Stultz <5:
Sloan, and the other counsel is Mr. E. P. Davis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is one of the ablest lawyers in Canada, if not the ablest.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: And outside of that we have the opinion of the Department of Justice that, in view of the circumstances we ought to try and make a settlement of that case. That is the advice we are getting from the Department of Justice. Before giving their opinion the Department of Justice must have considered the point raised by my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett).


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think they ever heard of it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are simply taking
authority to make a settlement, but are not committed to make that settlement if we are not satisfied that we are justified in doing so.


Robert Gardiner: I would suggest that before the second reading of the 'bill the minister should look into the question of the organization and registration of the company.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will.


Robert Gardiner: Also ascertain the actual amount of capital in the company which has been paid up.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: When, in 1924, the last bill was before parliament granting a sum of money to the harbour commissioners, a discussion took place upon this very pertinent question and it is probable that the cancellation of the agreement came about as a result of that discussion in the House. Therefore I think the minister would be well advised, before the second reading of the bill, to have all the particulars, so that we may be able to expedite the legislation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will.


Robert Gardiner: But without those particulars I can assure my hon. friend that we do not propose to let it go through.
With regard to the condition of No. 3 elevator, what extra storage is contemplated, what rent is now being paid, and what is the rent contemplated to be paid if the addition is made?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am afraid I am not in a position at the present time to give all the details my hon. friend is asking for. If he will permit the resolution to go through, I will bring in the information that he and others are asking for.


Robert Gardiner: What is the situation
with regard to the harbour commission elevators at the present time? Are any of those elevators under the control of the commission; that is, utilized by the commission itself?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There are negotiations at the present time to lease No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 to private companies, but I have no knowledge that an understanding has been reached as yet. I know that the commissioners are dealing with the representatives of these firms, or companies, or associations, with a view of leasing the elevators. From the information that has come to me I am inclined to think that these leases will be granted according to the requests made.


Robert Gardiner: I understand that before No. 2 can be leased it is necessary to construct a pier or jetty. Is anything included for such construction?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, it is provided for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The pool get No. 2, I
think?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Originally they were
promised No. 1?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why did the government change its mind and give the pool No. 2 when they still wanted No. 1?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If my memory is correct,
another firm was already interested in No. 1, and we thought it advisable not to place the elevator in the hands of two organizations. This was explained to the representatives of the pool, and I am informed that when they left Ottawa they seemed to be quite agreeable to the proposal of the new commission.


Robert Gardiner: Is this where a private company loads through No. 1?
150S

Vancouver Harbour Commission


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Between now and the
second reading of the bill, the minister might well consider the advisability of dropping the $112,000 out of this year's estimates, because the item will provoke a good deal of discussion, and I am satisfied that to get to the bottom of all the facts in connection with the claim of the Oriental Grain Company it should be sent to a special committee for consideration. I know the minister will agree with me, and the Solicitor General will advise him, that once you put in the estimates a vote to meet a prospective claim, the claimants will become so insistent in their pressure that they will get the money; whereas if provision for the claim is not made, you may be able to get it put on some basis that more nearly represents what, if anything, should be paid.


Mr. COOTE:: Have the harbour commissioners power to lease elevators without the consent of the government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, they have to get the approval of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the governor in council.


George Gibson Coote: Did they have the approval of the department and the government when they leased this elevator to the Oriental Grain Company?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I could not say at present.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They did.


George Gibson Coote: I trust the minister will get that information, and also as to whether they had the approval of the department and the governor in council to cancel the lease. It is the cancellation that has given rise to this claim of $112,000 by a company with a paid up capital of only $25,000. I believe the company was not prepared to go on with the lease. I certainly think it is a great mistake to include this claim in the money required under the bill. And Why should the amount be included in capital account? If it is to be paid at all it should be paid by the Vancouver harbour commissioners out of revenue.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think my hon. friend
should not complain. By placing the amount in capital account he will have an opportunity of discussing it.


George Gibson Coote: That may be, but is it not
a poor system of bookkeeping to put such expenditure into capital account?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister will agree that, in the ordinary course of business, if judgment is given against a company for

damages the money is not charged against capital but against operating revenue. Clearly the hon. member for Macleod is quite right in his statement that if this is a valid claim it should not be capitalized and so increase the tolls levied on the farmers of Alberta, because practically they are the only ones served by this elevator. Of the forty or fifty million bushels of grain shipped through Vancouver, 95 per cent comes from Alberta, the balance from northern and southern Saskatchewan points near the Alberta boundary. I think that is not too strong a statement to make. I submit that when you desire to capitalize what in effect would be the payment of damages arising out of operation, that payment should be charged against operating revenue, not against capital.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There may be a difference of opinion, but I think in the end the result would be the same.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Tolls are collected in order to meet all the obligations of the harbour commission, and if this sum were placed in revenue account the result would be the same-the harbour commission would have to earn interest on it. The claim has been dealt with in this way in order that it may be brought before parliament with a view to getting approval before payment is made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can see what was in
the mind of the minister. I understand that at one time the harbour commission was going to pay the claim out of revenue, but the minister's department very properly intervened, not because they did not believe it would be a proper charge against operation, but because the claim itself was of such a character that no well-conducted business would dare charge it up against operating revenue. However, it would be easy once it was put through parliament to make it a capital charge, and that would be the end of it. That is the real truth of the matter. I think the minister can give us some information in regard to it if he so desires.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: What is the date of the opinion of the Justice department advising a settlement of the claim?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: January 7, 1927.


George Gibson Coote: The list of expenditures read by the minister totalled about $5,883,000. The bill authorizes an expenditure of $4,000,000. Will he be good enough to explain how the balance is provided for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have to made a deduction of $1,883,410, the amount provided for by

Vancouver Harbour Commission
loan and for which approval had not been given. These expenditures were made, I understand, out of the revenue of the harbour commission.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And advances from the
bank.
Mr .CARDIN:	Advances had been made,
but no approval had been given by the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the expenditure. It is proposed to place these amounts back into capital account.


George Gibson Coote: The amount was taken but it had not been authorized.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was authorized by parliament but the expenditure was made by the harbour commission themselves out of their revenue.


Mr BENNETT:: Which raises a very important question.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, I see that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister, I know, is aware of it from the way he spoke. If a large surplus has been accumulated by the operation of such a facility, which enables it without incurring debts to meet the obligations of new construction, I think it would be highly desirable, in order to maintain low tolls, not to allow the commission to reborrow money to make up that expenditure. The minister has had the matter under consideration on more than one occasion, but apparently he has yielded to pressure from those whom my hon. friend would describe as capitalists, and now proposes to capitalize this amount instead of allowing it to be charged against operating revenues. A very important principle is involved in that connection. If you have a surplus of a million and can carry out needed improvements to the extent of $S00,000 without borrowing money, and have something left over, I do not think it is proper that you should come to parliament and get authority to borrow money as capital to replace that $800,000. That is not the way business is done, and the harbour commission should not conduct its affairs on that principle if the object is to maintain low tolls. I am sure the minister desires to do everything possible to improve transportation facilities at Vancouver and I know he realizes the importance of the tolls question to the farmers of Alberta. Alberta is seriously affected in this matter and it is of the utmost consequence that, wherever possible, improvements should be effected out of surplus revenues. Surplus revenues mean that, as a result of larger business, more tolls have been charged than otherwise would be the case. The tolls are fixed on the basis of 32649-96
a smaller volume of business, and as the volume increases the tolls bring in a correspondingly larger revenue. When this revenue surplus accumulates-and my submission is that is was not contemplated that there should be this larger revenue by reason of an increased volume of business-the surplus might properly be made available for needed capital expenditures so as to prevent the possibility of borrowings, which of course involve interest charges which must be made up by an increase in tolls. I can see that the minister has given the matter his consideration. It is a question which is not wholly free from, shall I say, grave results to those who supply the commodities which pay the tolls whereby the interest obligations of the commission are discharged.


George Gibson Coote: The people of Alberta are very much interested in the harbour of Vancouver. This year the Vancouver harbour commissioners appealed to the Board of Grain Commissioners to increase the tariff charges for handling grain through the elevator, and although the Alberta government protested, these increased charges, I believe, are now in effect. It is rather strange that the government has allowed the increase in these charges if it is true that the board have been able to make, out of their revenue, capital expenditures of $1,883,000. I do not know whether I understood the minister correctly, but that is what I thought he said. This state of affairs, I think, justifies the attitude of the people of Alberta and the action of the Alberta members during the past year in endeavouring to secure a representative of the grain producers from that province on the harbour board. I think we are supplying the tonnage which provides half the revenues of the port of Vancouver, and it does seem to me that the government might very well have given to the wheat producers of Alberta representation on the board. It is well known that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in Alberta over the make-up of the Vancouver harbour board, and it is to be regretted that the government did not give some consideration to the claim of Alberta to have a representative of their own on the board. I hope that- the minister, when he introduces the bill, will be able to give complete information regarding not only the matters which have been referred to to-day, but also in relation to the purchase of the Hastings mill site and the development which the harbour commissioners contemplate at that point. I should like him to give information also regarding the cost of construction of No. 2 elevator. It is important for us to know whether the parties who are



Vancouver Harbour Commission
negotiating for tihe lease of elevator No. 1 are to be charged a rental based on the cost of construction of this elevator. There is no comparison in the cost of elevator No. 1 and the cost of elevator No. 2. No. 1 was constructed by the government, under whose ownership it was operated, and it was later turned over to the Vancouver harbour commission at a cost of $550,000, which was only a little over 50 per cent of what the elevator was worth. I trust that the lease which is being negotiated with these parties will not necessarily be based on the cost of the elevators to the commission.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I desire to make a few
observations regarding this rather important matter. In the first place, I support what my hon. friend (Mr. Coote) has just said in reference to fees. When the elevator fees in connection with the Vancouver harbour were increased I publicly opposed it and I urged the commissioners not to apply for the advance. I felt that the fees at that time were sufficient to pay for the cost of administration and operation, and I have no hesitation now in supporting my hon. friend's view in that respect. Furthermore, when the tonnage fee was increased from one cent to six cents per ton I considered that also too large an increase.
As regards the proposal for a representative on the Vancouver harbour commission from the province of Alberta, I would suggest to the government the advisability of enlarging the commission by increasing its membership to five and slightly changing its constitution. At present there are three commissioners, the chairman receiving a salary of $6,000 and the other two commissioners $4,000 each. The minister will correct me if I am wrong. After a long experience covering a number of years in connection with the operation of the commission, I have come to the conclusion that it would be better to have a chairman paid a salary of six or eight thousand dollars, and four commissioners who should receive an honorarium of about $2,000. These figures are of course arbitrary: they are not at all definite, being only a suggestion. These junior commissioners, if I may so describe them, need not necessarily be expected to give all their time to the commission; that is to say, it should not be a job for them. Rather they could sit as directors, meeting once or twice a month and dealing with matters of general policy of the board. In that way you could secure the services of some very eminent authorities on the classes of business transacted, such as a prominent shipping man, a 
grain man thoroughly familiar with the internal handling of grain as well as the shipping of it, and a prominent businessman who would be willing to give his time in part to the study of harbour matters, advising and cooperating with the board on all questions of policy, without necessarily devoting himself to administration. At the present time- I speak from memory-the board has a general superintendent who receives about $8,000 a year. They have a superintendent of elevators, an assistant superintendent of elevators and a foreman of elevators, and I contend that these positions are in excess of their needs. It seems to me that one superintendent of elevators would be enough, and I doubt if either the assistant superintendent or the foreman is needed at all. The general superintendent of the whole harbour, with a foreman at each elevator, should be able properly to safeguard the interest of the commission, and in that way a considerable saving could be made.
With regard to the $1,500,000 mentioned by the minister, I think the correct explanation is that out of previous appropriations made by parliament there still remains about that sum. The commissioners have been carrying on very extensive works and have exceeded the authorized payment by this government; that is, the payments they make must be authorized by the -government, and while they have exceeded those payments by a considerable sum they have still kept within the general appropriation made by parliament. These extra moneys were paid, I understand, not all out of revenue, but partly in that way with the balance secured by an -overdraft at the bank. If I recall correctly statements I have seen, that overdraft amounted to about $600,000 and -this is a matter for which the commission might be criticized. I am not offering these remarks to the minister in a critical spirit at all, but rather that his hands may be strengthened in keeping proper control over this board as well as others. That overdraft of $600,000 was secured by the hypothecation of the securities represented by the sinking fund, which was an entirely wrong action on the part of the board. I think we must give the minister credit for having condemned this practice and for having corrected it, and I hope he will join with us in saying that it will not occur again.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It will not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it is necessary foi the minister now to approve-and in the reorganization of the board I assume that he has considered and has approved of this over

Vancouver Harbour Commission
draft-expenditures which are covered by previous appropriations by parliament to the extent of approximately $1,500,000.


George Gibson Coote: Might I ask a question, just for information? Would it be necessary for the minister to bring this matter of $1,500,000 before parliament? Would it not be only necessary for him to give his approval to it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I commend the minister for having done so; he need not have brought it before parliament, and I think he deserves great credit for having been frank with us. He has made a complete statement, and I may say frankly that all he needed to do was to ask for a certain sum, namely $4,000,000, to be used for future purposes, and to show how it was to be expended. But there was this unexplained and unaccounted-for difference for which the harbour board should have been criticized; I have not the slightest doubt that the minister and the deputy minister have criticized them strongly and bitterly for it, but it is as well to discipline these boards occasionally to keep them within bounds.
Before I pass on I would like to refer to the Woodward elevator, which was the reason for this lease of the Oriental Grain Company. That property should never have been purchased from Woodward originally; I wrote a letter to the commissioners in the autumn of 1922 or 1923, before they asked the approval of the government at all, and warned them that it was an improvident action, that they would have nothing but trouble if they purchased it, and that so far as I was concerned I would keep my skirts clear of it. They went on with the negotiations, and came to Ottawa where they finally secured the approval of the government to the taking over of the Woodward elevator. This project was originally entered into by a gentleman named Woodward, a grain man from Winnipeg, in which business he was a failure; he got into trouble and obligated himself to buy a large piece of waterfront on which he built a cheap structure, aftijr which he went into a condition of bankruptcy. The harbour commissioners took over his whole bag of tricks and troubles, which never should have been done; following that there was an expenditure of public money to put the elevator into proper shape, which work was estimated to cost $600,000, but really required $1,000,000. The elevator now is probably in good condition; I do not question that, but the whole trouble from start to finish, including that connected with this Oriental Grain Company, came in the train of this original action, and I know that the harbour commissioners and the government have spent a good many 32649-96^
anxious days wondering just how to extricate themselves from the results of that improvident action. 1 am not going to say that the government should not make a settlement; that is something no one should declare without having very carefully examined all the papers, but I do say that in making a settlement the government should scrutinize with great care any claim based upon that original transaction.
I want to repeat that the harbour board of Vancouver should be directed very sternly to reduce expenditures to a minimum, and to reduce their staff to the lowest possible point commensurate with the needs of maintaining a sound service there. I have criticized the board somewhat severely for certain things in the past, and when the estimates are brought down I intend to suggest some very practical ways in which expenditure may be curtailed. I want to tell the minister now that so far as I am able I will cooperate with him in keeping this harbour board within reasonable bounds, and I might also say that if the minister and the government will consider the suggestion frequently made that some representative from Alberta should be on that board, I would certainly endorse that action. I would insist, however, that such a representative should be one who really represents the grain business in Alberta, and not some one for whom a position is created. He must be a person representing the grain interest of that province and well versed in the needs of the trade, because the handling of 50,000,000 or 100,000,000 bushels of grain is a huge undertaking, and the more knowledge and wisdom that can be brought to bear upon that work, the better for all concerned.


George Gibson Coote: I would ask the minister
if, when this bill is before the House, he will give us the number of employees in each year since 1921, and the total wages paid, because I think it can be shown that in comparison with the business done the harbour board have loaded up their staff to the point where it is really absurd. As a last request, if this resolution goes through now, I would ask the minister to be good enough to bring the bill down in daylight hours, and so give us a chance to get the information we really desire. Sometimes these bills are brought in about eleven o'clock at night, when the House is too weary to try to secure the information which it really should have.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no objection at all to the request of my hon. friend.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon
Food and Drugs Act
COMMONS moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 215, to provide for a loan to the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, 1920, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 105, to amend the Food and Drugs Act, 1920.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 2-Regulations.
Mr. KING. (Kootenay): When the bill was in committee some days ago we passed the first clause and had a discussion on clause 2, when it was suggested that the bill, being somewhat of a technical nature, should be sent to a special committee in order that it might be considered in conference with officials of the department and others who might wish to be represented. That has been done and the committee have reported, suggesting some three or four amendments, a copy of which I am now sending over to you, Mr. Chairman. The first amendment is in regard to paragraph (b) of clause 2:
Defining official methods for biological testing.
I move to amend this clause by adding after the word "testing", the last word in the line, the words:
Which method shall permit manufacturers to Shave biological tests made in any laboratory.
This gives the manufacturer an opportunity [DOT]of sending his product out to a laboratory without having to maintain one on his own premises.
Mr. McGIBBON:: Will the minister explain what he hopes to gain by this?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: As was stated some days ago in committee, under the subsection that it is desired to add to section 4 of the act we are proposing to standardize certain drugs that are mentioned in schedule B. If my hon. friend will turn to the schedule he will find the nature of the drugs there suggested. This will give us further power for the standardization of these special drugs. The matter is one that meets with the approval of the medical profession, and particularly now that we have agreed to make the suggested amendment it i3 not objected to by the manufacturers.


Peter McGibbon: I do not think the
minister caught the meaning of my question. I quite agree with him that it is desirable to have drugs like these standardized. What I had in view was this: what control will the department have over these laboratories so as to be sure that it will get a standardized product-because this means subletting, so to speak, the contract for standardizing?


John Warwick King: Our inspectors will secure samples. W'e will make our examination, and if the samples are not up to standard the manufacturers will be so informed.


Peter McGibbon: The samples will be rechecked at Ottawa?


John Warwick King: Yes. In regard to part IV of the schedule, the arsenical preparations, as my hon. friend understands, are very difficult to manufacture, and in order to be sure that they are up to standard we require a sample from each batch.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: How will this clause apply to drugs imported from foreign countries? Will the drugs be tested at Ottawa?


John Warwick King: Firms importing drugs front foreign countries will have to come up to our standard. That is being done in Great Britain to-day where they are standardizing these drugs. It is also being done in France, and in fact in many countries certain standards have been established. If they come up to our standards, we will accept their drugs. If we find it necessary to visit their factories, we will do so at their expense. That is being done by the United States authorities at the present time. European manufacturers who are importing drugs into the United States have to come up to their standard and they submit to their inspection.


Robert King Anderson: As regards these pharmaceutical preparations imported from foreign countries, particularly from the United States, will there be a laboratory at Ottawa prepared to test and standardize these articles properly?


John Warwick King: We shall have a laboratory at Ottawa to make tests.


Robert King Anderson: Is any preparation being made for having such a laboratory established at Ottawa?


John Warwick King: There is one.


Robert King Anderson: Is there one
in existence now capable of doing this work?

Food and Drags Act


John Warwick King: Some other technical officers may be required, but the laboratory is in existence and I think it is now capable of doing the work.
Mr. ANDERSON Hatton):	Who is the
officer in charge?


John Warwick King: I forget his name for the moment.


Robert King Anderson: I presume
the laboratory will be under the Department of Health?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Where is this
laboratory?


John Warwick King: There is in
Ottawa a laboratory that will do this work. As my hon. friend knows, the department is situated in the Elgin building. There are also laboratories in Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver. I hardly think they will be equipped to do work of this character, but the Ottawa laboratory should be.


Peter McGibbon: I quite agree with the
minister that it should be, but is it? I have grave doubts.


John Warwick King: Once we undertake this work it will be.


Peter McGibbon: And that means the
creation of a staff, 'probably a new department?


John Warwick King: No.


Peter McGibbon: A new sub-department.
I quite agree with the minister that this work should be done. While I may not be in order, I think the minister's whole department, not due of course to any fault of his, has fallen down lamentably in scientific research work. I took a great part in getting this act on the statute book, and it was distinctly understood at that time that we were to have a department of scientific research. That has not been carried out and I do not think we have a man capable of doing this work.


Robert King Anderson: The Department of Health was created for that very purpose, and so far as carrying out its main purpose is concerned, it has been a total failure. Has the minister formed any estimate of the cost of the establishment of a laboratory in order to make these standard tests?


John Warwick King: I do not think
it is necessary to make any estimate. We are doing that kind of work to-day, and we have not had any complaints. It is true
that the biological testing provided for under this section is outside the regular work we have been, doing, but when this section becomes law, that will be provided for naturally; it is a matter of administration. So far as the testing of foods and drugs is concerned, that is being done to-day, and I have not heard much complaint; I have heard complaints from, the people who got into trouble, but generally speaking the department's administration, I think, has been very good. I think that was demonstrated when the committee was discussing this bill the other day. The representatives of the manufacturers were present, and the general opinion was that the administration of the act had been good. These minor amendments will improve the act, more particularly in' regard to drugs.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Seizure of suspected articles.
Robert King Anderson: What is the
procedure in regard to these seizures? What is done with these articles?


John Warwick King: We are amending this section so that we can control the article beyond the period that is possible now under the act. Under the present law, after the article has been analysed we have no right to continue to hold it. This amendment gives us that right and brings the article under our *control until proper disposal has been made of itv


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Seizure.
Arthur Edward Ross: I think the minister knows-in fact, I have brought up several cases myself-that under this act his officials are interfering with the use of inert and harmless preservatives. . Several of these articles mentioned in the act have been used by the manufacturers of certain articles of food for twenty-five or thirty years. Is the department still keeping up its interference with their use? I think the minister will remember that one of them is used in bologna sausages, which is a very cheap food. The preservative used 'by the manufacturer is an inert and harmless one, as the inspectors admit, yet they come around repeatedly and interfere. Could not *the minister see that his officials give a more practical interpretation to the act so as to stop this interference?


John Warwick King: I think the administration by the officials has been reason-
Food and Drugs Act

able. The preservative mentioned by my hon. friend, while it is not altogether harmless, is deceptive. It gives the meat a colour *which it otherwise would not have, and the (person buying it is thereby deceived. That is the attitude of the department. I have had a number of cases before me recently. I know what my hon. friend is referring to, but there is an opinion in the minds of the officials that this substance should not be used 'because it is deceiving the buying public.


Arthur Edward Ross: Not at all. The minister will agree that this article is sold because of its colour. If you changed the colour you would not sell the meat; that is the claim of the butchers. All the inspectors claim that it has no injurious effect whatever upon the meat, that the preservative is harmless and inert, but they interfere with its use just the same. That is the reason why I am so much opposed to giving these inspectors the powers they have, because they simply step in and interfere unnecessarily. When an inspector finds a condition of that kind, if he used the common sense that the minister suggests his officials use in the administration of the act, he would not interfere; but that does not happen. The men are brought up and fined. Not only that, but men are allowed to go around selling this article, and the butchersi innocently buy it. Its colour is the means of selling it. It is a cheap food.


John Warwick King: I shall be glad to consider my hon. friend's suggestion, but it is not a new matter in the department.


Robert King Anderson: Will this
clause empower the department to look after certain patented remedies that are on the market? There are many combinations of drugs on sale in our drug stores that are misbranded; they are labeled with names they do not deserve because of the drugs that are in them. I noticed one article in an Ottawa drug store called "double pepsin". There is no such thing as double pepsin, and I think the article in question has no pepsin whatever in it, but it is being sold in large quantities to the average consumer as a splendid remedy for indigestion. It may be a good remedy, but it is certainly not double pepsin, and people are buying it under a misconception. There are also many desiccated cereals, breakfast foods, that are supposed to be very nutritive which are not nutritive at all. Will the department undertake this amended act to investigate these articles and find out what is good and what is not, and have the ones that are no good taken off the market altogether? tMr. J. W. King.]


John Warwick King: The officials of
the department are doing that work from day to day throughout the country. It is true that many of these articles should not be on the shelves and offered for sale. It is the work of the department to protect the public, and tests and examinations are continually being made to check these things up.


Robert King Anderson: Would it be necessary to add the words "or any combination of drugs"? Is that covered as the section stands?


John Warwick King: I do not think it would foe necessary to add those words.


Robert King Anderson: I doubt if
many combinations of drugs would come under this section.


John Warwick King: I think they would come within the definitions.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: The section says that whenever any article of food or any drug is reported as being adulterated or misbranded the inspector may seize and inspect the article. Does that refer to an inspector of the federal Health department, or to a municipal inspector appointed under the authority of the provincial board of health?


John Warwick King: We have inspectors throughout the various provinces who are going amongst the trade every day taking samples and having them sent in to the laboratory for examination. That work is being done by the officials of the Dominion Department of Health. If an officer of the provincial health department feels disposed to advise us in regard to a food or drug which he thinks is improper we shall be glad to have the information and make an investigation, but the work is done by Dominion officials.


Peter McGibbon: Has any individual the
privilege of sending a sample to the department for analysis?


John Warwick King: Yes, I think it
is quite proper. If they wish to send a sample, or to call attention to articles which are on the market and of which they are suspicious, we are glad to have the information.


Robert King Anderson: They examine the food?


John Warwick King: I am not so sure about that.


Peter McGibbon: If that were permitted,
I think it would add to the usefulness of the department, because the inspectors of the department are more or less restricted.

Food and Drugs Act


Robert King Anderson: There are
large quantities of what are termed non-intoxicating drinks on the market, such as orange crush and so on. I think the department is responsible for the fact that some of these contain a considerable amount of alcohol and are really more intoxicating than 4.4 beer. Does the department look into that matter and ascertain whether the aerated drinks contain no improper ingredients?


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Do I understand the
minister to say, with reference to food, that he objects to colouring being put in?


John Warwick King: No, that is not
so. There are certain standard colours which can be used in the manufacture of confectionery, for instance. These are allowed by the department. But is it wise that some preparation should be used, for example, in the making of sausage, to change the colouring of the meat and thus deceive the purchaser? The opinion in the department is that it is not fair to the buying public. The people who are manufacturing sausage should put good meat into it.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That would not refer
to butter.


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Edward Ross: The. analyst of the department reports that this is harmless, and that the only effect of the drug is to give colouring in a percentage of it.


John Warwick King: I shall be glad
to take it up further with the officials. They have been making seizures for some time.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: The question may be
looked at from the commercial aspect: a food or drug may be adulterated and the adulteration may have the effect of increasing the commercial value. But another element which is of far more importance is the question of selling goods w'hich may not only be adulterated or misbranded but which may contain germs of disease. Will the analyst of the department undertake to look into matters of that kind and see that the foods are free from disease?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
speaks of canned goods. That matter comes under another act.


Peter McGibbon: With regard to the
seizure of goods, who is going to stand the loss?
. Mr. KING (Kootenay):	The person who
has the product which is not up to standard.


Peter McGibbon: That might not be fair. A druggist might buy a quantity of goods in good faith, but they might contain some alcoholic extracts.


John Warwick King: In section 10 provision is made to bring in the third party, and that will meet the situation.


Mr. HEAPS:: Is there anything in any of the acts to compel anyone who sells these foodstuffs to show by way of a label or card what has been used in their preparation?


John Warwick King: There is a system of labelling which describes weight and so on, but I am not sure that it is the practice to describe the colouring matter that is used. Certain standard colours are allowed to be used in foodstuffs. They are known to the manufacturers. They are used more particularly in confectionery.


Abraham Albert Heaps: A person who buys a certain article should know what is in it, and the only protection is that which is given by the authorities. I think it would be wise if some amendment were made compelling the person selling these goods in which colouring matter has been used to place a label on them showing what they contain.


John Warwick King: That would
possibly be developed by the regulations that would be made under section 4.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the minister consider putting such regulations into effect?


John Warwick King: Yes, I should be glad to.


Robert King Anderson: Will the minister give me some information about section 6, which says:
Whenever any article of food or any drug is reported by a dominion analyst as being adulterated or misbranded-
And so on. How wide is that clause? Does it take in goods in cold storage?


John Warwick King: The section is
very definite. It reads:
Whenever any article of food or any drug is reported by a dominion analyst as behig adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, the department may order such article, and all other articles of the same kind which were in the same place at the time the article analyzed was obtained, to be seized by an inspector and detained by him until an analysis of the sample of the whole is made, and thereafter until the inspector has given an order for its disposal.


Robert King Anderson: It is so wide that it includes all drugs and food.
Food and Drugs Act


John Warwick King: No, it is confined to the act itself.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is, within the meaning of the whole act.


John Warwick King: The activities of the department are circumscribed by the act.


Mr. ESLING:: Does the act provide for
any analysis of beer? As the hon. minister is well aware, charges have been made on the floor of the legislature of British Columbia to the effect that beer is offered for sale in the province containing ether, resin and other chemicals. In fact it is frequently remarked that chemists rather than brewers are needed in the manufacture of this poisonous beer. Is it within the jurisdiction of the minister's department to take samples of beer for analysis?


John Warwick King: I have not had
brought to my attention any seizures of beer by my department under this act. I will make inquiries and inform my hon. friend later whether beer would come within its scope.


William Kemble Esling: Does not the minister consider that beer should come within the jurisdiction of this department for the protection of the public? I think he should have jurisdiction in determining the quality of a beverage such as I have described just as another department has jurisdiction over weights and measures. Surely anybody who drinks beer at random will readily realize the great difference in quality between the products of various breweries. I think the act provides explicitly what ingredients shall be taken into a brewery.


John Warwick King: Beer is not
classified as a food or drug under this act. Its manufacture is controlled under the Inland Revenue Act.


William Kemble Esling: But does not the minister
think it would be a good thing to protect the public health by providing that beer be analyzed at the discretion of the department? Let his inspectors take samples here and there of this bottled poison and determine what should be done with it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Analysts may be designated.
Arthur Edward Ross: What will be the qualification for a Dominion analyst?


John Warwick King: We have in the
service men who are classified as chemists. This section will afford us ithe opportunity of utilizing their services and classifying them as Dominion analysts.


Peter McGibbon: What is the basis of
standardization of these drugs?


John Warwick King: They will be tested biologically.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9, 10 and 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Distribution of samples.
John Warwick King: This section has been amended.


John Frederick Johnston: All the words after
the word, "drug", in the thirteenth line are stricken out and the following substituted:
Provided that this section shall not prevent manufacturers or wholesale dealers from distributing samples by mail or otherwise in compliance with individual requests for same, or from distributing samples to physicians, veterinary surgeons, dentists, registered nurses, hospitals, or to retail druggists for individual redistribution to adults only.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
On section 14-Schedule amended.
John Frederick Johnston: Part IV of the schedule has been amended by striking out all the words after "and" in the first line. Part IV will then read:
Organic compounds of arsenic and analogous preparations prepared for parenteral medication.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Preparations of arsenic are inorganic'. The proper word is not used.


John Warwick King: This is the proper wording as I understand it. It was discussed in committee and the amendment proposed does limit arsenical preparations to the medical purposes intended.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall said bill be
read a third time?


Arthur Edward Ross: Next sitting of the House.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the House.

Customs Act Amendment



CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Customs and Excise) moved the second reading of Bill No. 172 to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Contents of report.
Mr. MARCIL:: I have received a number of letters inquiring whether the employees of the Income Tax branch will come under the Civil 'Service Commission as a result of this legislation.


Mr. EULER:: This does not affect them in any way.


Charles Marcil: There is no change in the status of income tax employees?


William Daum Euler: Certainly not in this, and not in any legislation contemplated.


Robert King Anderson: What will be the duty of the Board of Customs which is to be appointed?


William Daum Euler: The Board of Customs is not a new creation. There has always been such a board consisting of certain officials of the department, together with the head of the Income Tax branch. This merely reconstitutes the board, which will consist of the Commissioner of Customs, the Commissioner of Excise, the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. In addition, it was thought well to have some official of the Finance department connected with the Tariff branch thereof as a member of the board, because the relationship between the work of the Board of Customs and that of the Tariff branch of the Finance department is very close.


Robert King Anderson: Do I understand that the members of the board will compile certain regulations? What are their duties?


William Daum Euler: The Customs board is a body to whom certain matters are referred for interpretation. When difficulties are encountered in the interpretation of certain clauses in the act we refer them to the board.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On section 8-Board of Customs may declare rate of duty, or that goods are free.
Robert King Anderson: Does this matter come under the Board of Customs as
one of regulation? If any article is in question, does this board decide whether or not it shall be subject to the provisions of the act?


William Daum Euler: The explanation given on the opposite page is, I think, quite clear. It merely provides a period within which appeal may be taken. Heretofore the matter was finally disposed of once the minister approved of the decision of the Board of Customs.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
On section 15-Fine and imprisonment.
Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Subsection (b) of this section reads:
If the value of the goods is two hundred dollars or over, be guilty of an indictable offence and liable on conviction to a fine of five hundred dollars, and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years and not less than one year.
It seems to me that this section is altogether too drastic. The idea of putting a man in gaol for a period not less than a year and up to seven years for having smuggled goods in his possession is preposterous. It is going altogether too far. I know it was recommended last session but that was in a time of public excitement. It should be reconsidered.


William Daum Euler: I have no particular comment to make on the legislation passed in 1925 providing for punishment by imprisonment in the case of smuggling of goods valued at $200 or more. This provision, I think, has had a very good effect, judging by the reports received throughout the country. The very fact that such a penalty may be invoked serves as a deterrent to smugglers. This particular clause deals with an offence similar to that covered in the legislation of 1925. I may say that the court may impose either a fine or imprisonment, or both as it may see fit. If the court decides that imprisonment is too severe, it has the option to impose a fine.


Edward James Young: Not under subsection (b).


William Daum Euler: I think that is the meaning of it. The law officer states that the court has the option of imposing either a fine or imprisonment or both, as it may see fit.


Edward James Young: No. The act
says, "and".


Henry Herbert Stevens: The real significance of
that clause, as we found in our study of this interesting problem last year, is that you have to define commercial smuggling as distin-
Customs Act Amendment

guished from petty smuggling. It will be observed that the smuggling of goods less than $200 in value is treated more or less leniently; the class of smuggler for whom my hon. friend has some solicitude is not treated very harshly. The petty smuggler, does not bother with goods of any great value, he or she-and the she's are very prevalent in this class-do not smuggle anything except petty goods ranging in value from $3 or $4 to $10 or $20, but when it comes to commercial smuggling by organized gangs, the matter of a fine is nothing to them and that is what this country has been cursed with. The object of this recommendation last year was to give the department an effective weapon.


William Daum Euler: I must maintain the position I took before. I am not a lawyer or the son of a lawyer, and there are a great many legal gentlemen in the House who can interpret this section better than I can, but I am informed by the law officer of the department that while it states the person becomes liable to a fine and imprisonment, both are not made obligatory.


Edward James Young: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) says that persons in possession of smuggled goods to a value of more than $200 are conducting commercialized smuggling, but he is mistaken. I can take him to dozens of farms in Saskatchewan where he would find horses in the possession of farmers who bought them from dealers without knowing that they had been smuggled. If these men were arrested for having smuggled horses in their possession they would have to go to gaol for seven years without the option of a fine.


William Daum Euler: They are liable to such a sentence, but the judge would have discretion to impose either a fine or imprisonment.
.At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 15-Fine and imprisonment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is there in the present customs law any regulation which allows a person to bring into Canada free of duty, goods to any fixed amount, as is the case in the United States at present?


William Daum Euler: Nothing at all.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the minister take into consideration the enactment of some such law as would allow a person, if he is a bona fide

traveller, to bring in free of duty goods to the value of say $50? Most people who travel abroad return with something, it may be a suit of clothes, a pair of boots, or a collar or a tie, and any person who comes in with such goods is or may be, without being aware of the fact, guilty of smuggling. If the law were so altered as to allow goods to the value of not more than $50 to be brought in free of duty, that would do away with a good deal of the smuggling which is done by persons who are travelling backwards and forwards between Canada and various other parts of the world, but which is not really done intentionally.


William Daum Euler: I have a good deal of sympathy with the thought expressed by the hon. member, but I think if that were done our merchants in Canada would rather object to it. I am not prepared to-night to father any such change. Before we rose at six o'clock there was some discussion as to the meaning of paragraph (b) of this clause. Some hon. members thought that the provision was too drastic. Paragraph (b) reads:
If the value of the goods is $200 or over, he guilty of an indictable offence and liable on conviction to a fine of $500, and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years and not less than one year.
I am given to understand there is some doubt as to the interpretation of that, whether the court could at its option impose the fine and, in addition, a term of imprisonment. I would suggest, in order to make the matter absolutely clear, that the second "and" might be changed to "or" and then at the end of the paragraph the words " or to both fine and imprisonment" might be added.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want respectfully but
very firmly to differ from the minister in regard to this change. I agree with his bill as he has it mow. This is in accordance with the urgent request of the business men of Canada as represented before the committee last year, and it is in accordance with the recommendations of the committee. It is recognized as being absolutely necessary if we are to make these laws effective. Before the dinner recess the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) interpreted it as meaning that it would, 'apply to some innocent farmer who happened to have a horse which might have been smuggled although he had no knowledge of the smuggling. It does not apply to any such case. Section 187 deals entirely with persons actually guilty of smuggling, guilty of the act, and not with persons being innocent in possession of smuggled goods. This particular clause has been requested and urged by those who have been suffering so severely from the competition

Customs Act Amendment
of an organized commercial smuggling gang.
I know I am reflecting the views of those who have been suffering in this way when I say that if this clause is abandoned, they will feel that most of the other amendments will be of little effect. I urge the minister to leave the clause as it is and to afford an opportunity to view the effect of the legislation in actual practice.


Mr. YOUNG ('Saskatoon):: I have no good words to say for the smuggler, but we are now placing in the statute book a law which, in my humble judgment, seems very severe. I would like some day to join with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre in this chamber in removing that thing which makes smuggling profitable. That is one of the real difficulties. Under the present system there are infringements of the law, and it seems that if a man smuggles to the extent of $201, he is liable to a fine of $500 in addition to imprisonment for a period of from one to seven years. That is entirely too severe a penalty for the crime, and I should be glad if the minister could modify that so that we would not be guilty in this chamber of passing anything so drastic.


Hugh Guthrie: 'I hope the minister will not alter the clause as he has intimated he may by inserting the word "or" in place of the word "and". I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that the desire of the business community is to stop smuggling, and unless we make the penalty sufficiently severe, we shall not succeed in doing so. This is an amendment to section 187 which applies only to those who are actually concerned in smuggling. It specifically names those who are liable:
And every person concerned in such unlawful importation or removal shall incur a penalty.
The person has to be concerned in the smuggling. A person who subsequently is found in possession of smuggled goods will, if innocent, not be liable to the provisions of this section.


Mr. McINTOSH:: He will be concerned in the smuggling.


Hugh Guthrie: If he was he would be
liable, and properly liable, because he would be a smuggler, ibut an innocent purchaser of these goods would in no way be brought under the operation of this section. My view is that you have to make these penalties pretty severe if you are going to stop this practice. The whole trouble that arose in the last few years was due first to the faict that our penalties wore not severe enough, and secondly to the fact that even such penalties as we had were not enforced. I hope the
minister will not change this section.	In
introducing this bill into the House he has put his reasons for the amendments on the blank pages accompanying the bill, and I notice that his proposal has been received with great approval by all parts of the country. It has been announced in large headlines in all the papers that both fine and imprisonment are to be imposed on the smuggler, and that proposal has been well received by the public. They want to stop this smuggling, and they feel the minister is going the right way about it.


William Daum Euler: I think my hon. friend will
find that the provisions in the bill are pretty drastic in many respects, as will be ascertained as we proceed. I would also draw his attention to the fact that it is not proposed to give any discretionary power to the judge with regard to the change that was made in the act in the session of 1925; imprisonment in such cases is still obligatory. That was distinctly for the offence known as smuggling. The particular clauses before us deal with offences which perhaps approach to the act of smuggling but are not, strictly interpreted, smuggling. For instance, he might bring in goods through a place not a port. That might be intentional smuggling, or it might not. Or he might remove goods before examination or payment of duty. That, I submit, is not quite so serious as a deliberate bringing in of goods without payment of duty, and these particular clauses deal only with cases of that kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I really would not like
to let the minister go with such an interpretation as that. This is simply the interpretation of what smuggling is; it is really defining what smuggling is. We use the term smuggling in a broad, general way- let me put it this way:	If my hon. friend's
interpretation, prevails, then all a designing smuggler would have to do would be to find a point on the boundary that is not a port and bring his goods across there; then he is not a smuggler; he is inadvertently coming into Canada with the goods, he could plead. The idea of this section is to make it clear that that is smuggling, that it is his duty to come in and report at the port of entry. That was the whole trouble along the boundary line down in the eastern townships, and in my province, and in other sections of the country where the boundary line runs through such an extended country that it is impossible for the government to have ports of entry at every crossing. Indeed, one of the great problems we were faced with was
Customs Act Amendment

whether we should not close all the roads across the boundary except at ports of entry. This is one of the great problems. Now this section of the act, even before it is touched, defines smuggling as crossing the boundary with goods at points other than a port of entry; of course, knowingly, wittingly, is implied. If my hon. friend's interpretation prevails, he will simply be offering a premium for the smuggler to go to these out-of-the-way places for access into Canada. I must correct him in that: he is wrong in his interpretation there.


William Daum Euler: I do not think I am wrong
in my interpretation. As I said, active, actual smuggling, as it was always known, deliberate smuggling, is not removed from the operation of the amendment to the act that was put through in 1925. I want to make the law just as water-tight as possible so far as actual smuggling is concerned. But there may be cases, and this was the idea in mind in drafting the bill before the House, although a little error was made, where a man may remove goods before examination or payment of duty. That might be the action of a deliberate smuggler, or it might not. It is quite conceivable that an innocent party might do that, and if we passed the section as it is now the judge would have no option in such a case; he would have to impose both fine and imprisonment. I would also point out to my hon. friend across the way that it does not follow, if we change this, that the judge will not impose both penalties. He still tt'ould have the power to impose both fine and imprisonment. We are merely leaving it to the discretion of the judge as to whether both fine and imprisonment shall be imposed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was the whole bone of contention in the discussion of last year.


William Daum Euler: If I were sure that it would have the effect that my hon. friend fears I would not suggest making any change, because, as I say, I want to make it certain that the smuggler will be punished. But I do not want to go so far as to make it obligatory upon the court to imprison a man who, after all, has no intention of smuggling, and I say that it is quite conceivable that that might be the case; he might remove the goods, for instance, before examination or payment of duty. He might be ignorant of the law. Many people do not know the law so well as perhaps hon. members of this House, and if an innocent person did that, the judge would have no option; he would have to send him to gaol. I would not like that to happen. If the judge in his wisdom 
decides that the man did it with the intention of smuggling, he has the power to impose not only the fine but imprisonment as well. It seems to me that perhaps the other might be just a little bit too drastic.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sorry, but I must conclude with protesting against the minister making the change. I warn him now that he is making a serious mistake.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Coming from the prairies as I do, from a part of the country box-dering on the Dakota boundary, I can fully appreciate what the minister has said. In my opinion this section is a little drastic as applied to a sparsely settled country such as we have on the prairies. We have a number of farmers in the constituency I represent, and the same thing applies all along the border of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, whose closest point to market is in the state of Dakota or Montana, as the case may be. They will probably go over to the nearest town on the other side of the border and buy a line of machinery with the intention of paying the duty, but on the way home they find there is not a custom house to which they can report within probably twelve or fifteen miles, and consequently they go home with their line of machinery intending to report at the nearest custom house at the first opportunity, but that may not be for several days sometimes. Now if this section passes, that man will be considered a criminal for those days in which he has failed to report. This section may be all right for the purpose intended. I am not trying to defend the professional smuggler by any means, but I am concerned about the man on the land who intends to carry on his business legitimately, but who owing to the long distance from the custom house does not find it convenient to report immediately.
I think also that there should be an easy method of appeal from the decision of these two justices of the peace who are mentioned in this section. I do not think that too much should depend on the judgment of two justices of the peace in imprisonment cases. I think there should be an easy method of appeal from their decision. To sum up, I think this legislation is entirely too drastic for a sparsely settled country such as our prairies.	i
Mr. BEA.UBIEN: I think the idea underlying our customs law is to prevent the professional smuggler from making a business of smuggling goods into Canada. In my view this amendment is entirely too drastic. My county borders on the states of Minnesota

Customs Act Amendment
and Dakota, and the people in my district take a great deatl of cream and milk to the United States. That is the only place they can sell the stuff. If thesfe people come back with a pair of shoes for the children, or something of that kind, or perhaps some articles they get for the price of their product, they come under the penalty provided in this act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, they do not.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: The penalty is $200.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They do not pay a fine of $200 for bringing in a pair of shoes.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The justices of the peace in most of these places are liable to interpret the law strictly and give the offender the limit of the penalty. I agree there should be facilities for appeal with as little expense as possible to those charged, because these people cannot afford to pay the large sums which most of these appeals cost. I cannot allow legislation such as this to be enacted without protesting on behalf of the electors whom I have the honour to represent, and I will tell the Minister of Customs that I think I represent a county where there is no smuggling.


William Daum Euler: When we have a protest from one set of gentlemen who go to one extreme and another set who go to the other extreme on this question, I think I am about right.


John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Heenan moves:
That the word "or" be substituted for the word "and" in the third line of paragraph (b) of section 15, and that the words "or to both fine and imprisonment" be added at the end of the paragraph.


Robert McKenzie: Does the minister not consider that the provision "not exceeding seven years" is rather drastic? Make it one year and not less than thirty days.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does my hon. friend want to put a premium on smuggling again?


Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):: No, but it is quite possible to make the punishment altogether out of proportion to the crime. There was a time in the old country when under the law a man could be hanged for stealing sheep, but no one was hanged because they could not get a conviction. If you make the punishment too drastic it will be impossible to obtain a oonviction.


William Daum Euler: It is not necessary for the judge to impose seven years. He can use discretion.


Edward James Young: I think the whole section is vicious. My hon. friend speaks about putting a premium on smuggling. He raised a great disturbance last year on the question of smuggling. It seems to me he went after the crudest form of smuggling- the man who smuggles something over the border, gets caught and has to go to gaol for seven years. But the man who smuggles a word into the customs tariff can get all the goods into the country he likes, free of duty, and goes off scot-free. There is a section in the customs tariff which says that wool of a kind and class produced in Canada shall bear three cents a pound duty. There is another section which says that the wool and the hair of the camel, alpaca, and so on shall come in free. We find that the friends of my hon. friend who are so concerned 'about putting a stop to smuggling can get all their raw wool in free by smuggling the word "wool" into another part of the tariff. Those are the people who are defrauding the country of revenue. If you take a man who smuggles an article into this country, or who is found in this country with the article in his possession, and send him to gaol for seven years, you bring the whole tariff into disrepute among the people, and it will bring the government into disrepute among the people. If you try to enforce such a provision as that you will find that the whole customs law will stink in the nostrils of right thinking people. I protest against it.


George Gibson Coote: I do not suppose I can prevent the section from carrying, but I would like to enter a word of protest against subsection (a). It is altogether too severe. If a man smuggles in a shirt I suppose he would be liable to a fine of $50 and imprisonment for a year. I would like to see a section inserted in our Customs Act similar to that in force in the United States, which country is always held up to us as an example of the high tariff. The citizens of the United States may once a year bring in goods up to the value, I think, of $100, without paying duty, simply by making a declaration that they have not previously in that year taken any goods into that country. Everyone who goes from this country across the line would probably like to bring in some little article when he returns, and under this act if he did not declare it he is liable to this fine of $50 and possibly imprisonment.


William Daum Euler: I will say for the information of the committee and my hon. friend that we never prosecute except where smuggling is done with commercial intent. It would be unwise to deprive the department
Customs Act Amendment

entirely of the machinery for prosecuting real smugglers. If cases such as my hon. friend refers to arise, we never do prosecute


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Who is going to decide whether or not a man intended to smuggle?


Mr. VENIOT:: You have to consider the
circumstances of the case.


Edward James Young: I have known
cases where a policeman would go to the collector and say, "Do not collect duty from this man because I want to make an example of him."


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister stated that the department did not prosecute in such cases as the one he referred to, and to which I referred earlier in the evening. Would it not be well to make that clear in the act? If we had such a provision in the act it might overcome the jdiffieulfty. Further, if such exemptions are allowed I do not care how stiff we make the penalty for the persons actually engaged in smuggling. I do not see why we should have two penalties in the act providing for the punishment of smuggling. I think it is an offence whether you smuggle S50 worth of goods or whether you smuggle $5,000 worth of goods. Here we are classifying it under two heads; one type of offender will be liable to imprisonment up to one year, and the other man liable for imprisonment up to seven years, yet it is quite conceivable that under certain circumstances the person wdio is smuggling in $200 worth of goods may be guilty of a worse offence than the man who smuggles a larger quantity. I understand that it is an unusual practice in law to have two penalties for the same kind of offence. I wish the minister would be good enough to state what the objections are to inserting in the act a clause which would grant exemption say up to $50 or $100 for persons who are bona fide travellers re-entering Canada, and who are, of course, Canadian citizens. Naturally this would exclude merchants from going abroad and bringing back merchandise, but it would allow a person who, say, travels to Europe or crosses into the United States once a year to come back with goods to the value that I have mentioned.


Peter John Veniot: For a number of years I was in the customs administering one of the chief ports of New Brunswick, and during eight years of that time I was engaged in detecting smuggling on the high seas and on the border. In cases of petty smuggling, so to speak, instructions were always given that no prosecution should take place until a report had been made to the department, in order to prevent an officious official persecuting instead of pro-

secuting. If I mistake not, to-day the regulation is that where the seizure does not exceed two hundred dollars in value the officer is to report to the department for instructions. Where the value involved is over two hundred dollars I do not know what the regulation is now, but I should say from my experience that the officer making the seizure would have to report directly to the Customs department before taking action in the courts. In the case referred to by the hon. member the Commissioner of Customs could very well have an investigation made, and he would then be in a position to determine whether there was an attempt to evade the customs. In the absence of any intent to smuggle, I do not believe the department would order a prosecution. I live in a province that is almost surrounded by the sea and on the land side we are bounded by the state of Maine and the province of Quebec. I am free to admit that in the past there has been a great deal too much smuggling, principally by sea. Canadians crossing the border into Maine by automobile or other vehicle have to secure permits from our collector of customs and excise, and to present those permits to this official on their return. Where the customs officials had to close their offices to attend to some other important business, and the returning Canadian had no opportunity to declare any purchases that he had made during his visit, I have known officious officials to institute proceedings for violation of the law. Such cases might very properly be referred to headquarters for instructions. I think with the section in its present form our friends may rest assured that very little injustice will be done to those who may be trapped in that way,


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are prosecutions left entirely to the discretion of the Customs department?


Peter John Veniot: When I was a collector of customs I was instructed always to report seizures up to a certain amount before taking legal proceedings.


Abraham Albert Heaps: A man bringing in fifty dollars worth of goods in the way I have mentioned would still be liable up to the amount of the customs duty?


Peter John Veniot: Certainly; and if it was found that he was attempting to smuggle the goods he could be punished by the imposition of double the duty. That has been done in many cases.


Abraham Albert Heaps: My idea is to exempt up to a certain value goods brought in by a traveller.

Customs Act Amendment


Peter John Veniot: Going backwards and
forwards?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, only once a year.


Peter John Veniot: At the present time American tourists are allowed to take home a hundred dollars worth of goods purchased in Canada.
I would suggest that we might allow bona fide Canadian tourists to the United States to bring home purchases up to the value of fifty dollars free of duty.


John Livingstone Brown: Is the minister certain that the United States provision is still in force?
I heard the statement made recently, seemingly with authority, that that provision had been cancelled.


Peter John Veniot: It, was in force up to the month of August last.


Mr. MANION:: During the past year or two I have had a number of protests from merchants at the head of the lakes who sell goods to American tourists that those tourists are not permitted to take home one hundred dollars worth of Canadian goods. I communicated with Washington, and my recollection is that there is no such regulation in effect but that it is left entirely to the discretion of the customs agent. In a large proportion of the cases American tourists are not permitted to take home Canadian goods to the value stated. I do not think that this discretion is at all generally exercised.


John Livingstone Brown: It was being permitted very generally at Winnipeg up to the time the statement that I have referred to was made, seemingly with authority.


Robert James Manion: That is right.


Peter John Veniot: It depends upon the officiousness-if I may use the term-of the official.


Robert James Manion: No, the authorities told me otherwise.


Peter John Veniot: The American authorities advertised last summer throughout the .province of New Brunswick that every American tourist was allowed to take back a hundred dollars worth of Canadian goods free of duty.


Robert James Manion: What authority?


Peter John Veniot: The American consular
agents in New Brunswick.


Robert James Manion: They are kinder to New Brunswick than to some of the other provinces.


Mr. BANCROFT:: When I left Winnipeg,
large departmental stores there were displaying placards with the information that American *tourists were allowed to carry back $100 worth of goods duty free.


Peter John Veniot: I do not believe that the
penalty could be made high enough. If you want to stop smuggling you must have a penalty which will be a real deterrent. My hon. friend says that the penalty should be made to fit the crime. I agree with him, and there is no greater system of demoralisation along the coastline of the maritime provinces, among the fishermen and1 other people there, than the practice of smuggling liquor. In my own county, for example, 550 [DOT]fishermen leave the shore every Monday morning. remaining away all week. On returning on Saturday they come across the vessels of smugglers lying in what is known as Rum Row outside the three-mile limit and beyond reach of the law. These fishermen are [DOT]engaged to land secretly the liquor brought in by the smugglers, and1 they do land it along the shores of northern New Brunswick. There are very few cases in which these fishermen do not reach their homes on Saturady *night drunk and in such a condition as to leave them impaired.


Edward James Young: Are these men
smuggling whiskey into Canada or out of the country?


Peter John Veniot: Into Canada.


Edward James Young: From the United
States?


Peter John Veniot: The whiskey is smuggled
into Canada from St. Pierre-Miquelon. A good deal of the whiskey is landed in bonded warehouses import for export; it is then shipped to St. Pierre-Miquelon and smuggled back into New Brunswick. Even in the days when the duty was not so high and when whiskey was only $2.40 a gallon there was smuggling.


Mr. QUINN:: Who gave the licenses to
these export and import houses?


Peter John Veniot: These houses receive their
licenses on the authority of the attorney general of the province in which they are issued. If the attorney general does not sanction the issuance of them, the licenses are not given; that is my answer to the hon. gentleman.


Felix Patrick Quinn: That is a good answer. I
will give you more presently.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Customs Act Amendment


Peter John Veniot: I am not discussing that
question now, but if the hon. member wishes to take it up some time when it will be in order I shall be at liberty then to discuss it with him.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I will tell the Postmaster
General something before I am through.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: We are not discussing
bonded warehouses now.
Mr. QUINN' I can tell him about the dismissals-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: I do not think there should be any change in the penalty now proposed.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Did I understand! the minister to say that the smuggling was due to the raising of the duty?


Peter John Veniot: I did not say that. While the incentive may be greater with an increased duty, the lowering of the duty in my opinion would never stop smuggling.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Is it the opinion of the government that a reduction in the customs duty would tend to mitigate smuggling?


Edward James Young: There is something in what the Postmaster General has said as to the demoralizing effect of the smuggling of whiskey; but it is not advisable on that account to punish all smugglers as harshly as is here proposed. I suggest that the smuggling of liquor be dealt with in a different act entirely and that in this legislation we deal with smuggling of general merchandise.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I gather that if it is proven that a man intends to smuggle he comes under this legislation. Who is going to prove intent? Is the prosecution to be begun before that point is established?


William Daum Euler: I have a few words to say in correction of a misapprehension that exists more especially on this side. Let me say at once that the country as well as the House expects us to make such changes in the act as will enable us to put an end to commercial smuggling, and in order to do that it is only fair for the department to ask for powers which will be (adequate to cope with the present evil-powers that are a great deal wider than we shall have to exercise in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. Where only a small amount is involved, a sum under $200,

there is never any prosecution by the department; but where the amount exceeds $200 the prosecution is taken.
Some objection is raised to the power given justices of the peace. That is nothing new; there is an appeal from the judgment of the two justices of the peace to the county court judge. That has always been in the act. The minimum penalty of $50 is also already in the act. If the amount smuggled is small we never prosecute. Something must be left to the judgment of the courts and of the department. If we are confined to a hard and fast rule, the object of which is to obviate all possibility of injustice to petty smugglers, our hands may be tied so securely that we shall not be able to act w'hen action is imperative. I think it is right, in view of all the conditions and having regard to the feeling throughout the country, that the department should be given, in extreme cases, such power as would not be exercised where the conditions did not warrant it. We shall do all in our power to stop commercial smuggling, but I can assure the committee that we will not use that power as an instrument to persecute anybody. Most of the objections that have been raised are objections which we have heard before; they are not new. They relate to provisions which are already in the act, and this debate will have done this much good: it will have made us more familiar with the existing law.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The minister has not answered my question.


William Daum Euler: I thought I did.


Mr. WHITE (Mount Royal):: I want to express my concurrence in the section now-under discussion, the object of which is to prevent commercial smuggling, to use the minister's phrase, and in the event of smuggling to punish adequately those who are found guilty. I do not think the intention is -to prevent of what might be called innocent smuggling; a lady returning from New York or Atlantic City during the Easter holidays may bring back a bonnet which is subject tc duty under the strict application of the law, and she may fail to pay duty on it. That is not the smuggling contemplated by the act.
I know as a matter of experience that the law is applied with a good deal of mercy in this respect. For instance, the law says that if goods are brought in in a conveyance, the conveyance shall be forfeited, while as a matter of practice double duty is generally imposed and the matter is ended. My contention is that the minister should be given power to impose an extremely severe penalty upon

Customs Act Amendment
deliberate smugglers, and he should also be given some latitude for the exercise of common sense in respect of what may be called innocent evasions of the law. I concur heartily in the proposed amendment and if necessary will vote for it.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I have an answer
to my question? Suppose a man brings in goods to a value of less than $200. Is he prosecuted before the matter is referred to the department?


William Daum Euler: No.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: In speaking on thi^ question I do not want anyone to conceive the idea that I am speaking for the smugglers. I quite realize that we must have drastic penalties and that we should do everything possible to stop smuggling, but nevertheless when you put a law on the statute books which is too severe I am not sure that it accomplishes the purpose intended. According to this provision, a person in possession of over $200 worth of smuggled goods is fined $500 plus some penalty, and it does seem to me that the man who brings in the goods to the value of say $201 is not in the same class as the professional smuggler who brings in goods worth a large amount of money. I would like to ask the minister if he has considered a sliding scale of fines, say $500, $1,000 and $2,000. At present it would seem to me that the small smuggler is being penalized very severely while the large smuggler is not penalized sufficiently. I believe the minister might look into that matter.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I would not like this
opportunity to pass without saying something in connection with this clause. We are trying to eliminate the professional smuggler, and the quicker that is done the better it will be for Canada. I think smuggling is in large degree the result of protection, and we on this side of the House are out to eliminate all undue protection and at the same time to stop smuggling. So far as this actual clause is concerned I would not make it an indictable offence; rather I would suggest fining a man according to what he smuggles; if he smuggles goods to the'value of $1,000, fine him perhaps $2,000-make the fine commensurate with the offence. More than that,
I can say that the representatives of Saskatchewan on this side of the House want to have the professional smuggler made a minus quantity in Canada, and in standing for a fair law we feel we will get further ahead in a few years in the wiping out of these professional parasites.



REVISED

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I would
like the minister to give the committee some of his ideas on this * particular point. I thoroughly agree with those members who have advocated the free entry into Canada of $100 worth of personal goods, brought in by tourists, provided of course that the smuggling traffic can be guarded against, but I did not hear the minister give us his views on this particular question. I do not like to force him to do so, but he has the act under his control and he may be able to clear up this matter with no further debate.


William Daum Euler: That is, after all, a matter
of policy on the part of the government; I have not given it any particular consideration and I am not in a position to say anything. definite in that regard. I think the reason wh}' so many people are requesting that we grant a privilege which is supposed to exist for the benefit of those entering the United States is that there is some doubt whether that privilege still exists, or whether it will continue to do so.


Peter McGibbon: It exists at present.


William Daum Euler: I recently read in the newspapers that a decision was rendered in a United States court to the effect that the law permitting a tourist to bring goods to the value of $100 into the United States applies only to those tourists returning from Europe. However, perhaps that is not pertinent to the discussion, I know the great mass of the people would like to bring something in from the United States without paying duty on it, and I believe they are very much in favour of this idea. I do not say I would not be in favour of it myself, but at this time I am not prepared to make a pronouncement on it or to insert anything like that in the bill.


Edward Joseph Garland: Just to
follow that up, might I suggest that as this would be a matter of government policy, and as a private member may not move an amendment which may involve loss or addition of revenue, it will depend entirely what attitude the government wishes to take whether or not this change will be made. I do not know the intentions of the minister, but if this bill is once passed it will require government action to bring about' that change in the future.


William Daum Euler: I am open to correction, but I question very much whether that could be done in a bill of this kind. It appears to me that it is a tariff change and would be properly considered under that heading.



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Customs Act Amendment
Sir EUGENE FISET:: I wonder if the
minister would inform us-and I am asking only for information-who is to establish this value of $200 and on what basis? For instance, let us suppose that a man brings in goods to the value of $150; is the duty added to that value in order to bring it over the $200 limit, or how would that value be arrived at?


William Daum Euler: The value is arrived at
according to the price paid for the goods, taken either from the invoice or possibly from what the man says.


Eugène Fiset: The actual value?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Eugène Fiset: Plus the duty?


William Daum Euler: Yes. When it comes into
Canada it is worth what he paid for it plus the duty he should have paid.


Eugène Fiset: Then this clause is three times as drastic as it appears. If a man brings in goods to the value of $150 on which the duty payable amounts to $50, the duty is added to the purchase price and the poor devil will be proceeded against under the provisions of the act.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: I believe this House
and the country at large looks for something to be done to stop the smuggling of goods into Canada. We heard a lot last year about the customs investigation and thousands and thousands of dollars of the people's money has been spent-I may say wasted-to find out whether or not smuggling was being carried on. To-day legitimate merchants who buy goods and pay the duty look to the government for protection; they hope for some measure which will protect them by stopping the smuggling as much as possible. Therefore the Minister of Customs and Excise deserves a great deal of credit for bringing in this measure which, I think, will be an improvement.


Mr. POWER:: I disagree altogether with the hon. member (Mr. Lavigueur) who sits next to me. I think the penalty is altogether too severe. Let us understand properly the functions of the Customs department. The Customs department is not a police department; it is not a department to inflict punishment on the citizens of this country; it is a department whose principal and ordinary function is to collect revenue. I have not much objection to the imposition of a fine of $500 on those who smuggle goods to the value of over $200; but when it comes to a question of sentencing a person to imprisonment for a
fMr. Euler.]
term not exceeding seven years and not less than one year, the legislation becomes a perfect nuisance. Some poor unfortunate will smuggle goods to the value of $200 and it is easy enough for one to do that without perhaps thinking seriously of the consequences of the act. He is thereby placed, as I understand the legislation, at the mercy of two magistrates as to whether or not he will become branded as a criminal and go to the penitentiary for seven years. Really this is putting altogether too great power into the hands of the minister or of the Department of Customs. After all smuggling may be a crime, but it is not such a heinous crime that we must impose such heavy penalties. I would respectfully suggest to the minister that he make the gaol penalty much less severe.


Mr. PERRAS:: I feel that the penalty is far too drastic. Would this penalty apply to wearing apparel, boots and shoes, dry goods or things of that description, or would any distinction be made between liquid and other goods?


Peter McGibbon: I would like to support the views of the hon. member for Quebec South. I am sure the minister has the sympathy of everybody in this chamber in his efforts to prevent smuggling; but when you begin to put people into gaol, you are bringing upon their wives and families disgrace that will probably be handed down for two or three generations, and before you do that you should have some stronger excuse than simply the fact that a couple of hundred dollars' worth of goods have been smuggled into this country. I look upon a gaol sentence as being very severe, probably not so much on the man who is sentenced, but upon his wife and children. It is something that will follow them to the grave.


Charles Gavan Power: In many cases it is very hard on the husband if it happens to be the wife who goes to gaol.


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member for Quebec South has more courage than I have. I would not say that before the House of Commons. If you make penalties too severe you bring the law into contempt. Many of us have had that- experience in connection with legislation passed in Ontario during the last few years. When people have a contempt for the law, they will not be far away from anarchy. Our main object should be to have our people respect the law. I have voiced my objection before, and I will continue to do so as long as I am in this House, against imposing gaol penalties for what in the public mind is not a gaol offence.

Customs Act Amendment
I would like the minister to consider that because, by being too drastic, he may do more harm than good. We have to remember that the ordinary people in this country are not lawyers; they do not understand these penalties, and when they come into a police court and are tried by magistrates who are sometimes prejudiced, sometimes unfair, and I was going to say, never judicial in their decisions, we are putting into their hands too great a power. If these cases were all being tried by judges the matter would be different, but many of these magistrates are taken out of an office, some of them off a farm; they have no training in law, and their sense of justice is sometimes overridden by their prejudices.


William Daum Euler: Possibly my hon. friend may not have noticed that the penalty of imprisonment need not be imposed.


Peter McGibbon: But it may be.
* Mr. EULER: I think it should be possible to impose that penalty in the case of the confirmed smuggler.


Peter McGibbon: Yes.


William Daum Euler: We want the power to go after the man who deserves the punishment. Those who are less culpable can be dealt with much more leniently under the 'bill as it now reads. The penalty may be either fine and imprisonment or only one or the other. It is not proposed to impose both fine and imprisonment. Some hon. members perhaps believe that this means where a man smuggles more than $200 worth of goods he must of necessity be sentenced to imprisonment. That is not the case. The point I am trying to make is that it is not obligatory on the court to impose the penalty of imprisonment. The court in its discretion may impose only a fine and surely it ought to have that power. The court has also the power to impose a sentence of fine and imprisonment, and I think it ought to have that power in some cases where we have a confirmed smuggler to deal with. It has the power, but it does not follow that it will always exercise that power. I would point out to the hon. member for Quebec South that it is not the minister who has that power; it is placed in the hands of the court.


Mr. EVANS:: I think the minister would be well advised to hold this over and redraft it in such a way as to meet the wishes of a large portion of the members. It seems very unreasonable to me to classify as a professional smuggler and to make liable to the same imprisonment every person who hap-32649-97J
pens to have been visiting the old' country and to have returned with a few presents. I agree that the department should have all the necessary power to deal with the liquor question and commercial smuggling from the United States. The whole legislation relating to protection in this country has been too much in the hands of one man; too much power has been given all the way through to the Minister of Customs, and I would ask him to hold this over and redraft it in such a way as to differentiate between the ordinary citizen bringing in a few presents for his family and the commercial smuggler.


Peter McGibbon: My objection is not so much to the spirit of the legislation as to the power that is being placed in the hands of people untrained in the law. I might illustrate in this way what I mean. I know of a case that occurred a couple of years ago where a man was sentenced, I think, for three years in Kingston penitentiary for having stolen goods in his possession. The person who had stolen the goods swore that this man did not even know they were stolen, yet the magistrate Convicted him and sentenced him to gaol for three years. If that had been in the hands of a judge I do not believe such a thing would have happened.


William Daum Euler: Indictable offences go to a judge except-


Peter McGibbon: Then my objection is largely overruled.


Charles Gavan Power: Even though it does go to a judge, I think seven years is far too much. We should not in these purely civil matters, and after all, that is all that the crime of smuggling is-it is only an attempt to cheat His Majesty's customs, and everybody knows that three-quarters of the people of this country do not consider it a crime-we should not, I say, create crimes by act of parliament with the intention of putting in prison people who really should not go there. We have enough crimes now in our criminal code without taking up the time of parliament in making more.
There is this further consideration. In the reorganization of the Customs department, I understand that there is to be at the head of the preventive service a man who hitherto has been dealing with the underworld, a man who has been in charge of the narcotic squad, in charge of the police whose duty it is to prevent the smuggling of goods into this country. This man must of necessity be someone who will not have the discretion and tact and the feeling necessary to deal with ordinary cases of non-commercial smuggling.
Customs Act Amendment

I doubt very much whether it is wise on our part to put at the head of the preventive service a man of that calibre. I am not saying anything derogatory of his character, for he must have been a man of some strength of character and of will to deal with the people with whom he had to deal. But when cases come before him such as he will have to deal with under this act he will be entirely out of his element, and I for one object to his being given the power which I suppose he will be given under this act to prosecute for violations of the law.
I would suggest to the minister that the term of imprisonment be not less than six months and not more than two years. Why, you can commit almost any crime on the calendar and get away with seven years, and I do not see why a specially made crime, as the result of agitation during the course of the last year or so, should be punishable to such a degree as it is under this act.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I do not see why in paragraph (b) the same option is not given as in paragraph (a). If the value of the goods is under $200, then the person convicted is liable on conviction to a fine or to imprisonment, or both; that is paragraph (a).


Peter John Veniot: An amendment has been proposed.


John Wesley Edwards: I was not aware of that. In regard to what has been said as to the penalty being too severe, perhaps it is. At the same time, with whom are you dealing? If a man has courage enough to break into a bank or hold you up on the highway-and he is taking chances in doing that-and he gets away with a few thousand dollars, you would not say that seven years was too much for him; not at all, serves him right; and yet he had the quality of courage at all events. But here you are dealing with wholesale thieves, with men who are stealing not in small quantities but making q business of stealing wholesale.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not altogether.


John Wesley Edwards: To a large extent. I am referring now to the class of smuggler referred to by the minister himself, the man who has to be dealt with severely because be is making a practice of smuggling, as they have been doing in this country, stealing from the public revenues, not thousands, but millions and millions of dollars. I have no sympathy to waste on these people at all, not a bit. In so far as this is general and applies to all convictions for smuggling, I want to say that in my estimation it is not severe enough.

In dealing with these people who are engaged in the smuggling of narcotics, you should not stop at seven years; you should put them in prison for life. Better still, to save the country expense, they ought to be taken out and hanged. That is the way to deal with these people. There is no joke about that at all, because the men who are engaged for gain in the smuggling of narcotics are committing murder by degrees-the worst kind of murder. I have less regard for them than I have for the man who in a fit of passion kills his fellow-man ; and I would deal with them just as severely as it was possible to deal with them. It may be that the term of imprisonment might be modified to some extent, but as to those who are going to make a business of smuggling, a business of wholesale stealing from the revenues of the country, men who are thieves and nothing but thieves, the law is there, and they disregard the law for the purpose of personal gain. I do not see, therefore, that they are entitled to any sympathy at all. I want to add a word of commendation of the minister for, the vigorous manner in which he has undertaken to deal with these people. He deserves all kind of credit, and I wish him every success in his task.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton) :: Since the session was opened it has been made clearly manifest that we are going to maintain a customs tariff. This House has declared so by two votes, and if we are going to maintain a customs, tariff, surely we must have some penalties for violation of the act. I agree in a large measure with what the Minister of Customs has proposed, that the penalty should be severe. However, I am entirely in accord with the suggestion made by the Postmaster General of allowing goods to the value of $50 to be brought into this country free by tourists. The Customs Tariff Act of the United States provides in paragraph 1695 that:
Clothing actually owned by persons and in their possession at the time of their departure from a foreign country-
Shall be admitted, and paragraph 1696 provides that:
Articles acquired abroad by residents of the United States for personal or household use, or as souvenirs or curios, but not bought on commission or intended for sale, up to, but not exceeding a total of one hundred dollars.
Shall be admitted free. I think if a good stiff penalty is imposed for actual smuggling, and some such regulation as they have in the United States Tariff Act is included in ours with regard to tourists bringing in a small quantity of goods, the difficulty that has been suggested here to-night will largely be overcome. The ruling given by the United

Customs Act Amendment
States customs officials in the port of Detroit is that these goods shall be admitted free when brought in by bona-fide tourists touring abroad. It does seem to me that when we are going to have a customs tariff-and it seems we are, and a good high one, much to my regret-we have to have a stiff penalty for infractions of the law, but I believe that tourists should be allowed to bring goods up to the value of $50 or $100' into Canada, just as the American tourists are allowed to take goods back when returning to their country.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I am quite sure that all
members of the House are willing to support the minister in anything that will effectually deal with the professional smuggler. I wonder if instead of changing the word "and" to "or" in the third line of paragraph (b) he would make it read:
In the case of a previous conviction.
So that if the smuggler has been previously convicted the magistrate would have no option, but to commit him to gaol.


William Daum Euler: We have a section later on
in the bill dealing with the same offence.


Thomas Cantley: I was not aware of that, but would not this be a good place to put it?


William Daum Euler: This section seems to have
caused a great deal of discussion because of the penalty features of it. There are several other sections that also deal with penalty. I have no desire to force the measure through even if I could. I am quite willing to give it consideration. Possibly we might go on with certain sections which do not include this feature.


William Kemble Esling: Will the hon. minister consider an amendment to item 690A in the regulations? There has been talk of considerable latitude being allowed to tourists who bring in personal belongings. I wish to refer to the conditions that exist in some isolated communities. On the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway in the West Kootenay district the port of entry is Revelstoke. Many of the residents in the district along the Arrow lakes for a distance of one hundred miles are largely English families and at Christmas time they receive their plum pudding and other Christmas remembrances, but with great regularity those settlers are put to considerable inconvenience. They claim that these Christmas gifts should be admitted under the casual donations provision. I have in mind two concrete cases. For instance, at Christmas time a family in that district received from their own relatives in England a Christmas
pudding and it was necesary to conduct a lot of correspondence with those families because they cannot get up to Revelstoke and back in less than three days to present their claim. The consequence was that last Christmas one family in that district did not receive their Christmas gifts. In the case of a haggis the customs collector went so far as to charge fifty-two cents to the family receiving it. Last Christmas season some of the families along the Arrow lakes did not receive their -Christmas gifts from the old country until a week after the Christmas festival. Their plum puddings were held up-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


William Kemble Esling: It may be a joke to some
hon. members, but it is no joke to these people. They are isolated and living about a hundred miles from the customs house and they are put to serious inconvenience until letters are sent back and forth between the customs officials and these people. In another case a charge of forty-two cents was collected from a settler for some shortbread sent from the old country for a Christmas present. Surely the customs officials should be permitted to exercise some little discretionary power in reference to Christmas presents. People expect to pay duty when they are sending to the old country to purchase goods, but when the parcels are marked "Christmas presents" I think the minister should ask the customs officer at Revelstoke to exercise a little common sense and let the parcels come in duty free.


John Frederick Johnston: The minister suggests that sections 15 to 20, both inclusive, stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there has been some little confusion between the granting of the authority to impose a penalty and the imposition of the maximum penalty. It does not follow that because the power is there it has to be exercised. Some of the observations that have been made would lead one to believe that hon. members were fearful that judges would, for a first offence, impose imprisonment of seven years in addition to the fine. We all know that that is out of the question. I quite agree with the section as drawn by the minister and presented to the House, and I believe it should be passed.


Edward James Young: I would like to remind the hon. member for West Calgary of a little quotation with which he is quite familiar:
How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds
Makes ill deeds done!
Customs Act Amendment


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am so delighted that the hon. member has made that observation, because it shows how little he understands the character of the legislation. This is a judicial power, and it is subject to correction by the court to stop ill deeds, and ant to make them done. Furthermore, it is a judicial power, and if anything wrong is done by the magistrate under our jurisprudence it is always open to the person who may be aggrieved to avail himself of the remedy accorded to him.


Edward James Young: The poor man who cannot pay the fine must go to gaol; he cannot go to a higher court, by way of appeal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the solicitude of the hon. gentleman for those whom we heard of last winter will be received in some quarters as an act of very great grace indeed, and as indicating a sympathy for that class of the community that is much required.
Sections 15 to 20 stand.
Sections 21, 22 and 23 agreed' to.


Edward James Young: Look at section


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We are past that section.


Edward James Young: It should not have passed. The same principle is involved here. Consider the penalty there-imposing on the man for having goods on the boundary line a fine not exceeding 11,000, or not less than $200, and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and not less than one month, or to both fine and imprisonment. I object to that section. It is in the same class with section 15.


An hon. MEMBER:: It has been carried.


Edward James Young: Not carried.


John Frederick Johnston: I declared the clause carried. If the committee wish it may be reconsidered.


William Daum Euler: It may stand.


John Frederick Johnston: On the suggestion of the minister clause 23 stands.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: If clauses are to be slipped by in this way and if when an hon. member asks that a clause be reconsidered it cannot be reconsidered, we must protect ourselves by insisting that every clause be read.


William Daum Euler: I have suggested that it
stand.


Malcolm McLean: Thank you.
Section 24 agreed to.
On section 25-Being on board of smuggling vessel-penalty.


Edward James Young: Here is another imprisonment penalty. I suggest that this clause also stand over.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenae):: How would
it be to take all the penalties out of every infraction of the law? That is apparently what the hon. gentleman wants.


Edward James Young: The hon. gentleman seems to think that any man found in the company of a smuggler or with smuggled goods in his possession is a thief and a coward. If I understand the law aright, a man found with stolen goods in his possession loses the goods; but we are providing here that if he is found with smuggled goods in his possession he is to be treated worse than a thief.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: He is worse
than a thief.


Edward James Young: That is a nice sense of morality.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Let me cite
the case of a young fellow as honest and honourable as any man born in Nova Scotia-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He came from Lunenburg, I suppose.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: If any man has anything to say against Nova Scotia let him
say it.


Robert James Manion: You have just said it.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I am going to cite the case of a young man as honest and honourable as any man born in Nova Scotia.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I say a young man perfectly honest. He happened to be on a boat off that coast, a boat that he understood was engaged in legitimate trade. Outside the three mile limit at the point of a gun he was compelled to do something that he found very odious indeed. Under this section that man would be branded a criminal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: We must be
careful in this legislation. I say again, there is no class of criminal that I detest more than

Customs Act Amendment
the smuggler. Last year the customs scandal occupied most of our time and attention, with the result that these amendme)nts are so drastic that they may bring the whole law into disrepute. Surely we have had sufficient experience to know that when we make penalties too severe we defeat the object we have in view and weaken rather than strengthen the law. With respect to the insinuation of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), I recall two cases of a similar nature, disagreeable cases, it is true, and one judge imposed a sentence of ten years and the other a sentence of six months. I have the highest regard for our judiciary, but when we hear of these marked variations in the penalties imposed for the same offence, we must be very careful that we ourselves are not responsible for enacting laws of such a drastic nature that they bring the whole law into contempt.


Thomas Cantley: I notice that in the
third line of 216 .the term "one league" is used. I presume the minister means three miles. This term is subject to misunderstanding, and as the words "three miles" are used almost everywhere throughout the act I suggest that this section be amended accordingly.


William Daum Euler: I have no objection at all.


Peter John Veniot: I move, Mr. Chairman,
that the words "one league" in the third line of 216 be changed to read "three miles."


Thomas Cantley: Three statute miles.


Peter John Veniot: We had better be careful
to distinguish between statute miles and marine miles.


Thomas Cantley: A statute mile is shorter
than a marine mile, but I am not particular. The term "league" is out of date altogether.


Peter John Veniot: I think we should make
it read "three marine miles."


John Frederick Johnston: Clause 25 stands.
On Section 26-Keeping or selling, etc., goods unlawfully imported-forfeiture-burden of proof.


Charles Gavan Power: I think the opening lines:
If any person, whether the owner or not, without lawful excuse, the proof of which shall be on the person accused,

-are most objectionable. I do not know of any criminal act in which the accused is presumed to be guilty. A man charged with the most brutal murder is entitled to a fair trial, and the crown must adduce such evidence as will convince the jury that the
accused is guilty. In this case a man who is on board a vessel which is liable to suspicion may be condemned-I suppose the conviction again is gaol1 for seven years-unless he can clearly show to two justices of the peace- who more often than not are uneducated and likely to be prejudiced-that he is not engaged in smuggling. As I have already stated, I think we are going altogether too far in these amendments. We are violating the very elementary rights of British subjects. I am surprised that my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), who is one of the most staunch defenders of the rights of his fellow citizens, does not rise in his wrath and verbally smite the minister for daring to impose such penalties as are prescribed in this section. The very roots of individual liberty are being attacked, and I would suggest that the minister give careful consideration to this proposal before it passes into law.


William Daum Euler: This proposal is copied
closely from the Customs Act in connection with an offence which it seems to me is milder than the one now under consideration. In that case it is provided that anyone who without lawful excuse, proof of which he himself shall establish, sends or brings into Canada or, being in this country, has in his possession any bill-heading or other paper or blank to be filled up and used as an invoice, shall be guilty of an indictable offence. That offence is not nearly so grave as the one under review.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: That paper is used for
purposes of fraud.


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Will the minister mention
an instance of lawful excuse?


William Daum Euler: I am not a legal man and
I cannot interpret the law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am grateful to my hon friend (Mr. Power) for his observations as to my desire always to voice sentiments that favour the liberty of the subject. That however is not what we are discussing.


Charles Gavan Power: It is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member has
such a wide knowledge of everything that he reminds me of what was once said of Macaulay: "If I knew as much about anything as he pretends to know about everything I should indeed be wise". I hesitate to make the remark I am about to make. Is there a desire on the part of the House to render nugatory all the efforts the minister has made to put on the statute book an
Customs Act Amendment

effective law to prevent a recurrence of the conditions we had disclosed last year? Is that the object? If not, why make a joke of all this, as some hon. gentlemen seem to be doing? The truth is that in all jurisprudence, as my hon. friend from Quebec South so well knows, there are certain conditions which in themselves are regarded as prima facie evidence either of negligence or of guilt. For example, according to law of negligence, if a person traveling on a passenger train is injured, the very .fact that the conveyance is one intended for passengers is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the company. We use the expression in law, res ipsa loquitur-the thing speaks for itself. So that in criminal cases where we have certain conditions which in themselves constitute an evidence of guilt, and therefore is prima facie proof of it, any person found in certain relationship to those conditions is presumed to be guilty of the offence involved. The onus of proving his innocence rests upon the person so found. In the particular section to which attention is called it will be observed that:
If any person. . . . harbours, keeps, conceals, purchases, sells or exchanges any goods unlawfully imported into Canada-
-he must prove a lawful excuse. That is all. Take our laws relating to liquors. As my hon. friend from Quebec South knows, in Quebec, in Alberta and in Saskatchewan, under certain conditions, the onus of proving innocence rests upon the accused. Once a person is found in certain circumstances the onus is shifted and he must explain his position. This happens every day in respect of many matters I need not mention.
I shall not speak to-night on this question, but I desire to say this much before I conclude. I followed with a good deal of interest and some degree of effort all that was said last year with respect to the enforcement of the customs laws, and I learned then that men were perfectly willing to pay $1,000 at any time if they could get away with $5,000. They were quite prepared to pay $1,000 now and $1,000 again if by so doing they could gain $10,000, and this effort on the part of the minister and the government, by making the penalty so severe as to prevent a recurrence of what has so marked the administration of the customs laws of the country, must commend itself to hon. members. 1 do not say that severe penalties will cure evils of this kind, because they do not. But where you have a condition prevailing, a known condition such as that disclosed last year, and you find men flourishing as they do by gains ill-gotten from smuggling and 
from the importation of narcotics, it is time we made the penalties severe enough. Drastic penalties in such cases are found to operate as a powerful preventive. Let me give an illustration; take the case of whipping. Hon. gentlemen will recall that a certain Cl ass of criminal was perfectly content to suffer imprisonment for burglary, for housebreaking, for bank robbery and offences of that nature; but the moment you added the cat-'o-nine tails he became less eager to carry on his operations. The reason is psychological, as those will understand who have studied criminology. I remember reading some time ago an eminent criminologist's opinion in this regard. There is something in the psychology of this form of punishment so repulsive to the mentality of the burglar that he will not readily risk the possible infliction of the penalty, which therefore proves a strong deterrent. Here you have a type of man engaged in smuggling on a large scale; he is a professional, a member of an organized gang or clique which is trying not only to defraud the country of its revenues, but, as the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington has said, to work irreparable physical injury on our citizens. He traffics in narcotics and other drugs. I am not talking about the casual smuggler who brings across a bolt of silk; I am concerned with the class who are known to engage in a business which is a menace to the lives of people, as brought out before the royal commission now7 carrying on its investigations.


Mr. POULIOT:: So that no one would risk the penalty, would the hon. gentleman be prepared to suggest the death sentence in this case?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nothing could better accentuate the observations I made when I rose to my feet than the interruption of my hon. friend. There are under our criminal law three offences which may be punished by death; treason, murder and rape. The other day a judge imposed the penalty of death upon an accused convicted in Ontario of the last named offence and the Court of Criminal Appeal set aside that sentence. The point I make is this. The discretion as to what the penalty and the punishment shall be must always rest with the judiciary, but we have surrounded it with rights of appeal under which I venture to say there have been in this country very few instances of grave wrong done to any individual by reason of the severity of the punishment imposed. In addition to that there is the executive power which may always be set in motion for the purpose of relieving a convicted person from a penalty if

Customs Act Amendment
under the circumstances there is evidence to warrant such action.
I am not going to trespass further on the time of the committee. I do say to my fellow members of this House, some of whom were not here last year, that if they have read the evidence given before that committee last year, and if they have been following the evidence given before the royal commission, they must realize the extent and the enormity of the injury being done to Canada through the loss of revenue. Not only have we been injured in that way, but also through the idea which has been going abroad in this country that by violating the law men may create great fortunes for themselves, and by their ostentatious display of their ilbgotten gains create feelings of envy and dissatisfaction in the minds of the decent people of this country. I think hon. members will agree that the time has come when we should at once say, "You are beyond the pale of our civilization, and the resources of that civilization are not yet exhausted against its enemies," to quote the language of Mr. Gladstone. We are now dealing with one of the resources of civilization, which civilization is threatened by the perils and evils which I have indicated without going into detail.
I suppose it is not usual for one on this side of the House to support an opposing minister with such warmth, but I know from what I have read and from what I have seen that we are facing great danger from the continuance of this condition in Canada, and it has become imperative that this gang of swindlers and smugglers can no longer become the leading men in their communities, displaying their ill-gotten gains, their high powered cars, their beautiful residences, their silks, satins and jewels, and thus arousing the envy of the less fortunate but honest people. We should brand them as criminals not only with a fine, but we should send them to the gaols of the country, and then and not till then will the laws of this country be observed.


John Livingstone Brown: I am quite willing to believe in the good faith of those hon. gentlemen who have made objections to this bill, and who plead that undue penalties will be imposed upon people who are morally innocent. At the same time, I am inclined to fear that if the demands for the emasculation of this bill are successful it will leave the department with nothing more than a popgun with which to fight this evil. I think the knowledge gained last year through the sittings of that committee brought to our notice a condition of things which we must face in a most determined manner. Personally I am disposed to agree very heartily with the provisions which have been incorporated in the bill; some small amendments may be necessary, but in the main I believe we must adopt desperate remedies to cure desperate diseases. It may be true that ignorant and illiterate justices of the peace, men not accustomed to dealing with the law, may occasionally visit undue punishment upon individuals, but at the same time we must take that into account in all our laws, and we cannot depart from a sound principle because exceptional cases of hardship may arise. We must expect that that will be the case, but we cannot make laws to deal with exceptional cases. I repeat, I am afraid that if the suggestions of many hon. members are carried too far we will have nothing left which will be effective in meeting the condition of affairs which confronts us. I know in dealing with this question with the electors last fall I emphasized the need of considerable drastic measures to meet the deplorable condition revealed by the customs inquiry last year.


Charles Gavan Power: I would quite agree with
the last two speakers if the majority of the people of Canada were professional smugglers, but those who carry on smuggling on a commercial scale are in the minority. If the resources of civilization are not exhausted, as my hon. friend has well said, surely we can find some means to punish these commercial smugglers without treating the whole population of our country as smugglers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They will not be affected at all.


Charles Gavan Power: I will go further. My friend says the resources of civilization are not exhausted. Why, then, does he go back to the days of barbarism to find heavy punishments to inflict upon the people of this country? Many years ago sheep stealing was punishable by hanging; did that prevent sheep stealing? I think not; I am quite sure that on the contrary it prevented hanging. We are imposing heavy penalties on the people of Canada for infractions of the tariff law, while a large portion of the people of this country and a fair proportion of the members of this House regard any tariff law as morally wrong. So you place them in the dilemma of either following the dictates of their own conscience or violating the laws of the land. I do not agree with many who, like the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) may feel that the imposition of a tariff is morally wrong, but I do think consideration should be given to their views and that the penalties for carrying out what is after all no moral wrong to them should not be so heavy.
Customs Act Amendment


John Livingstone Brown: Perhaps my hon. friend
would ask the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) whether the restrictions on the sale of liquor are morally wrong.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not at all interested
in the views of the hon. member for Rose-town in regard to the restriction of the sale of liquor. I can quite sympathize with him if he feels that to a certain extent they are too drastic, but I do not wish to be brought into a controversy on that matter. I simply wish to point out to the minister that while for the time being he may have the sympathy of a majority in this House and perhaps of the majority of the people, he will find endless trouble in carrying out this act; time and again there will be brought to his attention cases of unfortunate people who have been unjustly condemned, and within a short time, in order to be workable, the act will have to be made far more lenient.


Mr. NEILL:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? He stated1 this section was interfering -with the liberty of the people; I do not agree with him, but the word's are his. Does he not think that this is a case of sin following sin, of precedent piled upon precedent, since we made the fatal error the ether day of interfering with free speech in this House?


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps the hon. gentleman is right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would like to go back to the question I asked a few minutes ago, to which I would like an answer. I know that some time ago some gentlemen from Montreal went to the fprovinee of Nova Scotia and sold several automobiles that had been smuggled into Canada although they produced prima face evidence that the duty had been paid. I believe the victims are getting back their cars upon payment of the duty, and I see that the section as it stood previously was as follows:
If any person knowingly harbours, keeps, conceals purchases, sells or exchanges any goods unlawfully imported into Canada, whether such goods are dutiable or not, or whereon the duties lawfully payable have not been paid, such goods, if found, shall be seized and forfeited without power of remission, and, if such goods are not found, the person so offending shall forfeit the value thereof without power of remission.
That would appear to me as quite reasonable and proper, but I can quite understand that it may have been difficult in a great many instances to prove guilty knowledge on persons who had such goods in their possession. What I would1 like to know.now is whether the proposed section makes any

change in the law other than shifting the burden of proof. The new clause reads:
If any person, whether the owner or not, without lawful excuse. . . . harbours, keeps conceals, purchases-
And so on. Does that moan:
If any person, without knowing the goods to have been smuggled, harbours, keeps, conceals, purchases.
It is important that we know this. How can a person in whose possession are found smuggled goods, escape the penalty? How can he go into court and show that he has a lawful excuse? Supposing he says that he was furnished with some sort of entry paper, would it be said by the court that he should have looked into and satisfied himself as to the genuineness of it? Would that be a sufficient answer by the crown to the excuse which he was offering? That is an, important matter in that connection. I understand this is a copy of another section, and it may be that it is ample protection to the person who is accused, but the uncertainty should be cleared up. With regard to the general question of penalties, it is very important that we should scrutinize them, because undoubtedly the imposition of penalties which are too severe will not serve the object of carrying out the act properly.
Mr. EULE'R:	I regret very much that I
could not hear all my hon. friend was saying. If I heard him correctly, what I did hear was that he was objecting to the fact that formerly the clause contained the word "knowingly," and that word is now 'being replaced by the words "without lawful excuse." If that is his objection, the answer to that is simply this: It is practically impossible in these cases to prove that a man knew and so to secure a conviction. Under this clause he is given the privilege of making a lawful excuse. Just what form that may take, I am not able to say. It may be given in various ways.
Mr. ILSLEY': Does the minister not think it is important to know that? There are men all over the country who may be proceeded against.


William Daum Euler: There is no doubt whatever that people were found unlawfully and knowingly in possession of smuggled goods, but it was impossible to show that they were knowingly in possession of those goods. We are now making it a little more difficult for those people to escape.


Mr. BOURASSA:: In other words, I understand the object of the minister is to have the opportunity of reaching all the guilty

Customs Act Amendment
parties, but with no opportunity for innocent parties, if they cannot prove their innocence, to escape. This is enlarging a very dangerous principle. I have always understood that from the point of view of moral law, as well as practical legislation, we should rather run the risk of letting one guilty party escape than of unduly punishing an innocent party. That is the great danger of legislation of this nature. I quite realize the object of the minister. Undoubtedly there is great difficulty in coping with the evil that was brought to the attention of the House last session by the committee of inquiry, but at the same time we should not let ourselves be impressed too much by the findings of that committee and we should think more of the dangers which we may run by introducing legislation that will either be impossible of application or work undue injury to people who will not be in a position to prove their innocence and thus to escape the penalties as they are provided for in this legislation.
Everybody knows that amongst officials of any department and especially those which are charged with the imposition of penalties, there exists the practice of enabling officers of the law to partake of the advantages of pursuit. Therefore they develop the spirit of finding guilty parties even when they do not exist and of endeavouring by all means to have parties found guilty in regard to whose guilt there is a doubt. They do this in order to justify their activities, to further their advancement with their chief, and to bring revenue to themselves. This is fully as great a danger to public morality as the amount of smuggling that may be done more or less under the application of a milder law.
If we had such a principle of severe punishment and such principles of evidence in all our criminal law with regard to offences of a much more immoral nature than those which are provided for by this legislation, the policy would be a general one; but as the matter stands now, with the leniency that is shown to such a variety and quantity of criminals and swindlers, especially in the financial world, I do not think the conscience of the country will be prepared to sustain a law of tliis nature and to make it easy for the government to carry it out. I think with the various members who have expressed the same opinion that the minister had better consider this matter further before it is passed definitely.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
On section 28-Smuggling carrying offensive weapons.
Charles Gavan Power: I object to this clause which reads:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for ten years, who while carrying offensive weapons is found with any goods liable to seizure or forfeiture under this act or any law relating to the customs, knowing such goods to be so liable.
Any hon. member knows very well that a large number of people who travel carry revolvers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Gavan Power: I know they do. Perhaps they do not need to do so in Nova Scotia where my vociferous friends come from; but a great number of people, when they are travelling abroad, let us say, carry revolvers. It is known to a considerable number of hon. members that people think very little of bringing in a few packages of cigarettes or, if they are ladies, of bringing in two or three pairs of silk stockings. If you have that combination, an offensive weapon, such as a small revolver, and a pair of silk stockings found in the handbag of a lady coming across the border, she is liable to ten years' imprisonment. I simply point that out to the committee.


William Daum Euler: I might say that this clause is copied bodily from the criminal code. There is nothing new in it at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 29-Vessel leaving without a clearance, etc.
Malcolm McLean: This deals with the case of a vessel departing from a port in Canada without a clearance, and other very serious crimes, but the master of the vessel incurs a penalty of only $400, unless the cargo comprises wines or spirituous liquors, when the penalty is $1,000. There is no talk of imprisonment in this case, I notice. It says:
If any vessel departs from any port or place in Canada without a clearance, or if the master delivers a false content, or does not truly answer the questions demanded of him-[DOT]
-only a small fine of $400 is imposed, but the chap caught with smuggled goods in his possession, possibly not for commercial use at all, is liable to a penalty of seven years imprisonment. The two things do not go well together.


William Daum Euler: Surely the hon. gentleman must know that a vessel departing from a port in Canada without a clearance is entirely
Customs Act Amendment

different from smuggling goods into the country. This is merely the case of a vessel departing without a clearance. It is not a very grave offence as compared with smuggling goods into the country.


Malcolm McLean: In the opinion of many who took part in the customs investigation last year, and in the opinion of many thousands in the country, the trouble in Canada in the last few years has arisen from the desire to make money illegally through smuggling goods out of the country, and incidentally smuggling other goods in on the return journey. I say that if it is wrong to do one thing it is wrong to do the other. It is certainly wrong to allow a vessel to smuggle goods out of the country.' We should not allow this contrast to stand. A vessel engaged in illegal smuggling operations escapes with a fine of $400, -but the poor individual caught with a few smuggled goods in his possession is liable -to a long term of imprisonment. I do not think the Canadian people will approve of legislation of that kind or will be morally behind it.


Peter John Veniot: It has stood for fifty years.


Malcolm McLean: That does not make it any better.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the penalty
should be increased.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I want to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Melfort. It seems to me that these sections are in very, very great contrast. In one there is a very heavy fine and seven years' imprisonment imposed for a comparatively trivial offence, but in this case, where the social effects are very much more serious, there is imposed only a comparatively small fine, a fine that does not amount to anything in comparison with the value of the goods involved. If the hon. member for West Calgary found it necessary a little while ago to call upon this House to protect the country against vice, I do not see why he is silent at this time, because it seems to me we have essentially an evil here. I cannot see the distinction the minister is making between smuggling goods out of the country and smuggling goods into the country. If the minister was simply thinking in terms of a few little merchants who may be affected I could understand it but I do not think that is his calibre, and I would ask him to distinguish very clearly between these two classes of crime, the one smuggling goods out of the country, and the other smuggling goods in. I do not understand the distinction he draws.


William Daum Euler: The fact that a vessel leaves a port without obtaining a clearance is not proof at all that she is smuggling goods out of the country. You cannot smuggle goods out of a country, so far as that is concerned. The mere fact that a vessel is leaving without a clearance may be an offence, but it is no proof of smuggling goods into any country, whereas when goods come into a country illegally, that is smuggling. There is a distinction; in the one case there is smuggling; in the other -there is not necessarily smuggling.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is quite true, but some of us who have followed the revelations of what has been happening on the western coast, which have been given considerable publicity in all our papers, and especially those of us who are resident in the west and have some knowledge of what has been going on, know that vessels have deliberately left ports ostensibly for Mexico or some other distant point, and the next day have arrived back in port again for another cargo. That seems to be fairly good evidence that there is something very wrong in such a procedure. What is the good of punishing the little man,, putting him in gaol because he may have smuggled a few dollars worth of goods into the country, and allowing the man who is making a fortune to go scot free? I do not think the minister has at all answered my question.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it the pleasure of
the committee to adopt the section?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think, Mr. Chairman, we have the right to hear from the minister a better explanation than he has so far offered.


William Daum Euler: I regret very much that the
hon. gentleman does not comprehend what I say.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It may be due to
my ignorance, but I listened to the minister and I cannot see that he has given a reason that will warrant us in passing a clause of this character. I think in view of the serious character of the smuggling that has gone on on the Pacific coast, we should have some further explanation of this clause.


William Daum Euler: If it is the wish of the
committee I have no objection to making the penalty greater; not at all; it is merely a matter of degree. But I do not think that the fact of a vessel leaving port without obtaining clearance is nearly so great an offence as smuggling goods into the country.

Customs Act Amendment


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would my hon. friend
permit me? Perhaps I can assist a little in this matter. There are two things involved; there is the clearance of the vessel, and then there is the violation, if any, of the law in regard to the cargo of the vessel. Both these things are dealt with in this act. One of them simply involves the obtaining of a clearance by the captain; the other is where the cargo is composed of liquor, and that is what this whole thing refers to. There is a bond put up by the owners of the liquor, who may not be the owners of the vessel at all. That bond is for double the value of the goods, and in order to secure the release of that bond the owners of the liquor must produce a landing certificate. The whole trouble on the Pacific coast, as well as on the Atlantic coast, as was disclosed both by the committee of last year and by the royal commission was that the owners of this liquor were suspected of giving false landing certificates, and in some cases that was fully demonstrated. That is the crime to which my hon. friend refers. That is the offence which ought to be penalized very heavily, and I understand that we have already passed a clause-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-which deals with that very question of the landing certificate.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the penalty?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot say from memory. I think the privilege which had been granted by Canada is now practically wiped out.


William Daum Euler: That is the in transitu
shipment of liquor.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, it is now practically
done away with. It grew up out of that practice. But the clearance of the vessel is a different thing altogether. Here is what really inspired-shall I say?-this amendment, particularly on the Atlantic coast; because on the Pacific coast it was carried on in a different way, on a larger scale altogether with larger boats. On the Atlantic coast there are smaller boats, fishing vessels and boats of that type that used to slip out of port without getting a proper clearance, and would then run to Rum Row or some other part of the coast. It is to deal with them that the penalty of $1,000 has been put in, in addition to the penalty of $400 which has been in the act for a long time. That fine is imposed on the owner of the vessel, the captain usually in the case of small vessels.
Another case in point was those vessels plying between St. Pierre-Miquelon, and Halifax. It was found that occasionally
liquor would be smuggled, not by the vessel or the owners of it, but by parties engaging space in the vessel. This penalty is against the master or owner of the vessel for violating the law, so far as the clearance side of it is concerned. In addition to that there is the violation of the bonding privilege which carries with it an altogether separate penalty.
I am not arguing the sufficiency of this. I am quite willing to support an increase of the penalty, but I am pointing out that there are two things involved, not merely one.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I recognize that
there are two things involved, but why should a vessel leave a port without clearance? I can see no reason, except that there might be some reason in the master's mind. If he wants to hide the character of his cargo he may well wish to leave without a clearance. It may be no very serious thing to pass the immigration border without reporting. It is a technical offence to go across without reporting, but there is the provision disqualifying the one who does it from passing freely on the other side if he is caught. It may be no very serious offence in itself to fail to disclose anything he should declare in regard to goods that he is bringing in, but I submit that if he fails to go through the form provided by the government in reference to the clearing of goods then he comes under the law. In this particular case it seems to me it is the bounden duty of every master to take a clearance, so that we are not going further than we did in the other case if we say that the failure to take a clearance ought to be considered prima facie evidence that there is something wrong; and if we went as far as we did in the other case we would place the burden of proof on the master of the vessel. I am not saying it is fair, but that is what we did in the other instance. Of course, compared with the advantage that may be gained by the party if he gets his cargo through, the fine of $1,000 is a mere bagatelle.


John Livingstone Brown: In the evidence produced last year it was made clear that the traffic in liquor was at the bottom of the whole trouble. I do not think there can be any doubt of that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very largely.


John Livingstone Brown: In view of that fact it
seems to me we should impose a severe penalty in a case of this kind. I am not familiar with the methods by which the business is carried on, or with the distinction which has been drawn between the two matters referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver
Customs Act Amendment

Centre. It seems to me that even with this provision it would be quite possible for a man who wanted to leave with a cargo of liquor to do so, and considering the amount of the fine he might very well be tempted to do so and refuse to obtain clearance papers, apart altogether from the question of bonding. It would still be possible for a man to leave our shores with a cargo of illegal liquor, even with a fine of $1,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: Make it $2,000.


John Livingstone Brown: Yes, any amount.


Peter McGibbon: Suppose the boat had a collision in port and got out in order to avoid a fine, do you think the owner should pay $1,000?


John Livingstone Brown: You can rake up all kinds of exceptional cases, but we cannot give consideration to those. The jpenalty is not adequate and it should be adequate.


Peter John Veniot: What part of the section does my hon. friend refer to when he says the penalty is not adequate?


John Livingstone Brown: If the vessel has a cargo of spirituous liquor.


Peter John Veniot: I move that it be amended and that the amount be fixed at $2,000.


John Livingstone Brown: Make it $5,000, if you like.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Malcolm McLean: The first part of the clause is more important than the second part. The first part deals with the vessel leaving port without a clearance. Not long ago such an act would be taken as prima facie evidence of piracy and a vessel leaving without a clearance would have to pay the penalty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That applies not merely to vessels that might be suspected of smuggling liquor, but to any vessels. It must be remembered that, in the matter of clearances the Customs department has control, although to my mind it would be better if the granting of clearances were under some other department. In the case of small local vessels going out every few days, the master gets careless and does not report and the idea in imposing a $400 fine in the first part of the clause is simply to discipline the vessel. The latter part of the clause would apply to that class whom we suspect of practising smuggling as a business-illegal operation. There is that distinction. It is an anomaly which should not exist in this act, but it has been there from time immemorial.


Malcolm McLean: There is a difference between the two classes of shipping, and I suggest that this section be held over and reframed. The language is not sufficient. With reference to vessels leaving port without a clearance, there is the further offence of delivering a report of false content, and you are going to let the offender get away with a fine of $400.


William Daum Euler: That has been the law for thirty years.


Malcolm McLean: Conditions and times have changed in the last thirty years. Thirty years ago there were no motor cars on the road, no radio, no commercial smuggling between the two countries and no reason for it, and to say that it was in the law twenty or thirty years ago is no reason why it should not be changed now to meet present conditions.


Thomas Cantley: I would suggest to the minister that it might be advisable to withdraw the section at t)he moment. I have reference to the last two lines-
And the vessel shall be detained in any port in Canada until the said penalty is paid.
How can she be detained after the owner, has committed the offence and the vessel has sailed away?


Peter John Veniot: It seems to me the point in regard to the clearing of vessels is not well understood. It does not apply to a vessel leaving Canada. It applies to the coastwise trade, vessels going from one port to another, and this committee does not want to impose extreme penalty on vessels doing a coastwise trade. If hon. members understood what this means to the shipping trade they would consider that this section was sufficient to meet the case. It is simply disciplinary. This very act has been in force since 1896, and in my experience in administering the customs laws of this country I have made many detentions where the captains neglected to clear their vessels in the coastwise trade, or even vessels clearing from one port in Canada with a part cargo to another port and leaving without a clearance. In those cases we have to detect them when they reach the other port in Canada before they finally go to sea. So really the penalty in the first part of this clause should not be increased; but where a vessel has liquor on board and the captain makes a false declaration to the collector of customs, he is guilty of perjury, for which the penalty should be severe. If the act is not enforced there will be all kinds of abuses,

Customs Act Amendment
specially in the coastwise trade, and the customs authorities will lose control of those vessels.


Malcolm McLean: I appreciate what the Postmaster General says about the difficulty of routine clearances, but this to my mind is a further reason why the clause should be redrafted.


Peter John Veniot: We have had it for many years without any mistakes occurring.


Malcolm McLean: Then why change it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Only where the cargo is composed of liquor is there any change.


Malcolm McLean: Everyone who has lived on the seacoast knows that vessels have to have routine clearances, but I do not think any argument adduced so far should convince the committee that the section should be passed. I ask that it be held over.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the minister consider that a fine of four hundred dollars is an adequate penalty for a roaster who "delivers a false content, or does not truly answer the questions demanded of him"?


William Daum Euler: That is not the only penalty imposed. Clause 254 of the Customs Act reads as follows:
Every person who forges, counterfeits falsifies. or uses when so forged, counterfeited or falsified, any paper or document required under this act, or for any purpose therein mentioned, whether written, printed or otherwise, or by any false statement procures such document, knowing the same to be forged, counterfeited or falsified, or forges, counterfeits or falsifies any certificate relating to any oath or declaration or affirmation by this act required or authorized, is guilty of an indictable offence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Under which clause would the department act?


Peter John Veniot: Both.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the amendment moved by the Postmaster General, that the word "one" in the twentieth line be struck out and the word "two" substituted, carry?


Alan Webster Neill: Before the section passes I
want to call attention to a phase which has not been mentioned to-night, and which I think is wrong. I know I will be told that it is nothing new, but I do not know that age particularly lends authority to an absurdity. The section reads that the master of any vessel who having received a clearance-perhaps he has liquor on board and has a legal clearance-goes out and takes in tow another vessel or performs any work without having mentioned in the report outwards his intention so to do, he is liable to a penalty of two thousand dollars. That is, he is supposed before he goes out to state that it is his intention to take a vessel in tow. He sees a small steamer or a gasoline boat in distress, takes it in tow, and for that act of humanity he is liable to a penalty of two thousand dollars or four hundred dollars.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Alan Webster Neill: I suppose someone will say that that penalty would never be enforced, but I think the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) will bear me out when I say that not long ago a Canadian boat going down the coast with liquor and away outside the legal limit of American control took a dozen or so men off a vessel in distress, and ran into the nearest port to land them, which of course brought her into American waters. Thereupon the master and crew were put in gaol for having liquor on board in American territorial waters. Here is a situation somewhat similar. Unless the captain knows beforehand that he is going to encounter rough weather, and to go to the rescue of a boat in distress he is liable to a penalty of two thousand dollars, simply for exercising the ordinary humanity of seamen. Would it not be possible to adjust that absurdity, or at least for the minister to give me an explanation?


William Daum Euler: The section applies only
within the three mile limit in Canadian waters. We have no jurisdiction beyond.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will understand that this section would not apply in the case of a vessel helping another in distress. Here is the point in the tow. A tug might get its clearance for, say, Vancouver to Nanaimo and pick up a scowload of liquor. If the captain gets a clearance for the purpose of taking a tow, he is bound to so state. If, however, he wants to evade the excise law by taking in tow a cargo of liquor on a scow out in the gulf in order to land it further down the coast, he comes clearly within the act. My good friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) is better versed in this than I am, but I think he will assure the hon. member that where a vessel picks up another in distress the Canada Shipping Act will amply cover the case.


Alan Webster Neill: Would it not be easy to insert "except in case of distress"?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but I do not think it necessary.


Alan Webster Neill: We have rough water and
boats in distress within the three mile limit.
Customs Act Amendment


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: la a case of this kind on whom is to be the burden of proof that the vessel was in distress?


Felix Patrick Quinn: I should like the Minister of Customs to declare whether the three mile limit means three nautical miles or three land miles. I ask the question for the benefit of the present member for Antigonish-Guysborough.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Daum Euler: Three marine miles.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Understand that?


Mr. DUFF:: It looks to me as if you are
within the three miles yourself to-night.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On Section 30-Contravention generally- forfeiture.
Edward James Young: Mr. Chairman, I [DOT] understand that if a man smuggles goods into this country in an old secondhand Ford car he is liable to lose his car, but if he uses a high powered Studebaker-which the rum runner generally does-he is not liable to have his car forfeited. Is that correct?


William Daum Euler: I am informed that that
is not correct. I do not know on what the inference is based.


Edward James Young: It is quite plain:
All goods shipped or unshipped, imported or exported, carried or conveyed, contrary to this act or to any regulation made by the Governor in Council, and all goods or vehicles, and all vessels under the value of four hundred dollars, with regard to which the requirements of this act or any such regulation have not been complied with, shall be forfeited and may be seized.
Then follows the next section.
Mr. McLean (Melfort):	The argument
of my hon. friend from Weyburn is reasonable. A man smuggling goods in a vessel valued at S400 is liable to have his whole cargo seized. But a high powered car comes along-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A car is not a
vessel.


Malcolm McLean: The section
provides that all goods shipped or unshipped, imported or exported, and all goods or vehicles and all vessels under the value of $400, shall be seized.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The comma
comes after vehicles. The "value of $400" applies to the vessels.


Malcolm McLean: It seems to me that if you forfeit the whole thing in one case you ought to forfeit all in the other.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 31-If vessel is of value of $400 master liable to penalty of $400.
Malcolm McLean: The minister
may be glad to have his attention drawn to the fact that he may seize the vessel and exact its full value under this section.


William Daum Euler: We may seize the vessel now under another clause.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Only three words are
being changed in this section. This is tried legislation which has been in use for years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 32-Contravention of act in other respects.
Edward James Young: This section
should stand over. There may be minor offences for which a man might be sent to gaol under this* section and I do not think we should dispose of it without further consideration.


William Daum Euler: It is the same clause as in
the Excise Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 33-Bribes.
Charles Gavan Power: The officer who accepts the
bribe gets five years; the poor fellow who smuggles $200 worth of goods gets seven years. I just want to point that out.


Mr. GUERIN:: We should not necessarily impose imprisonment. That should be left to the discretion of the judge. In some cases men have been sent to gaol without the option of a fine when in my opinion it should have been left to the judgment of the court to decide upon an alternative. It might be a serious thing to impose the penalty of imprisonment without the option of a fine.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 34 to 36 inclusive agreed to.
On section 37-Counsel fee.
Malcolm McLean: What is the
explanation of this section?


William Daum Euler: The explanation is given
on the opposite page.


John Gordon Ross: The section
provides for "a reasonable counsel fee in the discretion of the court." Why enact that there shall be any counsel fee?

Customs Act Amendment


Charles Gavan Power: Would this "reasonable
counsel fee" be 1200 a day plus $20 a day expenses, as in the case of the customs inquiry? Would that be a reasonable fee?


William Daum Euler: It is left to the discretion
of the court.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 38-Minimum penalty.
Charles Gavan Power: If there is one section worse than another in this bill it is section 38. I shall not discuss subsection 1 for the moment, but subsection 2 reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Criminal Code or any other statute or law, the court, in a case of the conviction of any person charged with an indictable offence under this act, shall have no power to suspend sentences.
The reason as given in the explanation is that the proposal is intended to meet the situation which has arisen in prosecutions for indictable offences, where the accused has been committed for trial and the prosecution is conducted by the local crown attorney, who is not under the control of this department; the accused, having been found guilty, has been allowed his liberty on suspended sentence, contrary to the opinion and desire of the department. The judge hears the case, knows all its circumstances and, has had the accused before him. He is appointed by the highest authorities to administer the law and to give justice to all the citizens of this country and may decide in his wisdom that sentence may be suspended. Because of that fact and because an official located in the department at Ottawa, who knows nothing of the case and nothing of the circumstances surrounding it, thinks the judge should have imposed a heavy sentence, we are to change the whole system of law enforcement in this country; we are to take away from properly appointed judges the right to exercise mercy and suspend sentence. If there is anything more ridiculous I cannot find it on the statute books of this country, and I wish again to call the attention of the minister to the situation that will be created. Let us suppose that a man endeavours to cross the international border with half a dozen packages of cigarettes in his pocket or, as I said before, three or four pairs of silk stockings, he gets into an argument with the customs official and during the argument shoots and kills him. For the crime of smuggling the onus of proof is upon him; he must go to gaol; the judge cannot suspend sentence upon him, and he has all the forces of the law arrayed against 32049-98
him. For the crime of murder, for taking the life of his fellow man, he has first of all a preliminary investigation, during which he is given every chance. Then he goes before the grand jury, where a true bill must be found against him; from there he goes before a petty jury, where he must ibe declared guilty by his peers. In addition to that he has the opportunity of appeal, and he is not obliged to go into the witness box to give evidence on his own behalf. Under this law in every case in which the onus of proof is against him he must necessarily go into the witness box and give evidence and be at the mercy of the crown attorney, who may cross-examine him and rake up all the details of his past life. I think the condition would be intolerable. Under conditions such as these we will have police surveillance to an extent unknown m any of the countries of Europe. We have always boasted of the freedom of the individual, and I do not think this is the time to take away that freedom.


William Daum Euler: Since this clause has some
relation to the other clauses which were disputed, I would suggest that it stand together with the others.
Section stands.
On section 39-Distribution of proceeds.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would like to ask first of all as to the present practice in regard to this matter?


William Daum Euler: The practice at present
followed is that informers receive rewards only where there are actual proceeds resulting from the seizure or sale of goods seized. Very frequently goods are destroyed as for instance in the seizure of liquors; these goods may be entirely destroyed, and there will be no proceeds from the seizure. In cases of that kind the informer does his work but receives ' no reward whatever. That is unfair, and this change is intended to correct that.


Edward James Young: I do not like
that clause at all; it is outrageous. Every man who informs and gets someone else arrested and fined will be given a part of the fine.


William Daum Euler: A part of the seizure, but
not of the fine.


Edward James Young: You are going
to reward him for finding some one else guilty.	! I ..'I.:

Customs Act Amendment


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The minister says the
reward does not come out of the fine, but the section says:
Prescribing the manner in which the proceeds of penalties and forfeitures shall be distributed-
The word "penalties" covers a fine, surely.


William Daum Euler: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It may mean the double
duty.


Mr. ERNST:: In connection with the distribution of proceeds there is a matter I would like to bring to the attention of the minister; it does not fall entirely within this section, but perhaps it is covered more completely here than in any other section. In the case of an indictable offence a preliminary investigation is first held, and then the charge is laid or an indictment is preferred against the individual. In some instances men are kept in gaol for perhaps months before their case is heard, and during the time they are in gaol the expense of keeping them must be borne by the municipality in which they happen to be arrested, I have in mind one particular case which occurred in the county of Lunenburg some time ago; a vessel called the Ellice B was seized and five men were kept in gaol four or five months at the expense of the county. These cases are not exceptional; they are becoming more frequent every year, and it seems to me some provision should be made for the payment of a portion of the fines to the municipalities, at least in cases of indictable offences where a fine is also imposed. If witnesses are subpoenaed their fees must be paid by the municipality; the crown attorney is paid by the provincial government and the federal government which initiates the charge pays nothing except the fee of the special counsel who may be engaged. I would very much appreciate some expression in this connection from the minister.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would like to have some
statement from the minister as to the meaning of the word "informer." Certain facts have come to my notice lately in this connection, and I would like the minister to tell me exactly what is meant.


William Daum Euler: The informer is the man
upon whose information a conviction is secured or a seizure made.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the informer an official of the government, or may he be anyone at all?


William Daum Euler: Anyone.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It seems to me that that
is rather a vicious principle to adopt even in enforcing the customs laws of this country; it makes everyone a possible informer against his neighbour and I think a practice of that kind should not be recognized. I would far rather let the department have a larger preventive service of its own than to depend on outside information to secure convictions. A certain case came to my notice within the last few weeks of a person who was an informer; he did certain work for the preventive force of the Customs department. The same individual happens to be in gaol for doing the work of the Customs department. 1 have not much sympathy for that particular individual, but at the same time I do not think the government ought to put themselves into a position where their own informers are sent to gaol because they are doing the secret work of the government. Would it not be possible to cut out altogether this particular clause, so that if any information is required the officials of the department can go out themselves and secure it; that no rewards be given to informers but that proper wages be given to departmental officials?


William Daum Euler: It is a long established
practice that rewards must be given if you are going to obtain information which will convict smugglers. It is perhaps offensive to most of us that men should be spying upon their fellowmen and so on, but it seems to be the only way in which you can obtain the necessary information in order to cope with the evil. The customs officials themselves cannot be informers and we have to depend upon others to supply us with information in connection with smuggling. Any seizures that are made or convictions that are obtained bring to the informer a certain reward. I admit at once the profession is not a particularly pleasant one, but it seems to be necessary in order to enable us to carry out the law properly.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the minister any information to give to the committee as to how this works out in actual practice?


William Daum Euler: I can merely say in a general way that it is found fairly successful.


Peter John Veniot: If you do not do that you
have to have an organized secret service which would cost the country a good deal of money.


William Gordon Ernst: Can the minister give me
an answer to the question I asked) with reference to the policy of his department as to allowing municipalities, which are responsible

Customs Act Amendment
for keeping the peace and have to bear a large share of the expenses in connection with these prosecutions, to obtain some portion of the proceeds from the fines?


William Daum Euler: I regret very much that I
cannot give my hon. friend a definite reply except to say I am informed that I have no jurisdiction in the matter.


Malcolm McLean: I would like an
explanation from the minister of a couple of lines in paragraph (n) which reads:
Prescribing the manner in which the proceeds of penalties and forfeitures shall be distributed

The new part reads:
-and providing for payment to informers forthwith after seizure of an award based upon the value of the goods seized and not dependent upon forfeiture or proceeds of forfeiture.
I agree that the minister must have efficient help in order to enforce the law, but I do not understand the wisdom of giving informers payments based upon the value of goods seized' forthwith after seizure, and not dependent upon whether those goods have been forfeited or not. If informers are going to be rewarded for simply going out and seizing, they will continue to do that and the department will get into serious trouble. If, as is quite possible, this depends upon seizure and conviction, I would suggest that the words "and conviction" be added1 after the word "seizure" in order to make this paragraph plhin.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I may interject here that this was one of the very difficult problems with which we were faced last year. The sentiment expressed by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) was, I think, entertained by every member of the committee on the first approach of this problem, but we examined with care the officers of the department and this question was carried along for some weeks. The final decision was expressed in this clause in the report:
The committee recommends that the regulation governing the distribution of proceeds of fines and forfeitures be revised and that more liberal treatment be accorded informers and seizing officers.
The point referred to in this clause arose out of the situation. Very frequently as a result of information a seizure is made that is of distinct value to the country. I could cite many and illustrate some striking ones. Then for some reason or another the seizure is not immediately wound up, or a case may occur where the goods are of such a character that they are destroyed. For instance, let us take one of the most difficult things that the country is facing and has faced for years- 32649-98$
narcotic drugs. If a seizure is made of narcotic drugs of considerable value, such seizure perhaps entailing on the part of the informer the greatest risk of any class of his work, those goods are destroyed; there is no return from them. The goods cannot be sold and a moiety given to the informer. Therefore this provides that in a case of that character the department, or the government, or the country, will pay to the informer a moiety proportionate to the value of those goods had they been sold instead of being destroyed, although it is distinctly in the interests of the country that the goods be destroyed. That is the reason for this amendment. I may add, as I said in my opening remarks, that I agree with all those who have a dislike for moieties to informers, or stool pigeons, or whatever you like to call them. All my life I have had an abhorrence of this practice. On the other hand there are many, I was going to say very respectable individuals who act as informers although there are many who are certainly far from respectable.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Do those people who are
respectable do the work for the benefits that accrue from it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, some of them make a profession of it.


Peter John Veniot: Just as a detective does.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are practically
private detectives, if you like. I am not saying that it is a profession one would glorify at all, but it is one of those lines of business that is followed and that is seemingly very necessary in order properly to detect crime.


Malcolm McLean: I have no objection to the informer being rewarded for his services, but what I object to and what I would like to get the minister to explain is the part of the paragraph which reads:
And providing for payment to informers forthwith after seizure of an award based upon the value of the goods seized.
I appreciate the hon. member's explanation as far as it has gone in regard to goods that are destroyed. It is in the interests of the country that such goods should be destroyed; they cannot be sold. But if this is left as it is and the words "and conviction" are not added after the word "seizure", it is going to lead to criminals getting together, one of them acting as informer for the Customs department, another coming along with the goods and having them seized, his partner being rewarded and he himself appealing to the court and getting the goods released. This
Customs Act Amendment

clause like many others in the bill is not worded so that the ordinary layman can understand what it means.


Peter John Veniot: Does my hon. friend know that section 286 of the act gives the governor in council power to make regulations? This is not a statutory amendment; it is the power to make regulations to cover such cases.
Mr. MoLEAN (Melfort): The copy of the bill which I have reads:
Paragraph (n) of section 286 of the said act is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have a copy of the act, and section 286 reads:
The Governor in Council may, from time to time, and in the manner hereinafter provided, in addition to the other purposes and matters in this act mentioned, make regulations for or relating to the following purposes and matters.


Malcolm McLean: Is there anything unreasonable, in adding after the word "seizure" the words "and conviction"?


William Daum Euler: It still remains in the discretion of the government to make such regulations as it sees fit to deal with the situation.


Malcolm McLean: This is giving them power without a conviction having been registered.


Peter John Veniot: It gives them power, but it does not make it obligatory upon them to do so.


Malcolm McLean: What is the objection to adding the words "and conviction"?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are lots of seizures and forfeitures without convictions; that is the trouble.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: With regard to the new and respectable class of civil servants which the acting minister of customs-


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not the language that I used.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The acting minister spoke of somewhat respectable informers. In view of his experience with the operation of the law, which apparently will be confided to his care, I think it would be well for him to organize that service, because, after all, what with those informers who are respectable, those who are not respectable, and those who are ordinary criminals and are going to partake with respectable criminals in some of the receipts of the Customs department, we should go a step further, I suppose, and have them classified by the Civil Service Commission. Those of them who are respectable, since the government and the laws of the

land are going to encourage this kind of administration, should be put on the regular civil service list and a part of their proceeds should go to the pension fund, so that we might create in the land that kind of cooperation in the public service. Since it is found that the police force of the Customs department is not capable of dealing with the law and enforcing the penalties, since it is found that the ordinary principles of law as applied from time immemorial are not sufficient for the trial of individuals violating this law, since we are creating this new legislation for the correction of this enormous crime of smuggling, I would suggest that we make this new form of civil service an effective one.


Eugène Fiset: Get a classification by the commission.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, and ratings and all that sort of thing which the Civil Service Commission does. That might help to stimulate the ordinary service of this department which is found to be totally ineffective for the application of the law. Really, seriously speaking, Mr. Chairman, I think it is most shameful that in a public law it should be declared that we offer a reward to one of the most contemptible and despicable classes of people. It may be necessary in war for generals to make use of spies. They may be obliged at times to bribe individuals belonging to the other army to get information; but I have never heard that it was considered that the spying process with which war is accompanied is acknowledged by law and rewarded by law, and of parliament voting the money. As far as I am concerned this whole clause is revolting to every sense of decency. It is all very well to pass laws to please a certain number of merchants in Montreal, Toronto, and elsewhere, to help them against the small smugglers, though we have been helping them for years past in the kind of smuggling they are carrying on themselves by false entries given to the regular officers of the customs service, as has been done from time immemorial, in Montreal at least, that I know of. It is all very well to pass extraordinary laws, drastic laws, immoral laws to help a small and powerful class of people who were evidently able to impose their will upon the last government and upon the present branch office of the Tory government; but at the same time as a Canadian and as a liberal-minded representative of the people I protest against such kind of legislation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is most interesting to hear the protest of my hon. friend with that facility of language he has for clothing his

Customs Act Amendment
insinuations, but I would like to remind the House and the committee that this law that he talks about has been on the statute books for a great many years: indeed, it was originated and passed when he was a younger member of this House by the government of which he was then a supporter. I am discussing this subject as a member of the House, and I intend to exercise my right to discuss legislation without asking the hon. gentleman's permission to do so. I am taking this amendment as an amendment to an act that has been in force for a great many years. I took the opportunity of saying a moment ago to the committee that this whole subject, which is repugnant, I will admit, to practically all of us, was analyzed and discussed by the committee. We did the best we could to find some other solution for this method of detecting crime, but no other solution presented itself than the one that is presented here. It has been in the law since 61 Victoria, 62 and 63 Victoria., and 3 Edward VII. This amendment is merely adding a very few words. It is not introducing any new principle: it is no new departure from the law at all. It merely provides that where the goods seized produce no return, the informer in that case shall receive a moiety equal to the value of the goods or to the portion of the goods which would have come to him had they been sold.
There is not much occasion at this stage of the game to heap abuse either upon the minister or upon myself or others who may support his efforts to meet, a very difficult situation. Let me add this. The whole country realized when the hon. gentleman took office as Minister of Customs that he was undertaking a very, very serious task. I wrote him a letter which he has on his file, when I left the office, tendering to him then my cooperation in making this department effective and efficient. Not only that, but I have offered him my cooperation across the floor of this House, and I think it ill behooves my hon. friend from Labelle to throw a few cheap slights at me because I am tendering to the minister the benefit of what little experience I may have had in this matter and what little support I can give him in getting this very difficult legislation through. No minister has as heavy a task as the Minister of National Revenue. His department has grown into an enormous one. A few years ago it was only the Customs department. What has he got to-day? Customs, all of the excise, which was a separate department when I came into this House, all of the sales tax. the income tax,
and all the stamp taxes. He has more responsibility and a greater burden upon his shoulders than any other minister. In addition to that, beoause of circumstances which we will not analyze now, he found when he entered the department that it had, according to a report of a committee of this House, largely broken down. Without now making any recriminations as to why it broke down, the fact is there, and the minister is now trying to lift this department into some efficient state of organization. I am here to help him; I will give him my help to the best of my ability, and no clever, cheap quips on the part of my hon. friend from Labelle will intimidate me. I am not the Minister of Customs; I was for a short time, and I will give to the Minister of Customs the benefit of whatever experience and knowledge I have of this very, very difficult and perplexing problem.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The hon. gentleman is quite mistaken if he thinks I want to have any cheap quips at his expense. On the contrary, I congratulate him that he still governs the Department of Customs, and that he has found a very devoted deputy and supporter in the present instance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is not sincere in that, and he knows it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not criticising at all the efforts that are being made to improve the administration of this department. The efforts that are being made to correct the administration of the department meet with the hearty cooperation of hon. gentlemen opposite. I have no objection to that either. I am simply saying that some of the provisions in this bill have been evidently worded and introduced with the desire to respond at any cost to the feeling that smuggling is the worst and the most abominable offence that can be committed, and also to please the interests of a certain class of people; and under that feeling we are simply forgetting some of the basic principles of legislation and public morality. That is my contention.
With regard to this very section, the hon. member says it is a mere repetition of the previous law. I think that is a false position, because on the opposite page, paragraph (n), we find the law as it stood:
(n) Prescribing the manner in which the proceeds of penalties and forfeitures shall be distributed.
That was the law.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And is the law to-day.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Plus exactly what I denounced, what did not exist before.
Customs Act Amendment


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, my hon. friend is
wrong.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I beg your pardon. The text goes on:
The words underlined in the new paragraph are added.
And these words are:
-and providing for payment to informers forthwith after seizure on an award based upon the value of the goods seized and not dependent upon forfeiture or proceeds of forfeiture.
So that the new words being added now are the official recognition of those informers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course they are.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The principle of paying
informers is in the act now and has been there for thirty yeans.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not discussing that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the whole point.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I quite admit-we are forced to admit-that in certain operations of government and in the application of laws, ministers are bound at times to resort to certain processes which are repugnant. I compared the fact that informers were being used with the fact that at times spies have been used. But I objected to having informers brought into the law as regular servants of the government and paid by the government out of public funds.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are used no more
now than they were formerly.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, I beg pardon. In former times the minister could make use of them and pay them, but there was not an acknowledged system in the law of employment of informers, emphasized by the declaration of the minister that in all cases his officials accept information from anybody, from that class of respectable informers of whom the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has spoken, as well as from any scalawag or any criminal, who will now be placed in a position to exercise vengeance or blackmail most powerfully and will be able to place the whole burden of proof upon his victim. The judge will have no discretion in the matter and will have to take the evidence as it is made by the informer-respectable or non-respectable, criminal or otherwise, perjurer, perhaps, who will be the paid agent of the government of Canada, who will be offered a recompense by the government of Canada, and the judge will have to convict the victim who may be more innocent than the paid agent of the government acting under this law.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Which has been in the
law and has been the practice for thirty years.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Then we are in the face of a falsification; because the text of the law simply states that the minister may pass regulation to direct how the proceeds of the siezure will be distributed; but unless this is a falsification the informers were not acknowledged in the law and were not paid by the law. It was a discretionary power in the hands of the government to distribute the proceeds of the seizure as it is worded here:
Prescribing the manner in which the proceeds of penalties and forfeitures shall be distributed.
In other words it was a discretionary power exercised under a law far less rigid than the present provision and far less drastic.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I beg pardon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will not
argue that the adding of these words, which merely provide that in case the goods forfeited are not sold they can be provided for in the way prescribed here, is giving any more powrnr in the distribution of moieties than is in the original act.


Mr. McMILLAN:: Why add them?


Henry Herbert Stevens: For the very reason that
in some cases goods are not realized upon, and this is to provide that in such cases the moiety may be paid.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Under the text of the
law as it stood there was no legal recognition of the services of the informer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, there was.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: There was discretionary power given to the minister to distribute the proceeds of the seizure, and under that discretionary power his officials could reward the informer, but that was all. If the discretionary power given is all that is being asked for, why add these words? However, in a sense it is better to have it that way; because that shows the spirit of this new law, to be carried on against all principles of legislation and administration as applied in civilized countries.


John Evans: I would like to endorse what my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has said. This section is revolting in the extreme. To my mind the whole thing is revolting. We have been trying to-night to legislate for the administration of an act that is an evil in itself. In common with my hon.

Customs Act Amendment
friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) I do not mind saying frankly to this House that I have always taken the stand that protection is not only economically wrong, but that it is morally wrong. In this bill to-night we have differentiated between one evil and another. The man who brings goods into this country is liable under this measure to fine and imprisonment and his goods are liable to seizure. When the people defy the law by exercising what should be the inalienable right of citizens to buy and sell where they please, the utmost penalty is incurred. But when a cargo of liquor is sent out from a port without the captain securing a proper clearance, what is the penalty? We send that liquor out to demoralize the citizens and defy the laws of a friendly country, and *we impose a $1,000 fine upon the offender, which to him is not more than ten cents to the ordinary man. The whole thing is immoral, the law is immoral. The act we are putting through to-night is an indictment against the nation. This very section is nothing more than the crowning act of an evil law, and is revolting in the extreme.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
test the feeling of the House. It seems to me that this particular practice is abhorrent to the good sense of all the members who have spoken on the section. I do not believe we are justified in encouraging other people to do what we ourselves would refuse to do. Let me quote the explanatory note:
Informers, particularly with regard to offences against the liquor laws, take great risks of property and even life, and it is believed that if prompt awards could be paid as provided by this amendment the receiving of information would be facilitated.
This simply means that if we put up a larger reward we encourage those unfortunate individuals to take greater "risks of property and even life." In my own city a few years ago the police magistrate refused to take the evidence of informers, and their use was finally abandoned because it was found to encourage men who were essentially criminal in character. Therefore I move:
That all the words after the word "repealed" in the nineteenth line to the word "forfeiture" in the twenty-sixth line be struck out.
It simply means deleting paragraph (n).


Mr. RALSTON:: In reply to the remarks
made by the hon. member for Labelle, I do not think any new principle is being introduced by recognizing in terms an informer and the payment to him of a certain portion of the penalty. This is recognized in our Criminal Code in express terms in section 1041 and 1042. They provide that a moiety
of any penalties imposed shall belong to the informer or person who sues for the same, and the other moiety to His Majesty for the public uses of Canada. I quite realize in common with other members that the informer engages in a rather undesirable job, but I do not think we are going outside our legislative purview in this instance. We are simply providing that whereas now the informer is paid only a portion of the penalty after the conviction, new regulations may be made under which he may be paid an amount based on the value of the goods seized.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: There is a radical
difference between the case quoted by the hon. minister and this case. The former is a rather rare type of case and is surrounded by all the protection afforded to the accused person under the criminal law; but here you disregard all the principles incident to the trial of an accused person. You put him in the most unfavourable position with respect to the burden of proof and the discretion of the court, so that he can hardly defend himself ; and then, having discarded all the guarantees given to the accused before he is found guilty, you invite thousands of individuals from the Pacific to the Atlantic to interest themselves in the application of this law in order to make money.


Mr. ROBB:: Mr. Chairman, the government has been making an honest effort to correct some of the abuses which were hrought so forcibly to the attention of the House last year, and is quite sincere in its desire to stop smuggling. But it is now twenty minutes to midnight, we have been debating this question for over an hour and apparently the committee are somewhat divided. I for one feel that we have done a pretty good day's work, and I am going to ask my colleague the Minister of Customs to report progress. Probably on reflection hon. members will realize the propriety of the clause as presented.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, my hon.
friend the Minister of Finance who is now leading the House says that the government has a sincere intention of passing this bill and improving the customs law.


James Alexander Robb: The bill was presented with the sincere desire of putting a stop to smuggling.


Hugh Guthrie: He will realize that the
objections to the bill have not emanated from the Conservative opposition. We on this side have used every effort to assist the passage of this measure.
Old Age Pensions


James Alexander Robb: We recognize that.


Hugh Guthrie: The reason it has not been passed1 is that hon. members opposite, supporters of the government, dbjeoted.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, I resent what has been said from this side of the House that this measure is fathered or assisted or initiated by anj'one on the other side. The charge is not fair. The language used by the hon. member for Labelle that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is the acting minister of customs is not worthy of the generosity of the race from which he comes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: I am not going into the
merits any more than to say that no new principle whatever is introduced in this clause. The informer has always been recognized. It is merely an effort to carry out the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee last session. The opposition that has developed is more or less of a surprise to me. I beg to move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Robb the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
Friday, March 25, 1927.