1928-03-30

[Stage Direction]
++NAYS
Messrs:
Bird,
Carmichael,
Coote,
Cowan,
Esling,
Evans,
Fansher (Last Mountain),
Fansher (Lambton East),
Garland (Bow River) Gardiner,
Heaps,
Irvine,
Jelliff,
Kennedy,
Lucas, _ Luchkovich, Macphail (Miss), Millar,
Speakman,
Spencer,
Woodsworth.-21.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Fourth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills,-Mr. Parent.



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Vallance (for Mr. Kay).
On motion of Mr. Vallance the report was concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Kathleen Elizabeth Hedges.-Mr. Lennox.
[Stage Direction]
Federal District Commission
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Lotus Henderson Conover.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Marguerite Trelawney Buller Allan.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Alexander Graham.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 164, for the relief of William Henry Phillips.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Marjory Elgin Burch.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Frances Helen Renison.-Mr. Casselman.
Mr. G. PARENT (Quebec West):: As far
as I am concerned I should like it to be understood that all these bills are carried on division.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Carried on division.



CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the Customs Act, chapter 42 of the revised statutes, 1927, be amended to make provision for a more adequate enforcement of the act and the prevention of smuggling operations in the territorial waters 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]
Mr. EULER moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the Department of National Revenue Act be amended to provide that the minister be empowered to appoint certain classes of officers with such salaries or remuneration as may be determined by the governor in council, and that a gratuity may be paid any officer on retirement in lieu of a period of leave of absence with pay, with further provisions as to filling vacaniees by transfers and promotions for the betterment of the service.
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]
Mr. EULER moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the Special War Revenue Act be amended by repealing the exemption on certain articles and materials, not to include permanent equipment which enters into the cost of manufacture or production of goods, and by further provisions in respect to the imposition of penalties, and for the better enforcement 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]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the Federal District Commission Act, 1927, be amended to provide,
1.	That the period for the payment of the annual grant to the commission, at present fixed at sixteen years from the first day of April, 1927, be extended to thirty years from the first day of April, 1928, the said annual payment to remain at the sum of $250,000;
2.	That the commission may issue securities and the governor in council may authorize the guarantee of the payment of principal and interest thereon, the proceeds to be deposited to the credit of the Minister of Finance in trust for the commission and released by the minister in his discretion for the purposes of the act;
3.	That a sinking fund shall be created and maintained by the commission out of its actual annual income to provide sufficient funds to redeem such guaranteed securities as they respectively become due, and the provisions of the Expropriation Act instead of the railway act shall be made applicable to proceedings of the commission.
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]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister

Radio-Cancellation oj Licenses
if it is the intention of the government, after the recess, to submit to this house for approval, the resolutions passed at the Economic conference of May last, at which the government of this country was represented.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I shall have
to consider that question and give my hon. friend a reply after the recess.



RADIO-CANCELLATION OF LICENSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: I
wish to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if the radio licenses issued to the International Bible Students have been cancelled, and if so for what reason.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: This question has been put to me several times during the week, and I am prepared now to make a declaration in regard to the matter. That declaration is very short and it is this:	In the light of the information voluntarily submitted to the Department of Marine and Fisheries during the past year or more, and with a view of promoting a readjustment of radio broadcasting licenses, it has been decided not to renew the licenses to the International Bible Students.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: To how many cities does this decision apply?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I understand they have two licenses, one in the west and one in Toronto. This applies to both.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):: Will the minister give us the
reason for this action?


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: Some time ago I presented several petitions and letters asking that the license be renewed to radio station C.K.C.X. in Toronto. I have received a large number of additional letters and petitions. What action will be taken in regard to these communications? I believe a great part of the radio fans want this license renewed. April 1st is near, and it is the last day upon which I can bring the matter up before licenses are issued. Is this going to be a matter of party patronage or not?


Hewitt Bostock: Order. A question on the subject to which the hon. gentleman refers was put a moment ago and answered by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to get a
reply in regard to the Toronto station.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Representations have been made to the department on both sides of the question.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister be
good enough to give us the reason for this action?


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to say-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. gentleman has spoken once.


Thomas Langton Church: I may have to move the
adjournment of the house in order to present the facts on this matter.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman cannot move the adjournment of the house at this stage; it is against the rules.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister be
good enough to give us the reason for this action?


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Will the minister be good enough to tell us why these licenses were cancelled?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister be kind enough to give his reasons for that action?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: After considering all the explanations which have been made we thought it advisable to refuse a renewal of the license. The information is contained in numerous letters and protests which are on the departmental files.


Peter McGibbon: I submit that is no reason at all.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. This is what
Bourinot says at page 314:
While explanations of the intentions of the government or of a minister may be asked, their opinion on a matter of policy or of law is not a proper subject of inquiry.


Mr. ARTHURS:: On a point of order, I submit that the minister has given no reason at all. I tihink we should be given the reasons for his decision.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest that the question be put on the order paper and the answer thereto and the reasons can be given.	.


Mr. GARDINER:: I suggest that the minister lay the correspondence on the table so that hon. members may become acquainted with the facts.


Georges Parent: Let the hon. member put his question on the order paper.
Immigrants at Kingston



REPARATIONS COMMISSION REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) asked yesterday what is the intention of the government concerning the Friel report on reparations. I may say in reply that the government is not in a position to submit any legislation on the matter during the course of the present session. Pending the consideration of possible legislation at a later date, the government thinks it would be inadvisable to have the report tabled at present.



REPORT OF FISHERIES COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: On several occasions I have asked the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he is able to give the house any informaton as to when the report of the royal commission investigating the fisheries of the maritime provinces will be tabled. I should like to ask the question again to-day.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not in a position to give any definite answer. The commissioners are preparing the report and I expect to be in a position to table it after Easter.



ROYAL ASSENT

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, March 30, 1928.
Sir,-*
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable F. A. Anglin, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
James F. Crowdy,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Immigration the following facts. Some few days ago there arrived a notice to the superintendent of the employment bureau informing him that eight immigrants classed as farm labourers would arrive in Kingston. When they arrived two were found to be experienced, one partly experienced and the others without any experience. The two experienced and the one partly experienced were

placed immediately. Two others have been placed in Kingston at temporary employment; one is unemployed, and the other two are on the trek to the city of Toronto. The two temporarily employed are taking the positions of two citizens of Kingston and we believe that is a situation which should be stopped. I should like to ask the minister if such a situation will be continued or if there is any plan to rectify it.


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I think the
house will agree with me that the question whether we can meet a situation of that kind is rather a difficult one to answer offhand. There will no doubt be unemployed people in Canada. There will be some difficulty on occasions in finding a place for all the people who come to this country. I have no knowledge of the circumstance to which the hon. member refers; but I will make inquiries in order to find out under whose auspices they came and why they have been allowed to get into the situation in which they find themselves, and should the question be repeated I will endeavour to give a definite answer.
HOME BANK DEPOSITORS On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Finance if the judges of the Exchequer court have been asked for a report regarding the Home Bank. If so, has he received that report.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: The judges of the Exchequer Court are from time to time reviewing cases under the Home. Bank legislation of a couple of years ago. I have asked the auditors, who, I think, have this in charge, to give a report, but I am not sure whether it has been received or not. I will look into the matter and let my hon. friend know.
ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Has the Prime Minister any statement to make to the house with regard to the relationship between this country and Great Britain in respect to the treaty between Great Britain and Egypt?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend had not asked the question which he has just asked, I was about to request the house to allow me to make a statement on a matter of public interest which -arises out of a report that

Anglo-Egyptian Treaty
appears in to-day's papers to the effect that Lord Salisbury, leader in the House of Lords, of the British government, apparently entertained a different point of view with respect to Canada having been asked to become a party to the Anglo-Egypt.ian treaty from that which was expressed by myself in this house in the course of a debate earlier in the week. May I first of all draw the attention of the house to what Lord Salisbury himself observed, namely, that he had not seen my remarks at the time at which he was speaking and therefore he was unaible to say exactly what had been said by myself in that connection? May I also add that I have not seen the despatches that have gone from Canada to Great Britain and I am therefore not in a position to know what has been represented in Great Britain with respect to the remarks which I made in this house? My remarks however are in Hansard, and with respect to what appears in the Hansard report of the debate of the other night I have nothing to alter or change in any particular. I think I can indicate very clearly where any difference in point of view that may exist has arisen, if such in fact is the case.
Lord Salisbury's remarks, as reported in the papers of yesterday and to-day, fall really under four heads. In the first part Lord Salisbury refers to the policy of Great Britain with respect to the Anglo-Egyptian treaty and remarks that it was a policy for the preservation of peace, and that in that particular the policy of the home government is the same as that of the Canadian government. There is no disagreement in any way between us on that; in fact, we are in hearty accord.
Lord Salisbury then refers to the report which was sent of my remarks on the Chanak incident. I ^hiuk I had better read what Lord Salisbury says in that regard and I can then indicate whether or not there is any difference in our point of view with respect to that jncident. Lord Salisbury's remarks as reported in the Canadian Press cable despatch appearing in the different papers, are as follows:
Undoubtedly, Lord Salisbury continued, relations between the component parts of the empire in respect to these high matters were a matter of some difficulty. Undoubtedly the Canadian government were asked to associate themselves with the British government at the time of the Chanak affair, and were asked whether they would be represented by a military contingent in the event of military action being required in those regions.
It was true, Lord Salisbury declared, there were no military operations, but he would not like to lay it down that the result was entirely 5610^-*ia
due to the action of the Canadian government. His recollection was that there was a very strong feeling in Great Britain against military operations on that occasion, and it would not be rash to say that the strong opinions expressed here had at any rate a partial effect, just as the opinion of Canada had, in bringing that incident to the end it reached.
That is entirely the view I took with respect to the effect of Canada's representations on the Chanak appeal, if I might use that expression. I believe it was one of the factors which operated. I have never contended that it was more than that. I agree absolutely with Lord Salisbury in what he says as to the different factors that materially contributed to bring about the termination of the incident to which reference is there made.
The third part of Lord Salisbury's remarks is as follows:
The government leader continued that in regard to the Anglo-Egyptian treaty it was difficult to discuss the matter because he had not yet received the full text of Premier King's observations. He emphasized that all through the negotiations leading to the draft treaty with Egypt the dominion governments had been kept fully informed of every step taken, but the terms which the British government proposed to the Egyptian government were expressly limited to the relations between that government and Great Britain, and on the face of it did not include any of the dominion governments.
My hon. friend who has asked me a question to-day asked me a question in the house on March 9 last with respect to the Anglo-Egyptian treaty. Here is what was then saic; as it appears in Hansard of that date:
Mr. J. S. Woodsworth (Winnipeg North Centre): I should like to ask the government if Canada has been consulted with regard to the policy of Great Britain in Egypt.
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister): I assume that my hon. friend refers to a treaty which was in the course of negotiation between Great Britain and Egypt?
Mr. Woodsworth:	Yes.
Mr. Mackenzie King: The treaty to which my hon. friend has reference was a treaty being negotiated between His Majesty, as representing Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Egypt. The Canadian government was kept informed of the progress of the negotiations.
So that thus far there is no conflict in anjr particular between the statements made by Lord Salisbury and those made by myself. I did state as long ago as March the 9th last that the treaty negotiated was between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Egypt, and that we had been kept informed of the policy of the British government with respect thereto. Let me now continue with the further remarks of Lord Salisbury:
There never was any question of asking the dominions to participate in responsibility for the results of the treaty, he said. The dominions were asked to concur in the general

Anglo-Egyptian Treaty


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Perhaps my right hon. friend could conveniently now give the date of the first draft treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The despatch that I am referring to was received on November the 11th of last year, 1927.
The report of the inter-imperial relations committee of the Imperial conference, 1926, provides that:
Til the case of a treaty applying to only one Part of the empire, it should be stated to be made by the king on behalf of that part.
To the despatch of November 11 we replied on November 22, stating that the Canadian government would raise no objection to His Majesty's government in Great Britain entering into an agreement embodying the substance of the draft treaty, in appropriate form, with the government of Egypt; however, that we could not contemplate recommending to parliament that the treaty should be made applicable to Canada, nor could we undertake to participate in its signature and ratification, and we gave our reasons therefor.
On November 24 we received a despatch, saying that the British government was much obliged for the full explanation given of the position of the Canadian government in relation to the proposed treaty with Egypt.
On December 2 we received a further despatch, saying that the British government had decided to sign the proposed treaty, in view of the replies received from the various dominions; that it was being made clear that, as regards the form, the treaty should be concluded in the manner contemplated in the report of the inter-imperial relations committee of the Imperial conference, 1926, in case of a treaty made on behalf of one part of the empire, that is, that in the preamble it should be confined to Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and should be signed by a plenipotentiary holding a full power limited correspondingly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is that the Prime Minister's deduction, or is it stated in the despatch?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I am giving the substance of the despatches. Hon. members will observe that I am careful to say nothing about the treaty itself. The Imperial government has laid on the table of the British House of Commons all the documents that I think it wishes to have made public with respect to the treaty. I am confining my remarks to the exchange of communications between the British government and our own on the subject of Canada's relation to the treaty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And the final form in which the treaty was executed differed from the original form submitted to the Prime Minister?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has it exactly. May I say to him that the accuracy of what I have stated from the Canadian point of view is conclusively borne out by the white paper which was laid on the table of the House of Commons of Great Britain this year, entitled Papers regarding Negotiations for a Treaty of Alliance with Egypt, a copy of which I hold in my hand. At page 9 of this white paper is the counterdraft approved by His Majesty's government July 28, 1927. The preamble reads:
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Reas, Emperor of India, and His Majesty the King of Egypt.
Then after another paragraph or two comes the following one relating to the powers:
Have agreed to conclude a treaty for this purpose and have appointed as plenipotentiaries:
After a blank the paragraph continues:
Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

Then follows the text of the treaty. Now, under the interpretation set forth by the interimperial relations committee on treaties, a treaty, so drafted, without limitation had it been signed by a plenipotentiary, would have bound Canada along with all the other dominions. Being presented with the full text of the treaty in this form, and being asked to give our concurrence, we interpreted that Canada was asked to be a party to the treaty, and therefore in our reply we were careful to state that we could not become a party to the treaty because, for reasons given we did not believe that this parliament would approve of Canada being made a party thereto.
Now, on pages 35 and 36 of the white paper to which I have already referred appears the draft treaty as it was submitted two days after our despatch, or at any rate after our despatch had gone to Great Britain, stating the position of the Canadian government. The draft is in this form:
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and His Majesty the King of Egypt,-
I am leaving out some of the intervening paragraphs in the preamble.
Have agreed to conclude a treaty for this purpose, and have appointed as plenipotentiaries:
Immigration oj Miners

His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India: _
for Great Britain and Northern Ireland:
The Right Honourable the Lord Lloyd, G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., D.S.O.. Member of His Most Honourable Privy Council:
His Majesty the King of Egypt:
His Excellency Abdel Ivhalek Sarwat Pasha, President of the Council of Ministers;
Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:-
Hon. members will notice that the treaty as finally presented, signed between Great Britain and Egypt, is distinctly limited in the preamble, as should be the case when a treaty applies to only one part of the empire, by saying:
His Majesty for Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Making no reference to any other parts of the empire.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I accept unreservedly Lord Salisbury's statement to the House of Lords that the government of Great Britain had not any intention of obliging the dominions to become a party to the treaty, or even of inviting them to do so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They made a very delicate suggestion.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING' I agree with my hon. friend, I think it was a very delicate suggestion; and I submit that, as presented to us, the documents were not capable of any other interpretation in the light of the rules laid down at the Imperial conference with respect to the negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties. But I hope the explanation which I have made will remove any possibility of difference on that point as between the British government and ourselves.


Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: May I ask the Prime Minister: Egypt then is regarded as a foreign country as the treaty is made with it? Secondly, Canada is not involved in the treaty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, Canada is not bound by the treaty.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: And Egypt is a foreign country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will have to consult some international authority on that point.
IMMIGRATION OF MINERS On the orders of the day:


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker,
while the hon. member for Comox-Albemi

(Mr. Neill) was speaking in the debate on international peace last Wednesday he made the following remark as reported at page 1780 of Hansard:
The Minister of Immigration asks me about the sermon. I will ask him to direct his attention to answering a question which I asked him six weeks ago, to which I have not got an answer yet.
I replied that I would answer him tomorrow. The question that the hon. member asked me is reported in Hansard of February 13:
I would like to ask the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) a question; I see he is not in his place at the moment, but perhaps he can give me an answer to-morrow. I Will first call his attention to a news item appearing in the Sunday Times, of London, England, of December 4, 1927. It consists of only one Bentence, which I will read:
"Every unemployed miner in Great Britain, said Mr. H. H. Stevens. M.P., of Vancouver, who arrived in Liverpool yesterday on the Canadian Pacific liner Melita, "can be found employment in the Cauadian mines, provided he is physically fit."
Also in the Daily Express of December 12, 1927, there appeared the following:
Mr. II. H. Stevens, M.P. for Vancouver, who has just arrived in England, says that every unemployed British miner could find work in the mines of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I hesitated before answering that question because it was asked six weeks ago, and 1 supposed the hon. member for Comox-Albemi had made up his mind to let it drop. When he renewed it on Wednesday I thought this would be a good opportunity to let the house know some of the difficulties with which the Department of Immigration has to contend. I have no proof whatever that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) made the statement attributed to him in the newspaper reports. It may be correct or otherwise. In answer to the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, I would say that he is well aware that every healthy Britisher, mentally and physically fit, can come to Canada when he has paid his passage, and the Department of Immigration-


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon.
in on! 1 )or to confine his explanation to a brief statement.


Robert Forke: I am almost through, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Don't provoke a discussion.


Hewitt Bostock: There can be. nothing
controversial at the moment.


Georges Parent: Why ask questions if you
do not want an answer?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Robert Forke: I am endeavouring to be as brief as possible, Mr. Speaker. I have been blamed for not answering a question asked six weeks ago and I am merely trying now to give the answer. I would point out that when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) made that statement he knew that anyone could come in from Great Britain irrespective of the regulations of the Department of Immigration. May I say this to the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill): The officials in Great Britain are kept well informed of the situation in Canada and they always endeavour as far as possible to guide immigration along the right lines.


Mr. NEILL:: I am entitled to say that the minister has not quoted my question and certainly has not answered it, because my question was: would he use the means at his hand to inform the miners of Great Britain that there was no work for them in Canada?


Arthur Edward Ross: When speaking
of the eight men who came to Kingston I forgot to mention to the minister the fact that if thesei eight men had arrived properly classed we had eight jobs ready for them the morning they came.


Robert Forke: I am not finding fault with
the question.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of ways and means Mr. Johnston in the chair.
James Alexander Robb: that item 267b of the customs tariff be struck out^of said resolution; and that items 438b and *05a be inserted in said resolution.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is just a change to bring the resolutions into conformity with what has already been done?


James Alexander Robb: Yes just to carry out what
we have already done.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: I move:
2. Resolved, that schedule b to The Customs Tariff, being chapter forty-four of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, be amended by striking thereout tariff items 1011, 1012, 1024, 1029, the enumeration of goods, and the rates of drawback of customs duties set opposite to each of the said items, and the following items, enumerations and rates of drawback of customs duties be inserted in the said schedule b:-


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
effect of this?


James Alexander Robb: This merely strikes out the
items that have been corrected.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it that
no change whatever is being made in this proposed resolution except simply to carry into effect what is already done.


James Alexander Robb: That is all.


The CHAIRMAN:: It ratifies what has
been done in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: I move:
3. Resolved, that any enactment founded on the foregoing resolutions shall be deemed to have come into force on the seventeenth day ol February, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the foregoing resolutions imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that date and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is the usual clause?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
change?


James Alexander Robb: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 169, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be
read the second time?


James Alexander Robb: Now, Mr. Speaker, I move
the second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Schedule A amended.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There is one
matter that certainly could have been brought up previously in committee but which can now be considered under the rules. Can the minister tell me what the real reason was for putting wool on the free list?


James Alexander Robb: The item under which wool
carried a duty was practically a dead letter, and has been so for years. It never has been enforced.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But is that not the type of wool we produce here, the coarse wool?
Customs Tariff Bill


James Alexander Robb: I have not the memorandum before me, but many years ago the customs board gave a decision which practically placed that wool on the free list, and it has been on the free list ever since.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
On the title:
Abraham Albert Heaps: There is one matter which
I would like again to bring to the attention of the house, arising out of these tariff adjustments and also having relation to the strike which is taking place in Oshawa. I have no desire to interfere in any way with the efforts being made by the Minister of Labour to bring about a settlement of that dispute; I wish him every success, and hope he can help in an amicable adjustment as between the company and the men. However, when a concern such as the General Motors Corporation cuts wages to the extent of 40 per cent, I cannot help but protest in this house against such action. In a recent issue of the Oshawa Times the general manager of that corporation stated that the average wage of the highest paid workers in that plant is approximately $150 per month. Taking the wages on that basis, this 40 per cent cut will reduce them to not more than $100 per month for the highest paid mechanic, and you can understand the effect that will have on the lower paid workers.


Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):: May I ask a question? Were these wages cut generally, or were they cut in some certain departments?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The wages have been reduced, in certain departments, but the other men and women employed in that industry feel that if this cut is accepted their wages also will be cut. One of the reasons given by the management for the reduction is 'that they can get lots of men to fill the positions occupied by those who have been striking, and the cut is not attributed to any lack of prosperity. I claimed last week that the General Motors Corporation was receiving considerations of a very valuable character from this house, and I state now that if an industry receiving very high protection does not treat its employees fairly, this house has the right to take this protection into consideration, and either reduce or remove it entirely.


Mr. WHITE (London):: If that were done how would it affect the other manufacturers of motor cars in Canada?


Abraham Albert Heaps: It might have the effect of
compelling other motor ear manufacturers to bring pressure to bear upon such companies to make no wage cuts.


Mr. KAISER:: This company is in Oshawa, not in Winnipeg. I should like to ask the hon. member whether anyone concerned in that trouble has asked him to bring these matters before the House of Commons?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am sorry to see any hon.
member of this house take such a narrow view of Canadian affairs as to think that none but the member representing a particular constituency may be interested in conditions obtaining in that constituency. If I had been the member for Oshawa I should have raised this question here long ago. When the matter of the decrease in the tariff was under discussion, hon. members did not have to wait until they were told by someone else what action they should take.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I submit that I am entitled to an answer to my question. I am interested to know whether the labouring people or the corporation in Oshawa have requested the hon. member to bring this matter before the house.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Certainly the employers in
Oshawa have not asked me to raise this question here.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I asked if either party
requested the hon. member to bring this matter before the house.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not see that that question is relevant at all.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: It is a very simple question to answer; it requires only one word.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member who is speaking may be interrupted only with his permission.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When I am through the
hon. member can state where he stands on this question, whether he sides with the employers or with the employees. I am not afraid to say where I stand. I was not going to deal with this question at any length, but in view of the fact that the hon. member has interrupted me I may say more than I had intended.
I remember very well, as do most other members of this house, when these same employees came to Ottawa two years ago. At that time the management looked with very kindly eyes on the workers taking the time off and paying their own expenses to come to Ottawa in protest against the tariff reductions, because they thought their livelihood was

Customs Tariff Bill
being endangered. I remember the placards which they brought along with them, and I am quite sure that the management of the company were in sympathy with the statements contained on those placards. One statement was, "British fair play for Canadians." To-day this American-owned corporation might well give British fair play to these Canadian employees. Another of the placards bore the words, "Our appeal is for our families." That is the very appeal I am making to-day, and my hon. friend from Oshawa (Mr. Kaiser) does not like to hear it made. Then another big placard stated, "The tariff threatens our livelihood." I ask the house if the tariff has done any such thing. The threat to their livelihood to-day comes from the avarice and greed of a soulless corporation. Still another placard stated, "Our living and our homes are at stake." They are at stake to-day, and who is to take the matter up in this house? In view of the conditions which exist, I think the hon. member from Oshawa might well have brought the matter up here. There was another placard which contained the appeal, "Give us a chance to live in Canada." Still another placard declared, "We may lose our jobs." They have left their jobs to-day but it was not the change in the tariff which brought that about. Now I want to quote a statement from the Oshawa Times of Tuesday, March 27, as follows:
Representatives of the various divisions addressed the men to-day at the meeting, and advised them that they must stick together. Men from the Chevrolet and Pcpntiac assembly lines, who are strongest in their sympathy to the trimmers who first walked out, claimed that on their present scale of production, and through efficiency experts who had retimed their line twice, and as a consequence who had speeded up the line, had also made drastic cuts in their wages. They claimed that they now only averaged about fifteen dollars a week.
Now, what was the statement made by the management when the strike occurred? The statement issued by Mr. H. A. Brown, general manager of the Oshawa plants, was as follows -I take it from the Oshawa Times of Monday, March 26:
Rue to the present labour situation should the men refuse to return to work, the company is in a position to fill the vacancies and the production of the current months will be very little affected.
Here you have, Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why the men who went on strike have remained on strike; the management of this corporation think they can fill the places of those who have gone on strike because of a reduction of approximately 40 per cent in their wages.
Now let me deal for a moment with the poverty of the organization known as the General Motors Corporation.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Does the hon. member think that parliament or the government should fix the wages to be paid in this or any other industry?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, parliament does a lot of fixing. I do not use that term in an offensive way or in a way that may be misunderstood, but we have legislation before us at all times in which we regulate the profits of corporations. We fix the tariff to enable an industry to pay fair profits to the shareholders and to yield a fair return on the capital invested in it. I claim that when we grant these concessions to industry or to capital we should give some consideration to the needs of the workers employed in industry. Let me quote now from an article published in a paper entitled "Profits and Wages" under date of March 15 last, which deals with the General Motors Corporation. The heading over that article is "General Motors Profits Equal Payroll for 1927." The article begins with this statement:
The gross profit of the General Motors Corporation in 1927 exceeded the total amount distributed to its employees in wages. This extraordinary result of high-speed exploitation of labour appears in the anual report of this duPont-Morgan automobile giant. The report shows the gross profit at $328,893,359, compared with a payroll of $302,904,988.
The article goes on to say:
The man who invested a little over $700 in General Motors at the beginning of its career is to-day receiving without any work on his part cash dividends equal to the entire yearly wage of the average worker on the payroll.
A worker's life invested in the production of automobiles would thus have a capitalized value of $700.
Further on the article says:
The 1927 report shows that in the last three years $324,091,580 additional capital has been invested in the business and that $212,255,382 of this has come out of excess profits, that is from profits over and above the huge cash dividends which the giant corporation has disbursed.
And then one further item:
If you can follow your way through all this manipulation you can get some sort of an idea of what original investors are making on the money they actually contributed toward producing automobiles. For 1927 it would probably be something like 900 per cent.
I have been quoting from a statement dealing with the General Motors Corporation of which the Oshawa plants are a subsidiary, and I presume that the profits have been as large in Oshawa as in other plants on this
Special War Revenue Act


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Special War Revenue Act, chapter 179 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, and to provide:
_ 1. That section eighty of the said act which imposes an excise tax on automobiles adaptable for passenger use he amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"4. When goods of any class mentioned in schedule I are manufactured or produced in Canada and are for use by the manufacturer or producer thereof and not for sale, such goods shall, for the purposes of this part, be deemed to have been manufactured or produced m Canada and sold, and the sale shall be deemed to have taken place when the goods are used or appropriated for use. The minister may determine the value of the said goods for the tax."
2. That the rate of consumption or sales tax be reduced to 3 per cent and that any enactment which may be founded on this resolution No. 2, shall be deemed to have come into force on the seventeenth day of February, 1928, and to have applied to goods imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that date and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that date.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister explain, particularly section 4?


James Alexander Robb: It is to make it more uniform. According to the memorandum which I have from the Department of National Revenue, some firms in Canada purchase chassis which are not subject to excise tax and build a passenger body thereon, the completed automobile being for the use of such persons or firms and not for sale. As section 80 quoted above imposes an excise tax only when the goods mentioned in schedules 1 and 2 are sold, the department has been unable to collect this tax from these persons when the automobiles are for their own use. If, however, they bought a completed automobile the excise tax would apply.

Special War Revenue Act


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is to prevent any escape from the tax?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The other
section, as I understand it, just puts into effect the budget resolution in regard to reducing the sales tax?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Mr. COOTE:: I wish to ask the minister
a question regarding the excise tax which he removed from automobiles valued at less than 81,200. If I remember well, the promise made by the automobile manufacturers at the time was that they would not take advantage of the remission by using it in the form of protection but would pass the advantage on to the consumers. I am sure that if the minister will take the trouble to look into the matter, he will find that some of the manufacturers who signed the letter are to-day taking full advantage of that remission of excise tax on Canadian-made cars. He made a very definite statement at that time that he would compel those manufacturers to live up to that agreement. I should like to ask the minister if he will not at this session of parliament take proper means to deal with the situation in order to see that these manufacturers pass the advantage on to the consumers of automobiles?


James Alexander Robb: I have no information other
than what my hon. friend has said, nor have I any complaints that the reduction has not been passed on to the purchasers. But after the session, when I have more time, I will look more carefully into the matter. My hon. friend will agree with me that, just on a bare statement, we cannot adopt legislation affecting all the different firms throughout Canada.


George Gibson Coote: In my speech on the budget I showed the automobile prices, which I think cannot be disputed and which prove beyond doubt that most of the firms Who signed that letter are to-day violating their promise. They are taking advantage of the remission and in many cases they are charging the Canadian consumer 30 per cent more for a car than the price in the United States. When they do that they must be taking advantage of the remission of excise tax, and it would not take the officers of the Department of Finance very long to collect information which would convince the minister that this is being done to-day. I do not think parliament can afford to end this session until the matter has been dealt with. These firms should not be allowed to take advantage of the remission and to charge Canadian purchasers this excise tax.


James Alexander Robb: The difference in price cannot all be charged up to the excise tax which was removed. The sales tax still remains.


George Gibson Coote: But there is only a 20 per
cent tariff and a sales tax of less than 5 per cent, so that they are certainly taking advantage of the remission of the excise tax. The prices which I quoted, showing the 30 per cent difference, do not include the sales tax. Those prices are all f.o.b. factory.
I can assure the minister that if he will look into the situation, he will find that in nearly every case they are taking full advantage of the remission of the excise tax. It was stated in the house at the time the remission was granted that they would take advantage of it; that it was simply handing them back five per cent of protection, and the minister assured the house that if they did not pass this reduction on to the consumer, he would find means to make them do so. I hope when we return after the Easter recess he will have taken the trouble to have the officers of his department collect information which I am sure will satisfy him that these manufacturers, in the majority of cases at any rate, are taking advantage of the remission of excise tax; that they are placing the tax in their own pocket and not passing it on to the Canadian consumer at all.


James Alexander Robb: I shall this afternoon direct
the attention of the Department of National Revenue to the observations of my hon. friend and ask them to check the matter up. It may take some time to do so.


Mr. EVANS:: I should like to know what percentage of motor cars made in Canada is imported whether in finished or unfinished parts. I ask this question in view of statements of some of our protectionist friends this year, that owing to the reduction in duty Canadian plants are becoming simply assembling plants.


James Alexander Robb: I cannot give my hon. friend that information now. I will endeavour to get it for him.


John Evans: The value or quantity.


Robert Gardiner: In view of the importance of the letter which was read by the Minister of Finance when the reduction was made in the tariff on automobiles, and remembering the promise he made to this house at that time, I should like to ask him whether he has taken any steps to see that the reduction of five per cent in the excise tax has
Special War Revenue Act

been passed on to the consumer. Has any effort been made by his department or by the Department of National Revenue to see that that promise has been kept?


James Alexander Robb: All I can say in answer to
my hon. friend is to repeat what I said to the hon. member for Macleod, that I had heard no complaints until I listened to the remarks he made a few moments ago.


Robert Gardiner: My question was altogether different from his. I will repeat it. In view of the importance which was attached to the document which the minister read to the house at the time of the reduction in the automobile tax, and in view of the promises he made to the house at that time, has his department made any inquiry to see that that agreement has been lived up to? That is an altogether different question from that of the hon. member for Macleod.


James Alexander Robb: I can tell my hon. friend that we have quite enough to do without chasing after trouble. We have had no complaints.


Robert Gardiner: This is not a question of chasing after trouble. A promise was made to the house and to the people that this matter would be closely scrutinized to see that the people got the advantage of this reduction, instead of the automobile manufacturers.


James Alexander Robb: I cannot give my hon. friend
any other answer than I have given. This is a very large country, and it is reasonable to suppose that if the people, reading the proceedings of parliament, observed that that promise had been made, they would not hesitate to put in a complaint if they were not satisfied.


Robert Gardiner: As I understand the
situation at that time, it was not contemplated that the people would have to put in a complaint to get justice. The situation then was altogether different from the way the minister presents it to-day. It is very obvious that the Finance minister has not lived up to that promise, and under those circumstances he might just as well admit it. I appeal to him now to live up to the promise he made at that time.


George Gibson Coote: I would just like to direct
the attention of the committee and of the Minister of Finance to the percentage of increase in the price of certain makes of cars in Canada over the prices charged in the United States; and these prices do not include any tax; they are f.o.b. factory. I have taken them from the newspapers and other publications in Canada and the United States. I

quote them subject to correction, but to the best of my knowledge they are absolutely correct. Hon. members will find that I quoted these figures in my speech on the budget on March 6 (Hansard, page 1127), showing that the price of a Ford coupe is 29.1 per cent higher in Canada than in the United States; a Whippet coach 29.9 per cent higher; an Erskine coach 35.4 per cent higher; and a Chrysler coupe 29.8 per cent higher. The makers of all these cars I have mentioned signed the letter which has been referred to here to-day, and I think there is evidence enough in the figures I have quoted to convince the minister that it is necessary to deal with this subject.
In my opinion the point raised by the hon. member for Acadia was well taken. The Finance minister has plenty of men in his department to spare one to look after the interests of the public. It is pretty hard for the public to know whether or not this particular remission in the excise tax is being taken advantage of by the manufacturers, but as I remember the discussion that took place here, in 1926, and relate it to the prices now being charged by these firms, I am sure that these firms are taking advantage of the remission. Before this change was made in the excise tax, at the request of the manufacturers, as I remember very well, the prices in Canada were approximately 25 per cent higher than in the United States, and that was about as high as the Canadian manufacturers could get them unless our people were to go over the border and drive their new cars in here. But to-day the increase is approximately 30 per cent, because of the remission in the excise tax that has been made on Canadian made cars. I hope the minister will press this matter energetically. I am glad he has said that he will look into it, and I hope we may look for some action on his part when parliament resumes after the Easter recess.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: I am glad that the Finance minister says he will look into this matter. It has been my opinion since the very first that the manufacturers of automobiles have been taking advantage of this reduction in the excise tax. Anyone who has been closely connected with the motor car industry or has been in the agency business knows that soon after the tariff was reduced on the lower priced cars from 35 to 20 per cent there was a reduction in the price of these cars, but whereas the tariff reduction amounted to 15 peir cent, the reduction in the price of the oars amounted to only 10 per cent. I think that reduction was made by the manufacturers for a purpose. Shortly

Copper Bounties Act
after the tariff was reduced by 15 per cent the automobile manufacturers came to parliament and promised that if the excise tax were removed they would pass that reduction on to the consumer. To my mind what really happened after the excise tax was removed was that the remaining 5 per cent of the 15 per cent tariff reduction, which would have to go in the course of time in any event, was passed on to the consumer; and the reduction of the excise tax was taken advantage of by the manufacturers themselves and no corresponding reduction was made to the consumer. I remember discussing this matter at the time with some automobile agents, and they distinctly told me that following the 15 per cent tariff reduction, only a 10 per cent reduction was made in the price of cars, and they wanted to know why a still further reduction should no-t be made in the price. To my mind it was a plan on the part of the automobile industry to hold back the remaining five per cent in order to secure a reduction of the excise tax. If the minister looks into the matter, I am sure he will find that I am in large measure right in what I say.


James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the following be inserted in the resolutions amending the Special War Revenue Act:
That Part IT of the Special War Revenue Act, chapter 179, revised statutes of Canada, be repealed as from the 31st of December, 1927.
The explanation of this amendment is as follows: Part II of the Special War Revenue Act imposes a tax of 1 per cent upon the gross interest from loans and investments in Canada and upon the gross income from business transacted in Canada. Such tax is a deduction from the tax otherwise payable under the Income War Tax Act. There is but a small collection of revenue under this act over the amount that would otherwise be collected under the Income War Tax Act, and rather than have a multiplicity of taxes this is repealed. Further, the excess apart from Income War Tax that is collected is generally from companies that have no profits, as the tax under the Special War Revenue Act is upon the gross income or interest.
It is estimated that the reduction in revenue will not exceed $30,000. It will save a lot of bookkeeping, and probably the loss in revenue will be more than offset by the gain in respect to administration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It has been a surprise to me that the law has remained as it is for so long. It was entirely an emergency
tax, the idea of the tax being, of course, to get money at the earliest possible moment and in as large sums as possible. I think the tax was imposed in 1915.


James Alexander Robb: 1914.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was subsequently looked after by the Income Tax Act and income derived from all lines of business carried on in Canada by -those companies was immediately taxable in gross; this one per cent charge was taken from it. When the Income Tax Act came into force it was apparent that it would be absolutely unjust to keep up two sets of taxation; but on the other hand money was exceedingly scarce and the burdens of the country exceedingly great, and accordingly the old act was retained for the purpose of reaching those who otherwise would not be taxable under the Income Tax Act. Well, we have had the exemptions enlarged, and this act should have gone with those exemptions long ago. I have no doubt that what my hon. friend says is absolutely correct, that it is costing just as much in keeping this out-of-date measure upon our statutes as is collected under it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution as amended agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend The Copper Bounties Act, 1923, and to provide that the payment of bounties at the rate of one-half of one cent per pound on copper bars or rods, as described in the said act, be continued up to the thirtieth day of June, 1931.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: How much was paid in 1927 for bounties on copper; and why is it considered necessary to extend the act for three years more?


James Alexander Robb: On the basis of the production in 1926-27 there would have been paid in bounties, at the new rate, $93,950.93, and for the ten months ending January 31, 1928, at the new rate, $50,900. This resolution is to continue the bounty for three years at the lowest rate of -i cent per pound. It started at li cents, scaling down from time to time. By 1931 we are assured that the industry will be on a solid footing.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: How many companies have been able to take advantage of this act?


James Alexander Robb: Only one, so far as I know.
Mr. ESLIN'G: I should like to say a word, Mr. Chairman, on the very important in-
Copper Bounties Act

dustry to which the resolution refers. It provides for an extension of the bounty of i cent per pound until June 31, 1931, on copper bars and rods manufactured in Canada and sold for consumption in Canada from copper produced in Canada from ore mined in Canada. We have here an indication of some desire to encourage the creation of Canadian payrolls by the production and manufacture of one of our resources. This bounty is available to any individual or syndicate of individuals who choose to invest their capital in the construction of refineries. It is true that at the present time there is but one beneficiary, but I have been advised by well-informed operators that before the period of this extension expires there will be a very decided change, resulting in more and larger refineries being established. To-day, so far as I can learn, outside the United States there are but three copper refineries in the world. One is in Australia, another in Canada and a third in Japan.
You can readily understand what an enormous output the United States has when it is stated that 96 per cent of the world's copper supply is controlled and refined in that country. We have simply five per cent remaining for these other three refineries. The Canadian refinery is located in Trail, in the district of W'est Kootenay, British Columbia. It produces 10,000 tons, or 20,000,000 pounds of refined copper per year, valued at approximately 33,000,000. But in addition to the refined copper turned out at Trail, there. is produced in Canada raw copper, copper matte and blister copper to the value of $12,000,000. This entire output is shipped to the United States, where it is refined. These properties are located largely on the Pacific coast. They are controlled by United States interests, and naturally those interests are quite willing to have the raw material go to the States where wages are expended in refining it.
Not only do we lose the wages paid on refining this raw material in the United States, but out of $12,000,000 worth shipped to that country $7,000,000 worth is returned to Canada for consumption here. As the United States control 95 per cent of the world output, they also control the price, and they take advantage of that control by fixing two prices, one for home consumption and the other for export, the export price being $8 per ton in excess of the domestic price. So that the copper control of the United States enables their operators to say to the world at large: That is our price; you will pay us

$8 a ton in excess of what we sell for home consumption or you may leave it, just as you please.
Now, with the enormous production there you can understand that the United States has the advantage also of refining copper more cheaply. This will be readily apparent when I state that at the refinery in Trail they turn out 20,000,000 pounds per year, while in just one tankroom in the plant at Anaconda, in the States, they turn out 17,000,000 pounds in one month-a very decided difference. We all realize what wonderful activities are in progress in a mining way throughout the Dominion to-day. In fact, I think it is generally admitted that these activities have just started.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Did I understand the
hon. member to say that the refinery at Trail is working at full capacity, or not?


Mr. ESLING:: No. I say it refines 10,000
tons or 20,000,000 pounds a year. I say there is so much mining activity to-day that in a very short time there will be more smelters, more concentrators and more refineries in the Dominion, particularly if they are given proper encouragement. The prospects are so bright, I have been informed, that before the period expires for the payment of this bounty there will be refineries in Canada producing 100,000 tons of refined copper per annum. One hundred thousand tons of refined copper produced from ore mined and smelted in Canada would not only create an enormous payroll but would open various avenues of business and trade, and you can readily understand the prosperity that would follow. It would not only create Canadian payrolls but it would go very much farther, by enabling Canada to care for the copper and metal requirements of the British Empire. The empire to-day purchases from $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 worth of copper annually from the United States and on that purchase of forty or fifty millions is paid this excess of $8 per ton on such as is not manufactured. The last figures available of exports from the United States to various parts of the Empire are for 1926, but they are very fair indications of what the 1927 figures will show. In the year 1926 the United States exported copper to the United Kingdom to the value of $29,000,000; to Canada, $6,500,000; to British India, $846,000; to Australia, $214,000; to Hong Kong, $135,000; to British South Africa, $155,000; and the balance to other sections of the empire. You can see, therefore, the absolute hold which the copper trust of the United States has on the empire at large and you can

Copper Bounties Act
readily understand how urgent it is that this condition should be changed, because every country over which the British flag floats pays that excess of $8 per ton. In view of what has happened in the past there is nothing in the world to prevent this copper trust from saying, "We will make it $18 instead of $8 . And Canada would have to pay the toll in common with the rest of the empire. This possibility is emphasized by our experience during the war. When the allies needed copper the United States control simply said, "Our price is 31J cents and it will have to be paid". And it was paid. The hon. leader of the opposition the other day referred to the zinc situation during the war, when the United States controlled the world's zinc supply. They then fixed the price at 44 cents per pound, and it was due entirely to the work of the research laboratory at Trail, which solved the problem of treating zinc ores, that the smelter there was able to break the combine and provide the allies with zinc at from 12 to 15 cents per pound. That result is to be attributed to research. You can go back further in the research work and other activities on the part of the Trail smelter and you have the interesting fact that that smelter perfected the process of refining lead by electricity, as a result of which Trail had the first electrolytic lead refinery in the world. Hon. gentlemen all know that the major portion of our asbestos goes to the United States as well as the greater portion of our nickle, where these products are manufactured and shipped back to us in the finished state in very large quantities. Last year there came back to the empire $1,000,000 worth of asbestos products on which wages were paid in the United States, and there was shipped to the empire at large $1,000,000 worth of Canadian nickel manufactured in the States.
Obviously, therefore, this is a very important subject. When we consider the prospects of our mineral development we can see that the result will be the establishment of smelters, concentrators and refineries, and this will mean not only more Canadian pay cheques for Canadian workmen but, if the government is so disposed, it will mean the protection of the empire's metal requirements against foreign control and price dictation.
As a result of the recent imperial conference Canada, we are told, had assumed a new constitutional status and was now an independent nation. Be that as it may, the fact remains that our geographical status is the same. Our borders are open on three sides and just so long as Canada remains withm the empire we shall be absolutely and directly
dependent upon the mother country for protection. You cannot get away from that. But we are becoming so carelessly indifferent to that fact that we are forgetting that to-day our security rests entirely with the British navy; and for that security and protection we contribute not one dollar to the British exchequer. It sounds well, no doubt, to be referred to as an independent nation, and it adds to our national pride to feel that we are almost a great nation. But it seems to me that it would be everlastingly to the credit of Canada if at the same time we could be stamped in the eyes of the world as a grateful nation; and I think the best way we could show our gratitude would be by protecting the empire's needs for such minerals and metals as we produce. I do not think the government would make any mistake if it formulated a policy whereby the minerals and metals of this Dominion might be conserved for the use of Canada and of the empire at large, so as to render us absolutely free from the dictation and price control of a foreign country. I am quite confident that Great Britain would co-operate and lend encouragement, and very probably other assistance, in carrying out such a policy, and I am equally confident that this house and the country generally would heartily approve of any measure which would free Canada and the empire from the price control and dictation to which it is now subjected.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Some years ago a friend
of mine got me interested in a copper mine near Stewart, and he gave me a piece of information which I submit to the Minister of Finance for what it is worth. He told me that in connection with the smelting trade they were mining some copper ores near Stewart, and he said that ores could be shipped by the Panama canal to Swansea and be refined there cheaper than it could be done shipping by rail to Trail. If that be the case it would seem that there is discrimination against our own smelter at Trail, or that the rates are too high.


John Evans: May I ask the minister a
question? What is the value of the product on which this bounty is paid?


James Alexander Robb: It is selling to-day at from
14 to 15 cents a pound refined, in the bar.


John Evans: What was the total value
of the product on which this bounty was paid?


James Alexander Robb: I could not give my hon.
friend that information, but I can tell him the bounties which have been paid since the act was passed. In round figures those sums
Copper Bounties Act

are $14,551, 814,822, $93,263,	$70,978, and
about $68,000 last year. It is estimated that the bounty of one-half cent per pound will amount to about $50,900 on the same production. We are simply extending this act as it is now for another three years. The act provides a maximum of $200,000 in any one year, and does not apply on bars which are exported; they must be sold in Canada.


John Evans: What is the percentage of
the bounty to the value of the production?


James Alexander Robb: I have not that information.


Alan Webster Neill: Coming from British Columbia, I am naturally in favour of the extension of this bounty, which I think was started in 1923. I remember the criticism made against it at that time. It has been well said that the lines of political thought are devious, and I could not help thinking of that when I heard the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling) tell us we should support this extension because of our gratitude to the British Empire for the protection afforded us by the British navy. According to the statement of the hon. member Canada produces about five per cent of the copper production of the world; if the United States controls 95 per cent of the production, I do not think the British navy will be materially affected by what we do in connection with a fractional part of that 5 per cent, because we are not granting a bounty on the entire Canadian production. I am not familiar with the conditions at Trail; I have never been there, but I believe it is one of the largest smelters in Canada, and if I am not mistaken it is controlled by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I must suppose that the tons there are different from the tons in other parts of British Columbia, because the hon. member stated that the output was 10,000 tons or 3,000,000 pounds.


William Kemble Esling: No, valued at $3,000,000.


Alan Webster Neill: I accept the correction, but
I have another point to bring up. The hon. member has told us that the body which controls the price of copper in the United States has a habit of fixing the price of copper to be used in Canada or any other place outside the United States at $8 a ton more than the United States price. I would suggest that that is a pretty liberal protection in itself for Canadian manufacturers. So to start with, we have a protection of $8 per ton if the statement of the hon. member for West Kootenay is correct, and on top of that we 
have this bonus ranging from one and a half cents to one-half cent per pound, or from $30 to $10 per ton, so it would seem to me that the Smelter Co. is being fairly well taken care of.


Mr. BROWN:: Is this the same concern
which controls the smelting of lead at Trail?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, lead and zinc.


John Livingstone Brown: There are some interesting facts in that connection. There is a duty of $20 a ton on lead, and some of us were very interested to find the other day that the people who use lead in the manufacture of paint, for example, buy their lead from Trail and pay that duty. This company which furnishes the lead takes full advantage of that duty except for about ten cents per hundred, which just enables them to hold their trade. One interesting feature which we discovered is that the price paid at Montreal for the lead bought from Trail is the price of lead on the London market plus the duty, plus the freight from London to Montreal. The Montreal price has no relation to the freight rate from Trail to Montreal, except when navigation closes on the St. Lawrence and the freight from London to Montreal goes up about 25 cents a hundred because it has to be landed at Halifax. Then, almost automatically, the smelter at Trail raises the price of the lead by exactly that amount, so the whole evidence is that the lead smelter at Trail is taking the full advantage of the duty with the exception of just enough to enable them to hold the trade. Paint is used very extensively in Canada, and it would be used a great deal more if we could get it at a lower price. In view of the conditions which prevail in regard to lead, and I think I have stated them fairly, this kind of bonus or protection to an institution which is taking full advantage of the Canadian consumer does not appeal to us very strongly.


John Evans: I hope our protectionist
friends will take note of that.


William Russell Fansher: With regard to this bounty on copper it is interesting to remember that just a few years ago the predecessor of the present Minister of Finance discontinued the bounty on crude petroleum because fields were being opened in Canada which would draw very heavily on the treasury of the country if the bounty were continued.
I would point out that the same condition will obtain in the copper industry, because in the very near future the production of copper in this country will amount to something it is hardly possible to imagine, from the oper-

Copper Bounties Act
ations which are now taking place in the northern parts of some of the western provinces. In view of this fact I think it would be well for the minister to consider whether this extension should not be limited to one year, or to two years at the most.


William Kemble Esling: The amount of the bounty would not be affected by the copper production. The bounty is paid on the refined copper, and it takes two or three years to build refineries.


Arthur Edward Ross: I should like to say just a few words in support of this resolution. It is all very well' to laugh at the small production which we have obtained in Canada so far, but this smelter at Trail is one of the achievements in Canada of which we might well be proud. We only wish we had an equally large smelter in eastern Canada. Some years ago I pointed out the benefits to Canada derived from this smelter. Mention was made here to-day of a mine somewhere near Stewart. If there was a smelter near Stewart, we would be refining a great deal of lead. The Trail smelter only takes care of its own field, and the result is that the ores from such places as Stewart have to be sent to the refineries of the United States.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The statement is made
that ores can be shipped from Stewart by way of the Panama canal to Swansea, Wales, at a cheaper rate than they can be shipped to Trail.


Arthur Edward Ross: Quite true. There
is a refinery near Stewart which is also American.
I should like to point out that the present production is largely due to the work of the prospector, and if you study conditions in eastern Canada and Northern Ontario and Quebec you will find the situation to be this: For some years prospectors were taught to look for gold and silver, and the result was they found no other minerals. During the last few years, however, they have been taught to search for copper, lead and zinc, and they find these minerals in great quantities in northern Ontario and Quebec. If this bounty is continued-although I am not in favour of a bounty, as of some other form of protection-we will have a smelter established in eastern Canada equal to that at Trail. Then there will be competition and a reduction in price, and in _**-'tern Canada we shall be in a more independent position. There is no question about it. For- years the International Nickel Co. has been operating round
Sudbury but it has confined its work to nickel. We have tremendous fields of copper the result of persons being taught to look for them. They are now being discovered by prospectors trained in our mining schools, and the result is that in a very few years the development will be something beyond what any person in Canada can now imagine.


Mr. LA  PIERRE@: I concur in the remarks
which have been made by the hon. member for Kingston. Few of us are aware of the tremendous possibilities in connection with the recent discoveries that have been made in northern Ontario and northern Quebec. Our copper industry is in its infancy, though in the district which I have the honour to represent we have been producing copper for forty years. We also supply 85 per cent of the world's nickel. Recently there has been discovered in the nickel fields of Ontario one of the largest copper deposits on the American continent, and one of the strange features of this discovery is that this copper was found in connection with nickel. When the nickel mine at Frood had been sunk to a depth of over 3,000 feet a tremendous body of high grade copper ore was discovered; and to-day the International Nickel Co. and the Mond Nickel Co. have entered into a development that will entail an expenditure of eighteen or twenty million dollars. It would be almost fatal to the copper industry at the present juncture if the present bounty were discontinued. If there was any time in the history of the copper industry when the bonus should be maintained it is now. There has been discovered in one mine alone, the Frood mine of the International Nickel Co., a body of high grade ore which has an estimated value to-day of over $1,000,000,000. This is only one of the mines in the district adj oining these big copper deposits. Discoveries of lead and zinc have also been made and these promise to become sources of tremendous wealth to Canada. There is no doubt that with the continuation of this bounty, you will see in the Sudbury district within a very few years, one of the largest smelters on the American continent. The International Nickel Co. have also laid the foundations for a smelter the estimated cost of which is nearly $10,000,000. They have completed their shaft, 17+ by 20 feet, to a depth of 3,044 feet, and it is the largest on the American .continent. They have localized their ore bodies, and are now in a position to go ahead and develop their mines. Imagine for a moment what the effect would be on this industry if the bounty were discontinued at the present time. Copper is one of the basic metals of
Special War Revenue Act

the world to-day and industry is continually finding new uses for it. Would it not be unwise in view of the great amount of prospecting that has been done, and the large amount of capital which has been invested in the mining industry, to remove the bounty at the present time? There is no doubt in the minds of those who are familiar with the geological formation of our great pre-Cambrian shield that the discovery of copper on this scale is only one of the many discoveries that will be made in the near future, and I am very much in favour of having this bounty continued.


Alfred Speakman: I have just one comment to make and that is with respect to the somewhat singular argument that has been advanced in support of the continuation of this bounty. We have been accustomed to hear that owing to the mass production in the United States they can flood our market with cheap goods, and the Dumping Act has been applied to prevent products from the United States being sold at a lower rate than the rate at which they are sold in the domestic market. Now we are asked to provide a bounty for the copper industry and one of the reasons advanced in its support is that products from the United States are being sold here at a price which is $8 higher than the rate in the domestic market. On the one hand it seems that action must be taken to prevent the importation of articles from the United States at a lower price than is current there, and on the other we are told that we must have this bounty because we are charged an excessive price by United States smelters. I am not in favour of the bounty, although I should like to see Canadian ores refined in Canadian refineries, but some of the arguments that have been advanced are singular, to say the least.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 170, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There is some
other legislation in connection with this bill and it should be left in committee.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.
Progress reported.



COPPER BOUNTIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 171, to amend the Copper Bounties Act, 1923.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. ROBB moved the second reading of the bill.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and considered in committee.
Mr. ROBB moved the third reading of the bill.


Edward Joseph Garland: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the third time and passed.



EXPERIMENTAL FARMS STATIONS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 10, to amend the Experimental Farms Stations Act-Mr. Motherwell-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. DAIRY INDUSTRY ACT AMENDMENT
The house in committee on Bill No. 12, to amend the Dairy Industry Act-Mr. Mother-well

Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Agriculture-Health of animals, administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, and necessary buildings: $2,270,000.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I understand that
the Black Rod will arrive on the scene in about seven minutes, but I promised the
hon. member for Victoria that we would go into supply. Whether it is worth while to stay in supply until that momentous moment arrives, it is for the committee to say.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I could not get my supply through in that time.


William Richard Motherwell: I had no idea until just now that we were not going to sit tonight. As requested by the hon. member for Acadia, I have had prepared a number of copies of the proposed expenditure under the various subdivisions of this vote, and

Supply-A griculture
while these are being distributed to hon. members, I will read the details:
Health of Animals Branch Estimates 1928-29
Animal Contagious Diseases Division (Field inspection, tuberculosis eradication policies, animal quarantine, inspection of animals for import and export) Salaries of employees.. ..$514,000
Travelling expenses	 300,000
Tuberculosis compensation.. 702,200 Hog Cholera compensation. .	10,000
Glanders compensation.. ..	7,000
Mange eradication	 17,000
Rentals of offices and other
buildings	 7,400
Printing and stationery.. ..	14,000
Miscellaneous accounts.. ..	35,000

Meat and Canned Foods Division (Inspection of meat packing establishments, canning factories, etc.)
Salaries of employees.. ..$550,700
Travelling expenses	 25,000
Printing and stationery.. ..	10,000
Miscellaneous accounts..	..	12,850

Pathological Division
(Research work in animal diseases, preparation of tuberculin, etc., diagnosis of disease from specimens)
Salaries of employees.. .. $35,850
Travelling expenses	 1,500
Miscellaneous accounts.. ..	27,500
64,850
Total	$2,270,000


Edward Joseph Garland: I understood that the ex-Minister of Agriculture wanted to say something on this item, but if he is not going to speak now-


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I said that I could not do anything in four minutes, and that is all that is left now.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then I
would like to ask the minister what is the reason for the increase of $68,000.


William Richard Motherwell: This is a progressively increasing work, and naturally it requires an increasing amount of money each year, especially the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. As a result of the suspension of the export trade in cattle to Great Britain, we have been able to extend the work much more rapidly this year as we have been able to use the services of twenty-five veterinarians who had been formerly engaged in accompanying shipments of cattle exported overseas, but even with this help we are not able to keep up with the applications from the various provinces for the organization and establishment of further restricted areas for the eradication, so far as is humanly pos-56103-119
sible, of tuberculosis in cattle. It is the extension of that work that is the main reason for this increase.


Edward Joseph Garland: In view of the large amount involved in this item and the contentious nature of the purpose for which the sum is voted, I think it will be proper for the minister at this stage to make a report to the house covering the operation of the plan to date, and giving the percentage of reduction in bovine tuberculosis wherever eradication has really occurred, as well as the total cost of the scheme if it is to be extended over the immense area of Canada. The minister will perhaps be at greater ease if I concentrate my suggestion to him in a single sentence. What I would like him to do is now to make a report to the committee on the operation, success, and future of the bovine tuberculosis eradication plan.


William Richard Motherwell: That is under the restricted area plan. There are three plans.


Edward Joseph Garland: Cover the whole business.


William Richard Motherwell: The restricted area plan was first adopted in Manitoba, at the request of the provincial Department of Agriculture there, in 1923. At first it took in just three municipalities, and the area was extended to four a year or two afterwards. That area was not only the first restricted area in Canada, but the first in the British Empire. About a year after that, a restricted area was established in the province of Quebec in the counties of Bieauhamois, Huntingdon, and Chateauguay. This was extended last year as far as the Richelieu river and was further extended this year from the Richelieu river to the St. Francis river. Next, the whole province of Prince Edward Island was made a restricted area, and we found there the smallest percentage of reactors in any province of the Dominion. Only 0.59 per cent of the total cattle population of the Island reacted to the test, if I remember aright. Then about two and a half years ago, we established an area in the Fraser river valley in British Columbia. That is the source from which New Westminster and Vancouver get all their milk supply.


Edward Joseph Garland: That statement is true in so far as the initial test is concerned.


William Richard Motherwell: Six municipalities
in Last Mountain formed the next restricted area, and that has not been extended, although there are applications in for its en-

Immigration Act

largement. Next, we established a small area in New Brunswick about ten miles out from the city of Fredericton, containing about two or three thousand cattle. A year ago this spring Prince Edward county in Ontario was organized as the first area of this nature in this province. In Nova Scotia we have practically the whole province, in hand, with the exception of Cape Breton island. Twenty-nine veterinarians have been there since last October, and will continue possibly until about July 1. It is considered that Cape Breton is sufficiently segregated from the rest of the province to avoid any risk of contagion being spread to the mainland from there. The farmers of Cape Breton island are not quite ready to ask for this service until they see how it results in the other parts of the province. I think all the information in connection with this matter is contained in very concise form in a return to an inquiry by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland).
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the senate.
Accordingly the house went up to the senate.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting the Canadian National Railways and respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company five per cent income charge convertible debenture stock.
An act to amend the Income War Tax Act.
On motion of Mr. Robb the house adjourned at 6 p.m. until Tuesday, April 10.
Tuesday, April 10, 1928