1928-03-20

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, a number of 56103-961
hon. members have made inquiries as to the government's intention with respect to an Easter adjournment, and it might enable hon. gentlemen to make their arrangements for the Easter vacation if I were immediately to intimate to the house what the government has in mind. It is our intention to ask that when the house adjourns on Friday of next week it stand adjourned until the Tuesday following Easter Monday, which is April 10. This would mean that hon. members would have opportunity for a vacation of ten days, with a loss in that period of time of only two and a half days of the time that otherwise the house would be sitting. Seeing that parliament was called together in January, we feel that for this and other reasons it would be desirable to have such an intermission. Therefore, with the consent of the house, I move:
That when the house adjourns on Friday the 30th March instant it stand adjourned until Tuesday, the tenth of April next.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, most of the members from Ontario and Quebec can go home, but the government should remember that we from the west cannot take advantage of the proposed adjournment unless we spend all our time travelling. I think a vacation, say, from Wednesday preceding Good Friday until the following Tuesday is long enough for Easter holidays. I protest against the length of time suggested.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried on division.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it carried unanimously?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the
observations he has just made, the right hon. Prime Minister may think it well to intimate to the house what legislation we may expect to complete the government's program, so that we may have that matter also in mind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be pleased to give
my hon. friend and the house the information desired in the course of a day or two.
Judges' Salaries



JUDGES' SALARIES


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:: That a special committee consisting of fifteen members to be selected at a later date be appointed to consider the question of the adequacy of the remuneration paid to the judges of the various courts in Canada, and all matters pertaining thereto, with power to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and to report from time to time.
He said: Mr. Speaker, during recent years legal associations and other bodies have passed resolutions asking parliament to consider the remuneration; of judges. Those resolutions have been received from time to time and the matter has been referred to incidentally, especially during last session. Since then the Canadian Bar Association has taken formal action and adopted certain resolutions, which have been submitted to the government by a committee of the association. As Minister of Justice I have been receiving resolutions from the law associations of every province with regard to this matter. Moreover, a committee of various county court judges is to meet the government in support of the claim that they have submitted for higher remuneration. We promised at the time that the matter would be called to the attention of parliament for consideration and study. I believe that inasmuch as the judges are servants of the people and therefore more properly servants of parliament rather than of the government the question should be considered by parliament, and I do not see any better way of dealing with it than by the appointment of a special committee for the purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I greatly regret that I am entirely opposed to the appointment of a committee to deal with this matter. As I explained to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on a previous occasion, I am wholly in accord with the idea of increasing the salaries of judges in this country. I have so stated publicly, and I was one of those who constituted a committee to wait upon the government as representing the Canadian Bar Association. I have long taken the view that if we are to command for the public service as judges the best men in the legal profession we must pay them salaries commensurate with the dignity and the responsibility of the position they hold. But I cannot agree with the appointment of a committee to examine witnesses under oath and to send for papers and' persons; I do not believe that this would serve the

purpose intended. The appointment of a committee would be, in my opinion, fraught with the gravest possibilities of disaster to the whole project. Moreover, it is not the method that should be followed in dealing with a matter of this kind. All that is necessary is to amend the Judges Act. All that is essential to accomplish the object which the government has in view is for the minister to bring in the necessary measure-because obviously the opposition cannot introduce a bill involving the payment of moneys from the public exchequer-and I venture to say that most of those who sit on this side will be glad to give it their support. But to appoint a committee at this time is in my opinion not only wrong; it Shifts responsibility and' makes it impossible to deal with the question as it should be dealt with. I cannot think that the calling of witnesses, the bringing of papers, and a general discussion in a select committee of this house would be anything but injurious to the very purpose we hope to accomplish; and I can only say on behalf of myself and of those associated with me-


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend indicate in what way the consideration of the question by a committee of parliament might be injurious to the object in view?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The very bringing of
papers and the examination of witnesses, as suggested in the motion, would bring about such discussions as would, in my judgment, render it impossible in the end to carry into effect the purpose which the minister desires to achieve. That is my view. I may be altogether wrong, and I am only expressing my own opinion, as I did to my hon. friend the other day. It seems to me that the Minister of Justice should introduce a bill to amend the Judges Act, increasing the present salaries of the judges by such an amount as in his opinion, and in the opinion of the executive of the country, the cabinet, would be a reasonable addition to the stipends they now receive. Certainly most of those associated with me on this side would be glad to support such a measure. That is the only position I can take.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I ask the
leader of the opposition whether he implies that this is a matter that will not stand investigation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Had that observation
come from anyone less educated than my hon. friend I would treat it with contempt. The hon. member is perfectly well aware that the judges of this country 'are discharging by all odds the gravest, the most serious and

Judges' Salaries
the most difficult duties with which men can be charged in a free country, and it is essential that the compensation paid them for the services they render should be at least consistent with the obligations that are imposed upon them, as well as with the dignity of the position they hold. Any investigation that might be held in this house certainly would not disclose any facts other than these, while on the other hand much extraneous matter would be dragged in. The result would be that instead of the committee being able to focus its attention upon the one point that would be considered in this house in committee on a bill for the purpose, a great deal of irrelevant discussion would ensue with respect to whether John Smith might not be able to live cheaper, whether John Jones was receiving enough to cope with the high cost of living, or whether he ought to keep an automobile or a pair of horses. For these reasons I am opposed to the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On different occasions we
have heard in this chamber the suggestion that the government, in respect of measures of this kind, should seek to take parliament more into its confidence before bringing down legislation. We felt that in this particular instance there was strong ground for acting upon that suggestion. If all of us were members of the legal profession, as are my hon. friend and the Minister of Justice, we should have no difficulty in appreciating fully the reasons that make it all-important that the judiciary in this country should be well paid. But we are not all in that position, and there are some hon. members of the house, and many persons throughout the country as well, who find it difficult to appreciate the reasons why members of the judiciary should receive not only increases in their salaries but the salaries which at the present time they are actually being paid. The government believes that if a committee were appointed representative of all groups in the house and occasion afforded to interested parties to appear and submit their views, the probable result will be that an agreement will be reached whereby the house will be saved a controversy which might be unduly protracted and might in some other respects be unfortunate. For these reasons, and following to some extent a parallel method of procedure-I will not call it a precedent-which has been adopted elsewhere, we have thought it advisable to suggest the appointment of a committee. The United States congress last year, I am informed, had under consideration a proposal to increase the salaries of judges.
Preceding the discussion of the question in congress a committee was appointed before whom representations were made by interested' parties. The result there was apparently satisfactory to the administration in meeting just the kind of difficulties I have indicated may arise. The government considering, as I have said, the frequent expression of the view that some of these matters involving executive action might be proceeded with the better, if in the first instance hon. members were taken more largely into its confidence, deemed it advisable to have a special committee appointed for the purpose.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: With reference to the points mentioned by the Prime Minister, does he not think that the proposed method of procedure is putting the judges in a very undignified position? Why have them come as suppliants before a committee of parliament on a question which parliament, of its own volition, should consider without the unpleasant discussion which would be inevitable if a committee were appointed to investigate the matter? Would it not be better for the government to formulate and submit a measure, and have it discussed in this house? That would be much more dignified and would place our judiciary in a more desirable position.


Ernest Lapointe: No one suggests that
the members of the high courts of the land should come here as suppliants. No one wants them to do so. The bar may be represented in the committee. In the committee which considered a similar question before congress in the United States former Secretary of State, Mr. Hughes, came and addressed its members, the president of the American Federation of Labour, Mr. Green, supported the request, and Mr. Lewis, the president of the United Mine Workers also appeared. Various interests were represented. I do not suggest, and no one does, that the judges themselves should come in the capacity indicated by my hon. friend. But what would be the harm in a committee considering the question and inquiring into salaries paid in the various dominions of the empire as well as in foreign countries, and making comparisons, bearing upon the cost of living, with the salaries paid in other professions? I think this is a proper matter for investigation; there is nothing unworthy or undignified in it, and I believe it is the only way properly to deal with the matter. If everyone would help instead of criticising a point of procedure I think we would more speedily come to a satisfactory conclusion.
Judges' Salaries


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: I cannot agree with my right hon.
friend the Prime Minister in the .precedent which he has cited for the present procedure, or with the proposal for *1316 appointment of a committee of this house to consider the question of the salaries of our judges. The judicial system in the United States is entirely different from the judicial system of this country; it has little relation to the system which we enjoy in Canada. Futhermore the legislative and administrative system in congress is very different from the system adopted in this parliament. In Canada it has been a usage, and indeed a law, that all measures involving public expenditure shall be initiated by the government of the country; in congress the system is entirely different. There it is done by a committee on appropriations, called by some a committee on the budget. In every instance in this country, however, by the rules of procedure and by the usage of parliament, when a public expenditure is proposed! the government of the day must accept the full responsibility.
During the last twenty-five or thirty years the salaries of our judges have been increased on several occasions by this house, and it has always been done 'by amendments to the Judges Act. That is the constitutional procedure. The government have all the information in their files with regard to the salaries received by judges in other countries; that information has been there for a long time, having been carefully gathered by the bar associations and placed in the hands of the Minister of Justice. He has every facility for knowing what should properly be paid to those high officials in this country. The cabinet should formulate their scheme, if they think the salaries paid! to-day are too low; let them take the bold course and announce what they think should be paid. Do not let this question of judicial salaries go before a special committee, where evidence of all kinds will be given and where the discussion will probably degenerate into a consideration of the high cost of living or something of that kind. We have had committees of that sort in this parliament, one of which I remember particularly. A committee on the high cost of living sat for about three months in 1919, I believe, and we all know the utter lack of result in their work. In this case, the parties most interested in the result, the judges themselves, are the very people who Should (not be called. Why does not the government take the parliamentary course, the bold course, and formulate their plan, decide what they think should properly be paid to the judges of this

country, and bring it before parliament? They have all the information before them, and after the second reading of the bill, and when the house goas into committee, the fullest information can be placed at the disposal of parliament. Surely such is the course which should be pursued in this instance. Personally I favour reasonable increases in judicial salaries. I have heard it rumoured that on the government side there is anything but unanimity on this question, and that as a solution of the difficulty in which the government find themselves this committee is proposed. I do not believe we should depart from well-known. parliamentary procedure simply on account of some difference of opinion in the government ranks upon this very important question.


Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just one word in answer to my hon. friend. When he said that in the United States the initiation of legislation which meant the expenditure of public money was in the hands of congress and not in the hands of the executive government, whereas the rule in Canada is different since the executive must take the initiative in all legislation involving the expenditure of public money, he was perfectly correct. In this matter, however, considering its importance, the government think that parliament, through a committee, should inquire into the whole subject, secure the requisite information and report to the house. Then, when that report is made, the government will introduce legislation accordingly, if legislation be necessary. I do not think this is a matter which should be treated in a partisan or political way at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friends opposite wish to help the administration of justice in Canada, do they consider they are doing so by adopting the narrow stand which they now take in the house? If the salaries of our judges are to be increased, let us treat this matter in an open, frank and sincere fashion. When my hon. friends siay it would be undignified to have such a parliamentary committee, they seem to forget that after all this parliament of ours is the highest court of justice in Canada, and that whether we sit as a House of Commons or as a committee of the house of our own appointment, we sit as a tribunal where all matters, including those relative to the salaries of our judges, will always be treated in such a way that the dignity of no one will suffer thereby.

Judges' Salaries


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the Solicitor General suggest that the judges themselves should appear before the committee?


Lucien Cannon: I do not.


Leon Johnson Ladner: They are the chief witnesses.


Lucien Cannon: Not at all. There is no more reason for that than for calling civil servants before us when coming to a decision with regard to increases of their salaries. The basis for our decision in such matters does not come from the evidence of the civil servants themselves, but from considerations which have a bearing on the whole question considered generally.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, by moving that a committee should inquire into this matter I believe the Minister of Justice has taken a safe and sound constitutional procedure. After all, this government is but a committee of parliament-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Cannon: -when viewed from a constitutional standpoint, and as a government we are supposed to do the will of parliament. We can do so only when and) as long as we retain the confidence of parliament. Therefore, when the minister moves that a committee of this house should inquire into this matter and that the government as such should suspend all action until that committee has sat and reported, he has suggested a sound constitutional theory, which I think should meet with the approval of this House of Commons.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the reprimand administered to me by the right hon. leader of the opposition I venture to say just a word in regard this matter. So far lawyers only have spoken in this discussion. Although they are present in very large numbers in this house, I venture to say that there are a very considerable number of non-legal people in Canada who when it comes to a matter of this kind cannot quite see why lawyers-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend forgets that I apologized for not being a lawyer.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I beg the right
hon. Prime Minister's pardon but he is very closely associated with lawyers sometimes.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: They are very useful
too.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The suggestion was made that it was beneath the dignity of the
judges to have this matter submitted to a committee. I think that was the point in the objection taken by the leader of the opposition, and I was quite sincere in questioning that position; I do not think that we ought to allow that contention to go unchallenged.
I notice that we as private members are, not infrequently, solicited by candidates who want to be appointed to judgeships. I do not know whether that is quite in keeping with the high honour of the bench or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I notice further
that a memorandum has been sent to private members with regard to this matter of salary increases, and that those who sent it, some of them judges, go into the cost of living; in fact, they make the increased cost of living the basis for the appeal for higher salaries. I do not quite see that there is anything that is beneath the dignity even of judges in having this matter judged on its merit. I know that it is very common to take the word of the bar association in such matters, but I hope that I am not offending the members of the bar when I remind them the bar association is a professional organization akin to a trades union organization, and I do not see why the members of one particular trades union should be permitted to decide just what salaries the graduates from that union should receive.


Mr. McPHERSON:: Do not the trades
unions fix the salaries of the labour men?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Sometimes they do, but I would suggest they have never had the assurance to come to parliament and lay that down as a principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the fair
wage scale?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is said the discussion before the committee would degenerate into a discussion of the high cost of living. Personally I should rejoice if some of the discussions in this house did centre upon the high cost of living, and that we got down to business methods in this matter. I would say that a good many of us are not prejudging this matter at all. If the cost of living has gone up I presume that the salaries of the judges should go up, just as the salaries of the civil servants should go up, and the wages of people outside the government service should go up. I was very glad the Minister of Justice drew attention to what has happened in the United States where the officials of the American Federation of Labour were among those who were advocating in-
Judges' Salaries

creased salaries for the judges. That is in keeping with the general policy of labour organizations with regard to wages.
I would, however, add this: It seems to me that when the committee is appointed it should have on it not merely members of the bar who are keenly interested in such matters, a great many of them having a vague idea they may some time be elevated to the bench


Ernest Lapointe: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -but should have on it representatives of all groups and of the other professions and callings. Personally I am very glad that the government has seen fit to appoint a committee and to take the house into its confidence to that extent.


Mr. POULIOT:: Is the hon. member "ot
acquainted with the fact that most judges are not as well paid as the high officials of labour organizations?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not quite see what that has to do with the matter under consideration. I have not been comparing the salaries paid to high officials of labour organizations with those paid to judges. As far as Canadian officials are concerned the statement is not true. I am not particularly concerned in defending high salaries to officials; I am considering the matter before us on its merits. I would simply urge that this is a subject for the consideration of the public at large, and not one to be decided merely by a special group in the house.


Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: I should like to know if I gathered
a wrong impression in understanding the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) to say a little while ago that all hon. members on this side were in favour of an increase in the salary of judges?


Hugh Guthrie: What I meant to say was that there were differences of opinion among hon. gentlemen opposite.


Roch Lanctôt: I will not undertake to
speak for other members on this side; I shall only speak for myself. Judging from what I have seen since I have been in the house a great many members seem to be in politics with the hope ultimately of going on the bench. In that respect there is the same feeling prevalent as there was twenty-four years ago when I first entered the house. If we undertake to discuss the cost of living here why not consider how the cost of living affects the poor people of the country? It has been urged in this house that we should increase the salaries of the judges because 
they are suffering actual hardship by reason of their present salaries. But why not consider the plight of the common people many of whom are confronted with actual starvation? I hope it will not cause any surprise when I say that I am entirely against increasing the salaries of the judges.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I have had the opportunity of hearing this question discussed on many occasions, and I agree with what has been said that no more important question could be considered here than that of the administration of justice. It forms the basis of our institutions, and is all important to the people of Canada. When previous increases were granted to judges they were not always granted unanimously; there were dissenting voices on both sides of the house. I think, however, that in the interests of the judges themselves, above all the interests of the administration of justice, and in the interests of the public at large, this question should be dealt with openly and no suspicion Should be aroused that we are doing a favour to any particular class. I agree that no man works harder or more conscientiously than the man occupying the exalted position of a judge.


Mr. GERVAIS:: Are we debating the
appointment of a committee or the merits of the question?


Hewitt Bostock: The house is discussing
the question raised by the motion itself.


Charles Marcil: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the judges would be free to go before the committee or not, just as they please. I am sure that the committee after investigating the situation-


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. member will
pardon me. The motion is:
That a special committee consisting of fifteen members to be selected at a later date be appointed to consider the question of the adequacy of the remuneration paid to the judges-
And so on.


Joseph-Charles-Théodore Gervais: By committee not by the house.


Charles Marcil: This question will have to be dealt with ultimately, of course, by the government, but some serious objections have been raised of which we have had evidence to-day. In any event the government will have to assume the responsibility, but in doing what they may be called upon to do they will be backed up by the opinion of a committee appointed by this house representing, I understand, all classes and interests, and all sections of the people. They will be



192S

[Stage Direction]
Judges' Salaries
in a position therefore to deal not only with the salaries to be paid the judges, but some of the conditions arising in connection therewith such as we have already been discussing. On the last occasion, some three or four years ago, when this question was under discussion, Sir Lomer Gouin brought up a measure dealing with some matters connected wTith the judiciary, and the question was raised as to pensions paid to judges and the privileges that were allowed certain judges, after they had retired from the bench, to engage in other avocations. Strong objection was taken at the time.
There are many classes of judges throughout Canada; we all know their importance, and I for one am quite in favour of the proposal made by the government that this matter should be thoroughly investigated. In view of the present position, financial and otherwise, of the country, it is only on a strongly favourable report of such a committee that the government would be justified in bringing about an increase in the salaries of judges and this could be done only by the procedure which is now suggested and which, I believe, is quite a proper one.
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the house one feature of this resolution which I do not think has so far been dealt with, and that is the latter part of the resolution which states:
-with power to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and to report from time to time.


Ernest Lapointe: Those are the usual
words.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not complaining of the wording, but I want to point out that what I consider to be a very unfair position, will probably arise. The Minister of Justice intimated that there was no intention of summoning judges to appear before the committee; but on the other hand other persons, persons who may be critical, for instance, of the position of judges and the judicial system of Canada, might come before the committee. There are those who consider that judges' salaries are high enough or too high. For instance, the hon. member for Laprairie-Napier-ville (Mr. Lanctot) intimated a moment ago-


Roch Lanctôt: I did not say they were too high; I said they were high enough.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He said that they were
high enough and should not be increased; but all such persons will have the privilege of placing their views before the committee while the judges themselves will not be able to appear.


Ernest Lapointe: Why not?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would be lamentable if they were called before the committee, and I will give my reason for making that statement. It would be most unfortunate if the committee were to summon judges to appear before it.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree that judges of the higher court should not come before the committee, but judges of the county and district courts have themselves asked to be heard before a committee of this house and I do not think there should be the same objection in regard to that.


George Halsey Perley: When this committee is appointed, will it not have power to summon judges to appear before it?


Ernest Lapointe: That will be for the committee to decide.


George Halsey Perley: The committee, as I understand the matter, will have the power entirely in their own hands. What my hon. friend says to-day will be of no authority in regard to the power of that committee to summon judges if they see fit to do so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is precisely the
thought that is in my mind. The committee has power in the first place to summon before it and to examine witnesses under oath. The intention of the Minister of Justice, who undoubtedly will have considerable influence in the committee, is that judges shall not be called. On the other hand, on a majority vote of the committee they may be summoned to appear, and such a situation would be most unfortunate. I am speaking as a layman and I want to assure hon. members who are afraid of the legal fraternity that I am not one of that group. The reason I take this stand is that my observation of the judiciary of Canada leads me to believe that, on the whole and in the vast majority of cases with very rare exceptions, men appointed to the bench have discharged their functions with honour to themselves and to the country. It has been a matter of great surprise to me to note men of opposite political faith to myself, whom perhaps in their political life I have found it necessary to criticize very bitterly and who I thought were scarcely proper appointees for judgeships, after they have assumed the duties and, indeed, in a remarkably short space of time, seemed to be so influenced by the traditions and ethics of the judiciary that they measured up far beyond what we originally expected of them. I shall
150S
Judges' Salaries

not do so of course, but I could name and I have no doubt other members have in mind many gentlemen appointed to the bench who are to-day, as I said a moment ago, gracing that position with honour to themselves and the country, who at the tame of their appointment were looked upon rather askance and as probably not fitted for the position.
My point in this somewhat disjointed argument is that the traditions of the judiciary itself seem to have influenced those who have been appointed to it so that they measure up to those traditions. It is very desirable in the interest of the country at large that nothing should be done that will bring the judiciary of Canada into the realm of, what shall I say, a wrangle or discussion or dispute about such a thing as salaries. In other words, in days gone by and up to the present the judiciary have trusted parliament to supply a reasonable and sufficient salary for them, and my opinion is that it would be better to leave this subject to parliament rather than to have an investigation.
The Minister of Justice cited the fact that a committee in the United States had been appointed to consider this question and that was offered as a sound precedent for us to follow. If our following the United States in that respect had any danger of inducing us to follow them in their process or method of appointing judges, that is by the two-year elective system, then' heaven save us from following precedents of the United States.


Ernest Lapointe: I was referring to federal lourt judges who are not elected but who are appointed by the United States government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Thousands of judges in be United States are elected every two years.


Ernest Lapointe: Those were not dealt with by the committee of congress. They are placed by the various states.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That does not alter my point, if the minister will catch what I am driving at. I do not think a precedent established by the United States congress should govern us in a ease of this kind. Our system of appointing judges, the traditions which surround our judiciary, the reputation and the record of our judges generally, with very few if any exceptions, are so much better than they are on the other side of the line that we should do nothing that would interfere with or jeopardize that very high standard. It is unfair to submit one side of a question to a committee when the other side is not supposed to come, and it would be most unfortunate if the judiciary of Canada were called before a committee of parliament on the question of salaries.


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: I just want to ask the minister a question. The resolution states:
That a special committee. ... be appointed to consider the question of the adequacy of the remuneration paid to the judges of the various courts in Canada.
In view of the remark of the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) that this is the highest court in Canada, I would ask if it is the intention that the committee shall inquire whether the judges in this .particular court are paid high enough salaries or not.


Ernest Lapointe: I suppose it will be for
the committee itsblf to decide whether the judges of this court should be included in the salary revision.


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adlding-ton):: I have only one or two observations to make as to why I shall vote against this motion if it comes to a vote. I shall vote against it because I do not propose to assist the government in carrying out obligations which should properly fall upon them. If the government is prepared to say that in the appointment of judges they will consider representations made by members on this side of the house, then I am prepared to join with them in the appointment of a committee to fix the salaries, but I am not prepared to assist them in lifting from their shoulders the burden which should fall upon them by appointing a committee without consideration of the views of anybody else.
I do not concur in the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), and concurred in by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). The hon. member for Vancouver Centre thinks it would be a terrible thing to have judges come before the committee to give evidlenee or to be questioned. Well, if it is derogatory to the dignity of the judges to come before a committee and give evidence, than it must also be derogatory to their dignity when they make representations in writing to the government and to parliament asking for an increase in their salaries. If it is not lowering to the dignity of judges to make representations in writing to members of parliament for an increase in their salaries, I submit that it is not derogatory to their dignity to appear before a committee and give evidence.
There seems to be an opinion in the mind of the Minister of Justice, concurred in by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, that we can place these judges in different categories. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre made no classification. He said! that it would be against the dignity of any judge to appear

Judges' Salaries
before a committee and give evidence. Oh no, says the Minister of Justice, I would not go quite that far; I would object, to having the 'higher judges come before the committee to give evidence, but you might bring before the committee the county court judges. Carried to its logical conclusion, that means that in the mind of the Minister of Justice the dignity of a judge is expressed in the salary he draws, and it is not derogatory to the dignity of a judge drawing five or six thousand a year to appear before the committee and give evidence in favour of an increase in his salary, but it is derogatory in the case of a man who is getting a salary of fifteen or sixteen thousand a year, and who will get an even bigger increase than the lower judge. But the higher judge must get his increase without lowering his dignity to the extent of appearing before a committee and telling the reason why he is starving to death on his salary of fifteen thousand a year. I do not exactly see it in that light myself.
There is one other thing in connection with the appointment of this committee. If you are going to appoint a committee to consider this matter, in the first place I say let the government take the full responsibility for appointing the committee. In the second place, I submit that there should not be one single lawyer on that committee-not one. My regard for them is so extremely high and my love for them so great that I would not for the life of me stand here and permit them so to jeopardize their dignity, or the dignity of the position they may ultimately occupy. In the third place, I would warn the government, for very obvious reasons, against appointing to that committee the hon. Minister of Justice, and certainly they should not appoint to that committee the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin), or the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott). None of these gentlemen should be appointed to that committee because it would always leave them open to the reflection that they were getting on that committee for the purpose of seeing that the judges' salaries were made adequate to their own brilliant intellects when the time should come for them to occupy this high and dignified position. So I say, appoint your committee, if you wish, but leave the lawyers off it.


Mr. VENIOT:: On both sides.


John Wesley Edwards: Cn both
sides, certainly. I hope that so far as this side is concerned none of them will go on the committee; I do not know but what I would exclude them even from the meetings of the
committee, for fear they might be doing a little lobbying with regard to the bright future that lies before them.
Another thought which I have, and which should be considered by the committee is this: are we going simiply to sit back and have a committee of fifteen appear before parliament and tell us what we ought to do in this matter? I say at once that the judges should be given a remuneration commensurate with the position they occupy, although I am not so terribly impressed with the dignity of their office to the degree that has been expressed almost entirely by lawyers in this discussion; but we will include the dignity too, if you like. But the matter which should be considered by the committee is this, whether you are going to carry with these salary increases a pension for the judges. Personally I am opposed to that. I do not say that because I have anything against the judges personally. I say, make the salaries of the judges fair and reasonable and just, and let them provide for their own old age out of the salaries they receive. I have maintained that position in this house before, and I assert it again. The majority of the fathers of those who sit in this house, I venture to say, did not get any provision made by parliament for a pension for them in their old age. They had to provide for their own old age out of a great deal smaller salary than the judges are getting, and I say that it is up to the judges and everybody else to provide for their old age out of the salaries they receive, and the country should not hand to them on a silver platter, with all the frills around it, both a very fine salary and the assurance that when they get tired of sitting on the bench they can retire on a pension and go into politics, as has been done sometimes in this house in the past.


Roch Lanctôt: Like Mr. Doherty.


John Wesley Edwards: And D. D.
McKenzie also. Do not forget him when you mention Mr. Doherty. When they tire of the bench, when they find their duties too onerous and too hard upon them and they cannot stand the strain any longer, they resign on a pension of five or six thousand a year, and some of them go into politics. That has happened on both sides of this house, and then when they get tired of politics, when political life becomes too strenuous for them, they go back to the bench, possibly to make provision for another pension when they retire a second time. I protest against that. I say, fix the salaries of the judges at a fair and reasonable figure as compared with similar positions elsewhere, and having regard to
Judges' Salaries

their responsibilities and duties, and let them provide out of their own salaries for their old age, the same as everybody else has to do in this country.


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: I am aware that this is not the proper time to go in detail into the question of increasing the judges' salaries, yet I wish to make a few remarks. We are being asked to increase the salaries of the judges, some of whom I believe are now receiving in the neighbourhood of ten thousand a year, and I am not sure that some of them are not getting twelve thousand or more a year, and when they retire they receive two-thirds of their salary as a pension. I have a very high opinion of the judiciary of Canada. I would like to see them properly paid, and I am very glad to see that the proposal is that this question shall go before a committee where it can be thoroughly investigated. I have noticed in connection with this resolution, as with others of a similar character, that when a request comes before the house to increase the salaries of the rich it meets with very great favour in some quarters, and any member who dares to dissent is treated with more or less contempt. The Minister of Justice gave as a reason for making this motion that he had received a request from the judges themselves for increased remuneration; but let me remind the house that very persistent requests for better pay have been made by the rural mail carriers. Why is it that the poor, being greater in number, do not receive the same consideration as those who are in receipt of big salaries? I do not say that I would not favour increasing the salaries of some of our lower paid judges, but I think the matter should be very carefully considered before any action is taken. I might point out that in dealing with this matter we are not in the same position as we were when we increased the salaries of ouir deputy ministers. We were in danger of losing their services because of the higheT salaries they were offered by private corporations; but I have not heard of any shortage of applicants for appointment to the bench. As a matter of fact, you find them everywhere. What, then, is the reason for this proposal? Is it because judges are not receiving sufficient remuneration in comparison with thousands of other men who have not one-half, one-quarter, yes, in some cases not one-tenth the income enjoyed by the judiciary to maintain and educate their families? I am very much inclined to oppose increasing the remuneration of our higher paid judges until others who are more needy have their requests for increase of salary dealt with.


John Evans: I doubt, Mr. Speaker, if I should discuss this motion at all, seeing that the right even of my desk mate (Mr. Woodsworth) was questioned by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) when he rose to ask for information; but, you know, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." If he had been a gentleman of less attainments I suppose he would have been treated with contempt by the leader of the opposition. This matter has come before the country during the past six months in various ways, and I think most of us have been circularized by the judges themselves. I wonder why it should be beneath the dignity of any body of men to appear before parliament, since parliament is the highest court in the land. We should maintain our dignity and not think of ourselves as a " rabble". Certainly the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has no right to even hint that the proceedings of the committee itself will be anything more than a wrangle. After reading a despatch in to-day's paper I doubt very much that the dignity of these judges will be hurt by appearing before a committee of this house. Let me quote a short paragraph:
Last year there were 38,000 meals served in the restaurant at a cost of $1.00 per meal. There is now a deficit of $27,000 facing the officials, which includes arrears of $300 from four former members of parliament, and a prominent civil servant. One of the former members is now a Nova Scotia judge.


Mr. BANCROFT:: What paper is the
hon. member reading from?


John Evans: The Ottawa Journal of today.


Leland Payson Bancroft: If I may be permitted, I should like to state that there is no such deficit facing the restaurant.


John Evans: Since the judge referred to allows his name to be used in a daily journal in such circumstances, I wonder if it would hurt his dignity very much to appear before a parliamentary committee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is a good argument for higher pay, though.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct a
statement made by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards). I want to say to him and to this house that the late Mr. Justice McKenzie did not draw a pension; he died in office. Neither does his widow draw a pension. I do not think it adds to the dignity of our discussion of a matter of such serious importance as this for an hon. member to suggest that a gentle-

Judges' Salaries
man, now deceased, who occupied an honourable position in the public life of this country and on the bench, drew a pension, when such is not the case. As a fellow-Nova Scotian I may say that we are proud of the services that the late Mr. Justice McKenzie rendered to his native land. I for one regret that a pension is not payable to his widow.


John Wesley Edwards: Might I
ask the hon. gentleman, would my observation have been less objectionable if the person to whom I referred was still living?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think the question is intended seriously. My hon. friend was endeavouring to find somebody as a horrible example, and there was suggested to him the name of a gentleman who happened to be one of his own political faith. He immediately shifted and suggested the name of the late Air. Justice McKenzie, but the facts show that Mir. Justice McKenzie was not in the class he endeavoured to describe. The late Mr. Justice McKenzie did not draw a pension either as a county court judge or as a supreme court judge.


John Wesley Edwards: All I have to say is that my hon. friend should direct his attention first of all to the hon. gentlemen on his own side who introduced the question.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I wish to say a few words on this question, which I think is of paramount importance to the country. It is of great importance because it is vital to the administration of justice that competent and able men should be on the bench, and that they should be enabled to carry themselves in keeping with the dignity of their position. At first I was favourable to the appointment of a committee; that was my first impression: the idea seemed to be sound. But upon reflection it occurred to me that it was not a dignified position for the judges to be placed in, to have them appear before the committee and advocate their request. And if they are not to appear personally then the chief witnesses, the interested parties, are denied presence in the court which is to determine the matter at issue. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) failed to tell us what witnesses would appear before the committee or what evidence would be given beyond the facts which are now in the possession of the government or available in the departments.
My real object is to point out that there is not a siingle indication given that any witnesses, apart from the judges or those representing their point of view, could give any evidence that would be of the slightest use beyond such evidence as the parliamentary committee could secure from the Department of Justice or from the formal presentation of the case with respect to applications for increase in salary. I would ask the Minister of Justice this question: Can he conceive of any evidence which might be adduced either equal to or of comparatively the same importance as the evidence of the judges themselves, whose presence before the committee will be denied? Or can he conceive of any witnesses who, if they appeared before the parliamentary committee, could give any information of real and vital importnace to that committee in addition to the facts which are already at his disposal?


Ernest Lapointe: I have already spoken, but in answer to my hon. friend I will repeat that the judges of the high courts of Canada have made no application. If any application has been made it has been made by representatives of the bar associations in the various provinces and by the Canadian Bar Association, and surely these people can come and lay their case before the committee.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I cannot see that the matter which we have before us would be adivanced by referring it to a committee. Who are going to oppose it? Will the government require a recommendation of the whole committee-a unanimous recommendation? Will they act upon the recommendation of a minority or will they act upon the recommendation of the majority? Because a committee of fifteen cannot, I am convinced, be appointed by this house which will represent the general view of the house upon the question. For my part, although I may not be presumed to have much confidence in the committee of fourteen or fifteen who compose the government of Canada at the present time, I have far more confidence in their judgment than in the judgment of any special committee in dealing with a matter of this kind; and if they are prepared in 'the constitutional way to recommend increases in the salaries of judges who are appointed by them, I standi ready to vote for any reasonable measures proposed to that end. And so far as my personal knowledge goes, as regards the majority on this side, they are prepared to assume a similiar attitude. I have no doubt that although there may be differences of opinion on this side of the house, the majority of the members over here would support the government in any reasonable measures it might take to increase existing
Judges' Salaries

salaries so as to give adequate recompense to the judges of the land. I regard this innovation in constitutional practice, which we have before us to-day, not as an effort to deal with the question seriously but really as a method of postponing considleration of it until the Greek Kalends or to some other distant date. I cannot conceive that the government, being anxious to deal with the question in the way of providing adequate recompense for the judges, would have taken the course now proposed. In this matter, as in others, the government must take full responsibility for presenting to the house any measure for the expenditure of public money. There is no reason why they should now prove recreant to the trust which the constitutional practice of the country vests in them. There is no adequate reason why we should1 have a change in the constitutional procedure in the present instance and not in respect of every other vote that is to come before parliament when the estimates are .brought down for consideration. Not a single serious ground can be suggested, it seems to me, why the proposed vote-if there is to be a vote-should come before parliament in any way other than in the estimates which are brought down by the government for the consideration of the house. The present proposal is simply an effort to preclude the serious consideration of the question in the future and to prevent parliament as parliament dealing with it; because we can deal with it pertinently and successfully only when the actual vote is submitted to parliament. I personally believe, despite the differences of opinion which prevail on the other side of the house, despite also some dissent on this side, that if the government would take their courage in their hands and bring down a vote which they might consider sufficient to provide adequately for the judges of the land, a large majority in the house would sustain them. We know that hon. members of the government would deal with such a matter in a perfectly disinterested temper, notwithstanding that some of them may be candidates for judgeships in the future. I will vote against the resolution which proposes to refer this matter to a committee. The result, in my opinion, would be ineffective. This house must decide the question. Every member in this house has now, or would have in the course of the debate here, all the information he would require on which to base a conscientious decision. I therefore regard the remission of this matter to a special committee as an indefinite postponement of its consideration, and for that reason I intend to vote against the motion. At the same time,
[Mr. Cahan.l
I believe that if the government will bring down a measure in the ordinary course, they will find themselves sustained by a large majority in this house, including, as I believe, the large majority of my confreres on this side.


Mr. HENRI ROURASSA (Labelle):: I
agree very largely with the remarks of my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Cahan). So long as the present system obtains, whereby the government controls the preparation of all the estimates, exercising arbitrary powers with respect to every money proposition submitted to the house, the view taken by my hon. friend will be absolutely right. But it does not follow that this or that method should be maintained, or some other practice substituted in its place, simply because it may have been adopted in the United States congress or anywhere else. It seems to me that there is too great a disposition in Canada, in the country at large and in parliament in particular, to say that we should or should not do this or that, merely because it is done in Washington or London or elsewhere. When we have an opportunity to exercise our responsibility for the good of Canada, for heaven?s sake let us do so in our own way. Of course, that does not mean that there are not certain things which we should imitate, but too often we invoke a precedent from across the ocean or from south of the 45th parallel to justify us in doing this, that or the other thing, which displays too much of the subservient colonial spirit still prevailing in this country.
When the rules of debate were subjected to our judgment, upon which I do not think we acted with very much judgment, I suggested one real reform in the management of the affairs of the country, one that would, I think, be conducive to public good, and result in abridging the work of the house, while enabling both the government and the individual members to deal with general matters without being clap-trapped for weeks and months in the consideration of small details. My suggestion was that all the details of the estimates should be submitted to a committee of the house, before which the permanent officials of each department should appear to give that information individually which they now give like schoolboys to their masters from two chairs in front of the minister, while the poor minister must repeat to the committee what he is told by his officials.
Therefore I am going to support this resolution, because I consider it to be the beginning of a new system which may prove to us that many matters connected with the

Judges' Salaries
management of the country could be dealt with more properly, as to their details, their preparation and their presentation, by a small committee where witnesses could appear, where the facts could be exposed and where reasons for or against any expenditure of public money could be given. That committee would report to the house, and the house would pass final judgment upon its findings. I do not say this especially in view of the [DOT] object of this resolution; but I believe this is a start which may bring us to the point where we can get away from the absurd system which we have copied from the British House of Commons. There, however, without changing the letter of the law, they have radically changed the manner of dealing with the budget, and in about one-quarter of the time we devote to the voting of our estimates they adopt a budget ten or fifty times as large as ours, with at least equal efficiency. '
I do not think this is the proper time to go into the question of the "dignity" of the judges; I do not think that dignity will be preserved by mere platitudes, or by putting the judges in such a position that they will not be reached by public opinion or by the scrutiny of public conscience. The dignity of the bench must be sustained by the manner in which the judges exercise their functions, and I do not think their dignity will be placed on any higher level by the fact that we raise their salaries by a few thousand dollars. I do not think the dignity of the bench will be impaired by the fact that the judges, if they find their remuneration insufficient, will be called upon to state frankly and under their own responsibility before a committee of this house why they desire a larger salary, instead of making use of representatives of the bar, who will demonstrate to the judges before whom they plead that they have been to parliament asking that the salaries of the judges be increased. It has been imy experience, during a fairly long life, connected in a rather detached fashion with the bar, that some lawyers find it veTy helpful to plead cases either before parliament or elsewhere for the benefit of the judges; they find that in carrying on their profession they reap very tangible results by the manner in which they are treated by some of the judges. I think it much less dignified for the judges to have a few lawyers petitioning members of parliament to increase their salaries, than for those judges to appear before a committee of this house and state simply, in a dignified fashion, what they desire and why they desire it. Dignity is in the man, not in the procedure; it is in the soul, in the frankness of language and the rectitude of the
mind of every individual, whether he be the King or his representative, a judge, or the humblest servant of this house. Among the papers I have received during the session I have noticed two or three petitions with regard to an increase of salaries, one from the charwomen who clean our rooms and another on behalf of the judges. This latter petition was submitted by proxy, but I do not think the charwomen of this house have sacrificed their dignity as women by petitioning for an increase in their salaries; Neither do I think the judges will sacrifice their dignity, if they really think they need an increase, by appearing before a committee of this house and allowing that committee to consider their case.
Therefore, I see no reason why we should reject the proposal. I agree that if the government are to stick to precedent and continue to walk in the narrow trail in which governments have walked for the last fifty years in presenting estimates to this house, there is no sense in this resolution. The government should take the responsibility for these increases of salaries, as my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has said, just as they take the responsibility for the estimates. We have to take human nature into consideration, of course; I know, as everyone knows, that many members on this side of the house are opposed to increasing the salaries of the judges. On the one hand the government do not want to displease the judges and the laywers, while on the other hand they do not want to displease their friends. All governments have resorted to such expedients, and I am not going to vote against the government because they have taken' this way of escaping the direct responsibility connected with this issue. I give my vote in favour of this resolution, because it is a departure from a custom which may have been quite proper in the past but which is not now adequate for the amount of business done in this house or for the various complicated and technical questions with which parliament is called upon to deal. When you and I, Mr. Speaker, were young members of this house, many matters were dealt with directly by the house which are now considered by various special committees, and therefore I consider this a good departure in the right direction.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house for more than just a few moments. I wish to say a word in favour of this resolution, not that I know anything about judges' salaries, as to whether or not they should be
Judges' Salaries

increased; I am quite willing to leave that question to the proposed committee, but I do welcome this slight departure from our established custom, as the previous speaker has said. I have protested against cabinet government ever since I came into this house, and I shall continue to protest against it until there is more responsibility placed upon parliament. Of course it is easier for the government of the day to entrust a matter of this kind if it is not a popular one to a committee, so that the committee may assume the responsibility which the government is not willing to do. But even so I am glad that there is this departure, if indeed it can be regarded as such, of entrusting a little more power to a committee of this house and a little less power to the cabinet. I trust that this will only be the beginning of a much larger departure in that regard, for I believe it will mean a much better type of government and will give each member of parliament some real reason for being here. I shall be glad to support the motion.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I
should like to say a few words on this question. In the first place the discussion has departed from the question under debate which is the appointment of a committee to decide whether the judges should get an increase in Salary or not. I object to it on this ground: The whole question is one of responsible government. That is the question before this house. If the government has decided and apparently it has-we have listened to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, and I think one or two others, taking the attitude that thej'- are favourable to the whole proposition -if the government has decided that the judges should get an increase in salary it seems to me it is the responsibility of this government to take the attitude frankly and openly before this parliament. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) very often stands up in this house and talks about responsible government, and about the traditions of responsible government in Great Britain. I think when we appoint committees to decide what the government has already decided upon we are getting far away from responsible government in Canada. Now, sir, if you appoint a committee to decide a question of this sort you are going to shift the responsibility from the government to a committee of the house. That is what is happening. There are times and there are questions, questions which the house cannot decide itself without interminable debate, when committees should be appointed, but 
here is a question as to which there is no difficulty in coming to a decision. The house is full of lawyers who are in close touch and contact with the judiciary. Any one of them can stand up here and give ample reason why the salaries of the judiciary should be increased, and I am not saying that out of any disrespect to the distinguished gentlemen on the bench. But because of that very fact, because the Minister of Justice already knows to-day the arguments which should be put forward and the reasons which should be advanced in justification of an increase in salary, I do not think there is any reason why this question should be turned over to a committee of the house. Let the government take the responsibility as a government should do in regard to measures upon which it has made up its mind. If this committee is appointed here is what will happen: Should criticism be advanced later the blame would be placed upon the committee, the whole house will be held to be responsible. But we are supposed to have responsible government and under that system this is what happens: If the government brings forward measures and those measures are not supported by the House of Commons then it goes to the people and the people decide whether that government shall continue to handle the affairs of this country or not. If that course be not followed we do not have responsible government at all. I do believe there are certain matters which could well be dealt with by committees. The estimates submitted to parliament could very well be dealt with by a committee; but here, is a question which could be decided by the house itself probably in the course of an afternoon sitting, or at most an afternoon and an evening, and the whole question settled without submitting it to a committee which will tinker with it for weeks, taking members out of this house where they should be taking part in or listening to the debates. I repeat it is the duty of the government to submit this question to the house and have it decided here.
I have one other observation to make and it is this: The Minister of Justice in presenting the resolution quoted the United States as having adopted this system of deciding about the salaries of judges. That brought back to my mind the speech of the Prime Minister a few days ago in which he twitted me for having quoted United States statistics regarding immigration. He said, " Surely we can stay at home for our figures". I apply the Prime Minister's remark to the present question. Governments in the past have decided

Judges' Salaries
questions of this kind by themselves without the aid of committees. I think the present government should come courageously forward on this question and I think they would be supported by the house. The matter could have been decided in about the same period of time as has been taken up in deciding whether or not we should appoint a committee.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I cannot be accused of -being a lover of lawyers; anything I say on this question will not be attributed to that. But we are discussing a very important arm of government. The functions of government are said to be executive, legislative, and judicial, and the resolution deals with the men who are engaged in doing the work of the judicial arm of government. One of the most important factors in connection with that arm of government is that it should be, unlike the other two, completely non-partisan in character, completely above disputations of a party nature. I ask what would be the result as relating to the judicial arm of government if any government came to this house with a proposal relating intimately to judges and their salaries and it were carried on a purely party division, or anything approaching a party division, or if one party-one of the parties in the corner let us say-were, on a question of this sort affecting the judges of the country to be placed in the position of voting against the others? That possibility is to my mind one of the best reasons why a question of this kind should be considered by a committee of the house. That procedure does not relieve the government of responsibility.


Robert James Manion: Nor parliament.


Mr. DUNNING:: Nor parliament, but it
does involve a method of approach to the subject which enables it to be settled, may I say, on a rather higher plane than has characterized some of the discussion which has taken place here this afternoon. I think that is the chief merit of the proposal of the Minister of Justice. I am sure we all have a very high appreciation of the services of the judiciary in this country in the past and it is rather unfair to say-and I have been guilty of saying it I will admit-that there is no reason to worry about judges because there are plenty of applicants for judgeships. That is not fair because there are many of the most eminent lawyers in this country who for the good of the country should be on the bench who have refused appointment. That is not generally known. There are always plenty of candidates for any public office which carries any sort of a salary, and for 56103-97
some that do not carry a salary at all, but that does not necessarily mean that the interests of the country are not to be considered rather than the interests of the individuals occupying positions or of those who may aspire to occupy them. After all our great abject is to have the judicial arm of the government manned with the very best men we can get. But it does strike one as pecuEar to know that a man sitting on the bench as a judge frequently has before him two or three lawyers pleading each of whom is in receipt of an income seven or eight times as large as that of the judge before whom the case is being tried. I know that has no fundamental bearing on the question but it furnishes a comment on the situation. I have no fixed opinion as to whait should be done with regard to the indivdual salaries of judges, but I do think that calm reflection by a committee of the house upon a question so essentially non-partisan as this one, a question upon which a non-partisan decision is above all things to be desired, is to the advantage of the house and the country.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: It appears to me that the weakness in the arguments of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Dunning), is this: If it is so very important for a non-partisan committee of this house to fix the salaries of judges, how much more important would it be for a committee of this house to appoint the judges? I should Eke to ask the government if it is not a fact that the appointments of all judges in the past have been partisan appointments. There is a story told of a conversation between a Canadian and an American. The Canadian made the remark to the American: In your country the judges have to be elected. The American made the reply: Yes, and I believe that in Canada they first have to be defeated.
What is the basis of this resolution? Is it not simply that the government has trouble in its own ranks regarding the matter and it wants to shift the responsibility on to parliament? If it has not, why are the reasons held back that the government does not assume its responsibility and bring down a measure as it does in connection with every other matter? This is a violation of the regular order of procedure of government. As the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) has rightly said, it is the duty of a government to assume responsibility for its actions. This government is prepared to do that only when the road is easy. When there is any difficulty ahead it wants to make parliament share the responsibility. You will

Judges' Salaries

pardon me, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the house and the country will pardon me if I refuse to be one of those who hold the judiciary of this country in the idolatry in which it is generally held. They are human like everybody else. As I said before, they are mostly political appointees, sometimes of one party and sometimes of another, and the difficulty that I see in this matter is that you are not rewarding men according to the services they perform on the bench, but attaching salaries to positions. Nobody in this house, for example, will say that every man on the bench is equal to every other man in any of the different courts. Is that not something that should be taken into consideration? Should we not also consider the fact that men who go on the bench do not necessarily go there for the money? Do men come into parliament for the money? Do men go into the cabinet for money? Is there not in the case of nearly every member of parliament and of the 'cabinet a financial sacrifice when he takes a position of that kind? Does a man not accept a position in the high courts of Canada for something outside of the monetary consideration? Is it not worth something to him, to his family and to the record that he will leave behind him, to think that he has held a high position in our courts?
I am not opposed to this measure in the least; I think our judges should be paid in proportion to the service they render and to their ability, but there is more to be taken into consideration than simply the monetary award a man receives when he ascends the bench. Many of them are well-off when they accept a position of that kind. Many of them do not need the money. I say this without any disrespect, that there are in this country some minor judges who do not work more than one or two months in the year. Are we going to raise the salaries of them all, or are we simply going to pick out certain courts and raise t'he salaries there, or how is this matter to be handled? It is the duty of the government to formulate its policy, to bring it before parliament and to ask parliament to sanction it. We got the clue to the difficulty from an hon. member on the ' other side when he said that he was opposed to this resolution. It is the trouble in the ranks of the people behind the government and not any principle which is at stake, that has forced the government to come to parliament with this resolution. Consequently,
I for one say that it is the duty of the government to come to parliament with a bill, if IMr. McGibbon.]
they think fit to bring one in to raise the salaries of judges, and to ask parliament to sanction it.


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) said that the cabinet was a committee of parliament. Everyone, including the Solicitor General, knows that is not true. The cabinet is a committee of the Liberal party and nothing else, and because by referring this matter of the salaries of judges to a special committee, we would be referring it to a committee of parliament, I am very much in favour of the resolution brought down by the government.
May I say I was astonished and pained to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that had he been a man of less education, he would have treated his question with the contempt it deserved? I have very much less education and I would have asked the same question. We are in this house as equals- I am not sure that the lawyers will agree with that-we are here to represent the Canadian people, and while I do not mind taking a position which might cause me a loss of dignity personally, because I do not suffer from dignity, I refuse to take a subordinate position for Southeast Grey. The people of my constituency have just as much right to say what they think on any question, and to ask any question they like in the House of Commons, as the people of any other constituency, even though the other constituency be represented by a high light in the legal profession. Therefore I resent what has been said and I think on further consideration the leader of the opposition will be sorry that he made the remark.
I am interested in the question of crime, and I think it would be true to say that if as much consideration was given to the standard of living and to the salaries of people we now know as criminals, or to all the people of Canada, as has been in the past and, I have no doubt, will be in the future given to the salaries of judges, we would need no judges. I am not going to go into the question whether judges need an increase in salary or not, but I can most heartily approve the method the government has taken. They may have done it for reasons of expediency but at least it is a democratic move and I approve the fact that they are sending the question to a committee on which all sections of the house will be represented. I do not think that is asking too much because this is just a class group coming to parliament and asking for an in-

Judges' Salaries
crease in salary, and we have just as much right to pass upon it as members of another group would have supposing we came to them and asked for an increase in salary for our class.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried.


Hugh Guthrie: On division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, we will
take a vote.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Beauhamois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.


Hugh Guthrie: I was paired with the
hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.


Robert James Manion: I was paired with the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.


Mr. HOCKEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Gervais). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.


Mr. PRESTON:: I was paired with the
junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.


Mr. TUMMON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Chamfoley-Vercheres (Mr. Langlois). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.


Peter John Veniot: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted, I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted, I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. HAY:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Hubbs). Had I voted, I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. POWER:: I was paired with the hon.
member for East Hamilton (Mr. Rennie). Had I voted, I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. CARDIN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryck-man). Had I voted, I should have voted for the motion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the
hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted, I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. GUERIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted, I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn). Had I voted, I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. THORSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Brady). Had I voted, I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. ALLAN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Port Arthur-Thunder Bay (Mr. Cowan). Had I voted, I should have voted for the motion.



TRANSPORTATION OF COAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. STEEDSMAN (Souris):: I desire to ask a question of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). In view of the fact that immense quantities of American coal find their way to Manitoba in competition with Alberta coal, on which high rates of freight are charged, I would ask if the same rate per mile will apply on Alberta coal coming into Manitoba as it is proposed to apply on coal coming from that province into Ontario; and if not, why not?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: The present order does not
provide for a rate on coal from Alberta 1o Manitoba. That question has not been raised up to date.



GRAIN SHIPMENTS-CONDITION ON ARRIVAL IN GREAT BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Millar: I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) a question, which I wish to precede by a brief statement. In an address delivered before the Calgary board of trade, Major Strange, a well-known winner at the international grain show, said, "Canada's reputation in the wheat markets of the world is in danger." An editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press confirms Major Strange's statement, and I would ask the minister if he or any other member of the government has received complaints direct from one or more com trade associations in Great Britain concerning the condition in which Canadian grain in arriving in that market.


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: In reply to my hon. friend, I may say that a letter was received from the Liverpool Com Exchange pointing out that during the last two years there

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
appeared to have been a decided lowering of the grades of Canadian grain. Whether this was due to bad seasons or a lowering of inspection they did not know, but they expressed the opinion that if the grades were not maintained serious injury might be done to Canada's reputation as a wheat-producing country.



NOVA SCOTIA LEGAL FEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that on February 20 an order in my name was passed for a return showing the amounts paid to various counsel and solicitors in the province of Nova Scotia in the prosecution of cases arising out of the Customs and Excise Acts. To date no return has been made to that order.


Ernest Lapointe: I may inform my hon. friend that
every department is paying the fees of counsel who are engaged to look after its cases We appoint a lawyer to recommend the names of counsel, but fortunately the various departments pay the fees. So I suppose the information will have to come through tht-Secretary of State when all the departments have reported to him.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr Johnston in the chair.
Customs tariff-535. Grasses, seaweed, mosses and vegetable fibres other than cotton, not coloured, nor further manufactured than dried, cleaned, cut to size, ground and sifted; oakum of flax, hemp, or jute; coir and coir yarn: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Mr. ROBB:: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-535a. Grasses, seaweed, mosses and vegetable fibres other than cotton, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 174 per cent; general tariff, 174 per cent.
Mr. KENNEDY:: What were the imports under this item, and where from?


James Alexander Robb: There is no separate classification of the imports. "Practically no change in revenue," is the note I have. My hon. friend will observe that there is a reduction in the British preference.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Were there any imports at all under the British preference?


James Alexander Robb: There is no separate classification from which we could trace returns.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-535b and 535c agreed to.
Customs tariff-535d. Garnetted material obtained by disintegrating yarns or fabrics, prepared for use, n.o.p.; wiping rags and wiping waste, n.o.p.; waste portions of unused fabrics, machine-cleaned waste, n.o.p., not to include remnants nor mill ends: British preferential tariff, 74 per cent; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 124 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a change in. this item, is there not?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. The words "rags and waste, sold by weight" are struck out, and the words, "machine-cleaned waste, n.o.p." are inserted; the letters "n.o.p." at the end are also struck out.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: How are we going to tell the difference between the waste portions of unused fabrics in the two preceding items which are free and the waste portions of unused fabrics in this case where they are dutiable?


James Alexander Robb: This change has been recommended by the officers of the department as being better for administrative purposes. There is practically no change in the tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unienumerated waste apparently carried a higher duty heretofore, 15, 174 and 174- Is that right?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-536. Batts, batting, sheet wadding and carded sliver of vegetable fibres, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 12J per cent; intermediate tariff 224 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there not a change in that?


James Alexander Robb: There is a reduction in the British preference from 15 to 124 per cent. There is no separate classification of the imports, and practically no change in the taxation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the vegetable fibres now under that item were under another item before, were they not?


James Alexander Robb: They are all here except the cottons.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is the reason fot the reduction in the British preference if there is no separate classification? Was any

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
business done under the British preference, or is there likely to be as a result of the reduction? Who asked for it?


James Alexander Robb: There will be a separate Classification in future. My hon. friend will notice that in these items the linens have been separated from the cottons, and there is a reduction in the British preference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Two and a half per cent. But were there any imports of batts and batting to which this alleged decrease will apply, or is it just a little window-dressing?


James Alexander Robb: There is no separate classification of imports that I can trace. There are very few imports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just so; it is the old bluff.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-537. Rovings, yarns and warps wholly or in part of vegetable fibres, not more advanced than singles, n.o.p., not to contain silk, artificial silk, nor wool:	British
preferential tariff, 124 per cent; intermediate tariff, 174 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Henry Herbert Stevens: A question arises here
which affects several items. Briefly, this is the situation. There is a duty put on fibre yarns, but not a corresponding increase of the' duty on the products made from these yarns. I think in the manufacture of carpets these yarns are retained free under the British preference, but in the manufacture of twine' and cordage they are not. A question of principle arises there. Speaking for myself, I have no objection to reasonable protection being given articles of this kind, but when such protection is imposed it ought to be carried through to the manufactured article. Previously, under item 558, yam was imported free and the twine into which this yam was manufactured carried duties of 20, 224 and 25. Under item 537 yam is made dutiable at 124, 174 and 25, but the protection on the twine made out of that yam remains the same-20, 224 and 25. The spread between the semi-raw material and the finished article1, the rates of which were 20, 224 and 25, is now 54, 5 and nothing. There is a grave injustice done to this manufactured article unless it is given added protection on account of the increase in raw material. It is unfortunate that the records of the so-called tariff board do not contain any information in regard to this particular case; I understand they did not take verbatim reports at the time this case was considered. So far as I can judge, there is one factory, in Kitchener I believe, -which will receive the advantage of this protection. I am not objecting to

that; I do not want the minister or others arguing the other side of the question to charge us with any desire to take away protection from any industry. That is not our point at all. If the industry is entitled to protection we want to see it protected. But we do say that protection should be applied intelligently and scientifically through the various processes of manufacture. In this instance, as I have pointed out, several very deserving industries in the country, which have been set up under the existing tariff, have been enjoying a measure of protection on their finished product, importing their raw materials under this free item. Now a duty is imposed on their raw materials but no corresponding increase is given them in connection with their finished product. Perhaps the minister can explain these items.


James Alexander Robb: Every year since I have been presenting the budget, representations have been made to me, on behalf of this firm my hon1. friend has mentioned, that they should be given a share of the protection enjoyed by those purchasing their goods. I observe that even now, with this change, they enjoy a considerable spread, the difference between 124 and 20-or 18 net, because there is a discount. After looking into the matter carefully I am convinced that the recommendations of the board are sound. There is a sufficient spread in respect of that industry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister will be good enough to look at tariff items 542, 543 and 543a under the old tariff, the one in force at the date this budget was introduced, he will find that jute or hemp yam and linen yarns were free.


James Alexander Robb: Only for certain purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under certain conditions, yes; but they were free. Now, if the minister will look at the new tariff, he will observe that there are no free yarns. Rovings, yarns and warps wholly or in part of vegetable fibres, not more advanced than singles, n.o.p., not to contain silk, artificial silk nor wool: this means, I take it, flax or jute or hemp, being vegetable fibres. What I should like to know is why these items are free for special purposes under the old tariff and are now dutiable at 124, 174 and 25 or, taking the next item, 537b, 20, 224 and 25, or the next item, 537c, free under the British preference, 10 per cent under the intermediate and 15 per cent under the general, for use solely in factories. There would seem to be a combination of items, the effect of which is to remove from the free list, under certain conditions, vegetable fibres such as flax, hemp

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
and jute and to place them now under rates of 12J, 20, and, in one instance, free under the British preference, if used in the factory itself.


James Alexander Robb: I think the spread as between the 'finished product and the raw material in these industries affords sufficient protection. It is only fair that the protection should be divided'. As regards the item which my hon. friend has mentioned, 542, only a very small portion came in and it was used largely for hammocks and twines. In 537a there is practically no change, but in 537b there is a reduction in the British preference, while in 537c nay hon. friends will observe that it is free under the British preference. It is true the rates will now be 10 per cent under the treaty and 15 per cent under the general tariff, but 'the imports are principally from the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact, the total imports for the year were only S659,057.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister says that
the spread is ample. Let me point out what it is. Under the British preference the spread would be 5J and! under the intermediate 5 per cent, while under the general tariff there is no spread at all. As regards item 537c the minister will find that the article is free to those who use it exclusively in their own factories in weaving fabrics or insulating wire.


James Alexander Robb: There is no change.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not complaining about that, but I suggest that it would be fair to include, in that provision, "for the manufacture of twine."


James Alexander Robb: That would give them a
greater spread. The evidence goes to show that in, the conversion of the product the estimated value of yarns in Dundee is $13 *per 100 pounds, while the cost of conversion is $1.61. My hon. friend will observe that they have quite a protection there.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I notice that in this
group of items from 537 to 537c there is a general increase. Was this increase made for purposes of protection or for revenue?


James Alexander Robb: There is not a general increase; they remain free under the British preference.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: They were free before.
There is an increase in the other items.


James Alexander Robb: There is an increase in the
others which gives us something with which to trade in negotiating treaties. The imports for the year ending March 31, 1927, were principally from the United Kingdom.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That is only one item.
If you take the whole group you have six items all becoming dutiable at rates ranging from 12J per cent to 15 per cent under the British preference. Thus we have one item at 5 per cent, 7J per cent and 10 per cent becoming dutiable at 12J, 17J, and 25. Then we have another item at 15 per cent, 17^ per cent and 17J per cent becoming dutiable at 20, 221 and 25. These all show an increase, and I was wondering if the increase was made for protection or for revenue.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will have to
place his own interpretation upon that.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am afraid this will
not bear out the statement of the minister that there will be a great loss in the revenue as a result of the tariff changes.


Mr. GEARY:: I would like to ask the
minister one question. I wonder if he has observed, in . the item to which my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre referred, that the spread under the British preference has been very drastically reduced. I understand there is a difficulty as between different manufacturers, and that under the present schedule one manufacturer is helped while the other will lose. I suggest to the minister that probably the spread is too low, and that he Should have a corresponding duty on the finished article as a means of compensation. This is a brief which has just been placed in my hands; I do not know very much about it, except that the matter came before the tariff board on an application for an increase, instead of which these unfortunates now find themselves faced with a decrease.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, but they still receive
sufficient protection.


George Reginald Geary: Then the minister thinks
(his protection is adequate?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is only 5 per cent
under the British preference.


James Alexander Robb: The manufacturer has a protection of 5 per cent in $14.61, and he only puts $1.61 into it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That makes no difference. The point is that he pays 12J per cent duty on the yarns out of which he makes his cordage; previously those yarns were free. Under the British preference he formerly had a protection of 20 per cent less 10 per cent on his twine, but while he still has that protection he is now compelled to pay 12i per cent on the yarn which enters into the manufacture of that twine, leaving him a protec-
1522	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
tion of only 5J per cent under the British preference, with no protection under the general tariff.


James Alexander Robb: I will leave it to the judgment of my hon. friend. If he had the responsibility of adjusting this tariff, would he not consider that where an industry has a protection, taking his own figures, of 5 per cent on $14.61, while the manufacturer puts only $1.61 into the venture, the protection is quite sufficient?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot follow the reasoning of my hon. friend. I admit again that these matters are highly technical and rather difficult for us to grasp at once, but I have grasped the fact that whereas these yarns were once free the manufacturer now has to pay 12i per cent duty on his raw material.


James Alexander Robb: He is dividing up with the
other fellow.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister said he was appealing to my judgment, so I would suggest either one of two things: The yarns imported for the manufacture of twine should be included under item 537c, or the protection on twine should be increased to correspond with the increase in duty on the raw material.


James Alexander Robb: I have stood these gentlemen
off for three years in their demand for increased protection on twine, and I would not like to concede it at the moment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps the minister would concede the other alternative.


James Alexander Robb: I think they are pretty well
protected.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the minister should be quite sure of the possible effect of this change. My information is that it seriously affects a number of factories, possibly to the extent that they will be unable to carry on this branch of their business, while it benefits only one factory. I am not attacking that one factory: I would not want the minister to come back at us and say we are attacking one factory, but I do point out that this is not in accordance with the Canadian tariff as it always has been. It is not in line with our policy in the past to have an increase in the duty on raw materials without some corresponding protection on the finished article, and so I suggest to the minister, if he is obdurate with regard to the other suggestion, that he insert the words "for the manufacture of twine" at the end of item 537c. That item already provides for the free entry of yarns used for manufacturers in their own factories in weaving fabrics and insulating wires.
fMr. Stevens.]


James Alexander Robb: No, I think I shall have to
stand by the information I have before me. This has been a redistribution of the protection enjoyed by that industry in its various stages, and I am bound to say that I believe the protection is sufficient. I have had the same briefs submitted to me; these gentlemen have been here making their representations, but they are well taken care of and I am satisfied that they have a sufficient protection. The other factory, however, was entitled to something.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In order that there may be no difficulty about it I sent out for the revised statutes of this year, and at page 49 we have the jute, hemp and flax items. A large number of those items are free, as the hon. member for Peace River has observed, but they are made dutiable under the tariff now proposed by the minister. The hon. member was asking whether this duty affords protection to the industries engaged in the manufacture of these various articles. I am not going over what my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre has said, but I should like to know what were the operating causes which induced the increase in the tariff on item 537, which covers manufacturers of cotton, hemp or flax, or of which cotton, hemp or flax is the component material of chief value; manufacturers of jute, which is item 538 and item 539, covering fibre, Mexican, natural, and tampico or istle and vegetable fibres and so on. Then follow a number of other items, including linen yarn, down to binder twine, which is item 554. Most of these items are free, but when we turn to the new tariff, we find that the only free items are rovings, yarns and warps, wholly of vegetable fibres, and also cottons, not to include materials for sewing, stitching or tacking purposes, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories in weaving fabrics or insulating wire. That is not the position under the old tariff. Those are free. Then binder twine is free, and that is the only item left on the page that is free. What I am asking, and I think it is a fair inquiry, is this; What are the reasons for making dutiable items that for years have been free? Are the duties protective or are they revenue duties? It seems to me these are relevant questions which we have a right to have answered.


James Alexander Robb: I may point out that 542 which my hon. friend has quoted is still free under the British preference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But only under the
British preference.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Henry Herbert Stevens: And only for certain purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And limited purposes.


James Alexander Robb: Item 543 is fully covered under item 537c, and is still free in the case of certain materials.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they were free under all the items before.


James Alexander Robb: We have adjusted this so as to meet the British preference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there are no importations under the British preference. This is a simple bluff on the House of Commons to use a plain, common, homely expression.


James Alexander Robb: Not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us get down to rock bottom about this. There is no necessity of standing up here and saying something, and trying to induce us to believe it is so because we can read, and here is the tariff, and here are the items. The minister comes and says: Look at what I have done, look at what I have made dutiable and what I have made free. Look at what I have made free under the British preference. The facts are there were no importations under the British preference.


James Alexander Robb: There were importations under the British preference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many of them? The minister says he has done certain things and it does not alter anything at all. It is simply piffle for window-dressing so that they can go out into the country and say, "Look at what we have done." They have not reduced the tariff, they have actually increased it. My hon. friends from Saskatchewan can take that home and tell it to their constituents. The facts are as I have stated.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friends are not following the items exactly because some of them are divided. The total importations for one of the items mentioned by my hon. friend amount to $418,716.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What item was that?


James Alexander Robb: Linen thread.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not touched that yet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That does not enter into this at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I deliberately left that alone.


James Alexander Robb: Of that $418,000 a total of $391,000 came in under the British preference.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That has nothing to do with this at all.


James Alexander Robb: In the case of imports of yarn for weaving purposes, insulating and in hammocks the total importations were $513,191.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yarns for hammocks?


James Alexander Robb: Yarns for weaving and insulating in hammocks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under 542, which under the old tariff were free.


James Alexander Robb: Of the amount mentioned
$338,103 came from the United Kingdom. Then as to yarns for damask the total importations were $155,866 and $91,105 came from the United Kingdom.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Those were free before.


James Alexander Robb: Of linen traceable the imports amounted to $936. This came from the United States largely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was free before.


James Alexander Robb: Only $936 worth of importations came in.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister apparently
has not got the point-or does not want to get it, one or the other.


James Alexander Robb: I should like to satisfy my
hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is satisfied
with his own findings. We are trying to point out that there is unquestionably a serious disability to important industries in this country. The minister has read certain figures but I have before me the customs tariff and these items that we have dealt with were all free under the old tariff. Now they remain dutiable.


James Alexander Robb: But they remain free under
the British preference.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just a minute. Under
item 537 the duties are 12i per cent, 174 per cent and 25 per cent; under 537a, 20, 22j and 25; under 537b, 15, 22J, and 25.


James Alexander Robb: That is what they were before.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They were free before.


James Alexander Robb: Item 537 was dutiable.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now let us take 537c.
We have a slight difference here. The item reads:
Rovings, yarns and warps wholly of vegetable fibres, other than cotton, not to include materials for sewing, stitching nor packaging purposes, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories in weaving fabrics or insulating wire.

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
That was previously free under all tariffs. Now it is free under the British preferential tariff, 10 per cent under the intermediate tariff and 15 per cent under the general tariff. But that is limited to that particular class of yarns. Yams imported for twine, for instance-and that is what I am speaking of particularly at the moment-which were previously free are now dutiable at the rate of 12J per cent, 17J per cent and 25 per cent. My hon. friend must recognize at once that there is a very serious disability imposed upon the manufacturers ol twine. For instance, just for the sake of consistency, why should the weaving factories and wire insulating factories receive this protection, whereas the twine factories receive no consideration?
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from March 19, consideration in committee of Bill No. 14, to incorporate the Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge Company-Mr. Pettit-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 7-Powers.-Construct bridge across Niagara river, etc.
Mr. CHAPLIN:: I wish to refer to clause
7,	which deals with the location of this bridge. The clause reads:
The company may construct, maintain and operate a bridge across the Niagara river for the passage of pedestrians, vehicles, carriages, electric cars or street cars and for any other like purpose, with all necessary approaches from a point at or near a point between the property of the Canadian National railways on River road and the north limit of Bender street.
In other words, they may put their bridgehead on the Canadian side from the northern line of the Canadian National Railway property. I have called the attention of the Minister of Railways to this, and it seems to me the government is making a great mistake in proposing to allow a bridge to be built close to that property. The Canadian National Railways have been aided by the park commission to widen out their road for their own convenience; they have brought in their railway tracks there, and to have a bridgehead butting up against their property with the consequent cluttering up and con-

gestion of traffic, is absurd. If the government were to leave this matter of location to the railway board I am quite sure they would never allow a bridge to be placed there; but under this clause, when the matter reaches the railway board, all they can do is to accept the point that we lay out. We say under that clause of the bill that the bridge must be between these two certain points. We do not give the railway board an opportunity to say whether that is the right place or not. We simply tell them the bridge is to go there, although that is no place for a bridge to be. If we were to say instead that this bridge can be placed between a certain point and another a mile away, the railway board would have an opportunity of doing something, but this clause limits them to about eight hundred feet. That is absurd; no government should allow such a thing, and I am surprised that the Minister of Railways or his department has not noticed that clause.


Mr. HEAPS:: The hon. member for Lincoln, referring to clause 7, says that the railway board would have no right to say where the bridge is to be located. The first part of clause 8 reads:
The said bridge shall be constructed and located under, and be subject to, such regulations as the governor in council prescribes.
Perhaps the Solicitor General might answer this question. Does that mean that the governor in council would determine where the bridge would go?


Lucien Cannon: There is no doubt about
that.


James Dew Chaplin: If that be the case, why does clause 7 not say positively that the bridge shall be between two certain points? In other words the Solicitor General would say that the railway commission can determine at what point between those two points the bridge will be placed. I will agree that they can do that. But the minister will not say that the railway commission could determine the location of the bridge two hundred feet on the other side of Bender street. My complaint is that all that the railway board will be able to do is to determine at what point between the two particular points that are mentioned, the bridge will be located.


Charles Avery Dunning: A few moments ago my hon. friend mentioned the Canadian National Railways and their interest in the matter. He was kind enough to speak to me in regard to the matter earlier in the day and since then I have caused inquiries to be made of the Canadian National Railways. I am now in a position to say that the Canadian Na-

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
tional Railways are not opposing the bridge. Their attention was called to the matter to which my hon. friend refers.


Lucien Cannon: They said so before the
committee when my hon. friend from Lincoln was present.


James Dew Chaplin: They may not be opposing this bill because the bridge is not situated directly in front of their property, but if they thought for one minute that the bridge was going to sit alongside their property with the bridgehead two hundred feet away from them, and another bridgehead within fifty feet, they would have reason to object, and they would object. I know what I am talking about. There would be objection to it; there could not help being objection to it; there should be objection to it in the public interest. Somebody is proceeding without regard to the public interest; that is all I have to say about it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
On section 10-tolls.
James Dew Chaplin: I would ask the Solicitor
General to insert the same wording here that he used before, to the effect that their tolls shall previously be approved1 by the governor in council.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will read the bill as reprinted, he will find that it says:
Provided that such tolls shall have been previously approved by the governor in council.


James Dew Chaplin: That is all right, then.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We have no control over the tolls charged against people coming from the United States, but this is a point that ought to be very carefully considered, because I can see where there might be a low charge to people going from the Canadian side to the American side, and a high charge when they are returning.


Lucien Cannon: On the American side they have in their legislation a provision for controlling the tolls. In any event we cannot go into that matter. All we can do here is to see that the Canadian public is protected.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But you might compel the
company to give our own Canadians a return rate.


Lucien Cannon: It is a possibility, but 1
think a very remote one.
Mr. HEAPS':	In other words, they would
still have the chance of soaking our people when they return.


Lucien Cannon: I do not think the
American authorities will allow that.


Hugh Guthrie: This section provides
that the tolls shall be subject to the approval of the governor in council. I would ask the Solicitor General if he thinks that is the correct procedure. Should it not be subject to the Board of Railway Commissioners.?


Lucien Cannon: I have examined previous legislation covering similar matters, and I find that the tolls are subject to the approval of the governor in council. There was a discussion last night whether it should be the railway board or not, but for the sake of having uniformity in our legislation I think it would be better to leave it the way it is, with the understanding that the governor in council has power to refer these matters to the railway board for adjudication.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-issue bonds and other securities not exceeding S4.000,000.
James Dew Chaplin: This clause was discussed in committee, and I pointed out to the Solicitor General, who had really taken a very active part in advancing the bill through committee, that we were giving authority to this company to issue $4,000,000 in bonds before giving them authority to issue a lot of stock, and later on we give them authority to issue another $6,000,000, making $12,000,000 or $13,000,000 of securities which will be outstanding, if it is all issued, in connection with this proposition. In view of the dangling promise that is held out to us that, after the securities have been retired, the bridge will come back to the Dominion or provincial government, I would like to inquire if the Solicitor General has considered placing in the bill the terms upon which the stock will be retired. I suggested to him yesterday that we insert a clause similar to that used by a private corporation when it issues preferred stock, that the company may call in the stock at a premium, say at 110. That provision is printed on the stock certificate so that everybody who purchases the stock knows the terms on which it may be retired. Unless that is done in this case, this so-called promise to return the bridge to the Canadian people is not worth a snap of the finger, and the minister knows that as well as everybody else.


Lucien Cannon: Clause 11 must be read in conjunction with clause 18, the proviso in which meets the argument of my hon. friend. The proviso in clause 18 says:
Provided always that the period for the payment of the obligations

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge

That is what my hon. friend is referring to.
-of the companies and the retirement of their capital stock and any extension thereof and the provision of the companies' by-laws in respect thereof shall have been previously approved by the governor in council.


James Dew Chaplin: That does not amount to anything unless we insert a provision that the stock is to be retired at a certain figure. Otherwise, it might be retired at 400, and that is what will happen in this case. I know the situation; I know that you are giving away a valuable franchise. The stock of this company wild be worth a great deal of money, and you are not taking the warning that is being given to you.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-power to issue shares as paid-up stock in payment of acquired properties.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I simply wish to note that
under this clause the entire stock of the company may be watered. The provision is that the capital stock of the company shall be $1,500,000, divided into shares of $100 each. That entire stock of $1,500,000 may be paid up by a fictitious or nominal consideration. It may be entirely watered, under the practice of these corporations at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The cost of getting the charter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, issued for the cost of
getting the charter, and then, putting the best case for the public, when the company has earned sufficient to pay off its bonds, which may be issued for cash,-there is no limit to the price which will be paid for those bonds- and has retired the capital stock, which is watered, at a price of par at least, the bridge may become the property of the public. I have done it as a lawyer, and I will do it again-arrange for contracts to pay up capital stock by fictitious values-as long as this parliament authorizes it to be done. I have no moral scruples at all if I am engaged as counsel in organizing a company so long as parliament authorizes it; that is, I will draw contracts which will enable my clients to comply with the law. But sitting as a member of parliament, I say that I do not approve of legislation which enables companies exercising public franchises to water their stock to the full limit, and then provide means for the redemption of that stock for cash as if it had been paid up in cash.


Lucien Cannon: I am not as familiar with company operations as my hon. friend, not

having had his long experience at the bar. I am quite sure that many abuses could be wiped out, but I do not think his remarks have any relation to clause 12, which authorizes the company to pay for certain things with paid-up shares of their capital stock instead of in cash. The original clause contained the word " services ", which we have deleted. We did so to obviate exactly what my hon. friend has mentioned. As the clause reads now the paid-up shares can be given only in payment for any businesses, franchises, undertakings, rights, powers, privileges, and so on.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My objection is that the deletion of the word " services " leaves it wide open still. No counsel called upon to organize this company need exercise his imagination if he wishes to find either a business, or a franchise, or an undertaking, or a right, or a privilege, or some letters patent, or some invention, or some real estate, or some stock, or an asset, or some other property, which he can place in the contract as the consideration for the issue of the $1,500,000 of capital stock. There is no provision in this section and no provision under the general law which would enable a court to investigate and ascertain whether or not that consideration was of real value to the amount of the stock issued. That is my objection. I am simply calling attention to the present practice, so that the Solicitor General may act with his eyes wide open. I think the time has come when we should be very careful in authorizing these corporations exercising public franchises to issue their stock for a mere nominal value.


Lucien Cannon: The abuse exists in the general practice covering all these companies. This is no exception.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is no exception at all.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Why make it possible to do so in this case?


Lucien Cannon: The underlying principle
of all legislation is that people are supposed to do what is right. People may take hold of a clause passed in entire good faith by this parliament and make a use of it that none of us could foresee; but if we attempt to legislate with that object in view we will never be able to frame clauses to meet all the eventualities which may be brought about by the ingenious brains of modern finance.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the promoters of this company exercise the rights which parliament has created and bestowed upon them, I recognize no moral wrong in their so doing. I am

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
simply calling attention to the fact that these companies do it when authorized by law-as this company will be-and they do not regard themselves as abusing the law or as proceeding in any immoral manner whatsoever; nor do I. But we as trustees in this parliament are doing wrong, for we are creating the opportunity for abuse of the public franchises which we bestow upon such companies.


Lucien Cannon: This clause does not give anybody a legal right to do wrong.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Because it is not wrong.


An hon. MEMBER:: How could they do wrong if they act under a legal right?


Lucien Cannon: The clause gives power to the company to pay with paid-up stock, something which is worth while.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It does not say so.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly. The clause
says:
The directors may issue as paid-up stock shares of the capital stock of the company in payment for any businesses,
And so 6n. But if those directors meet and decide to give their paid-up stock for something which is not worth anything, we are not conferring such a right upon them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You are giving them legal authority to do it.


Lucien Cannon: They would be simply interpreting the clause in a sense altogether foreign to what it means.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This clause authorizes the transfer of $1,500,000, the entire capital stock of the corporation, for a patent or invention.


Lucien Cannon: Which is worth something.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: For something which may have no actual value above $100 in cash, and we with our eyes open are authorizing the company to do that. When we once give such authority by statute it is no immoral act, so far as my conviction goes, if the promoters should exercise their. statutory rights to the full extent.


Mr. PETTIT:: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure hon. members that the water will run under the bridge and not through it.


James Dew Chaplin: By this section, Mr. Chairman, we are authorizing the directors to issue $1,500,000 worth of stock. We have an interest in the value of that stock, because the company hold out to us the prospect of this bridge being returned to us. Therefore we ought to put some value on the stock so as
to know what it is going to cost us should we take over the bridge. I mentioned this more than once before the committee, but no notice was taken. Now that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has called the attention of the Solicitor General to the practice to be guarded against, surely he will take some cognizance of the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 13 to 15 agreed to.
On section 16-Amalgamated company may borrow money and mortgage property.
James Dew Chaplin: Six millions is given away pretty readily.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
On section 18-When property, etc., of company to be conveyed to Dominion and to state of New York respectively.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I wish to enforce my point; so long as I am a member I intend to do likewise in respect of any legislation of this kind. I have experience in this sort of thing. If the committee is prepared to approve of what I consider an improper provision, then it will do so with its eyes open. Section 18 provides:
When the corporate obligations of the company and of any of the companies mentioned in sections 14, 15 and 10 of this act, with which this company shall join or unite in the construction of said bridge, shall have been paid-
So far this provision is reasonable, if these corporate obligations are issued at a proper price. But the section proceeds:
-and their capital stock shall have been retired in the manner prescribed in their by-laws

The capital stock of $1,500,000 may be issued for a patent right worth $100, and then the by-laws may provide that that stock, of which $1,500,000 has been issued for a real value of $100, may be retired at any price mentioned therein. That is what the section means. So that if the by-law which is passed by the directors of the company, and approved in due course by the shareholders, so provides, this stock of $100 par value, for which less than 1 cent has been paid in actual cash value, may be retired, not at $100 even, but at $200, $300, $400 or at any price they choose. I suggest that in the incorporation of companies exercising public franchises such as this we should direct attention to provisions of this nature. We should consider them with our eyes open and not approve so readily of a section such as this.


Lucien Cannon: The by-laws have to be
approved by the governor in council.

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is quite true that there
is this provision:
Provided always that the period for the payment of the obligations of the companies and the retirement of their capital stock and any extension thereof and the provision of the companies' by-laws in respect thereof shall have been previously approved by the governor in council.


Lucien Cannon: In respect of their capital stock.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the tolls are sufficiently
high to pay, say, 12 per cent upon every share of $100 par value issued, the stock will sell in the market at say twice par; and if the stock is selling in the market-its nominal value being $100-at two or three hundred dollars, and the shareholders come to this government, or to a Conservative government, these people who have bought and paid for their stock at this heavy premium will be allowed, under the by-laws of the company, to receive reimbursement on that basis. The difficulty is this: The promotor who procures the issue of $1,500,000 of stock for a consideration worth $100 in real value, or even $1,000, does not continue to own the stock; he is a stock speculator. He puts the stock out on the market and there is turnover after turnover until the stock reaches a premium of perhaps two or three hundred per cent. When the stock is finally transferred to the possession of the shareholder who has paid two or three hundred per cent premium, and when that shareholder comes to the government and asks for the approval of a by-law m respect of its redemption, the government will be in fact morally bound not to deprive him of the property for which he has paid full value. The promoter, however, has put one and a half millions or more into his pocket as a result of the transaction. In my judgment, these public utility companies exercising public franchise, whether they be tramway or railway companies, should not be allowed to issue their stock except for actual cash value, because they are exercising a public franchise, and their tolls should be kept in such ratio or proportion as will enable them to earn an income or dividend of a reasonable rate per cent upon the actual cash which has gone into the enterprise. It is different altogether from an ordinary industrial company, which is not speculative in this sense. They should be kept rigidly down within the usual limitations and restrictions imposed upon companies exercising a public franchise.


James Dew Chaplin: This is the last word I
have to say on the bill-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Dew Chaplin: Some of my hon. friends I know, are impatient, but even they sometimes would like to hear the truth. Some of these people, from the west especially, rail about capitalism and about the manufacturers raising their stock. Let them look at this; here is a chance for them to get busy. Here is a company purporting to hand back to Canada a franchise after they have got through with it and exploited it. When they have done with it they are going to hand it back, and I am trying to get the minister to ensure that they will not hand back a mere empty shell. I have asked him to put a few teeth into the bill, but instead of that every tooth is drawn; there is not one in it. I have asked him to fix the price of the stock, as he can very well do. It is done every day. I ask him for the protection of the country to make some provision in this regard, and if he does not like to do so I am through. I have said my last word.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Dew Chaplin: Hon. gentlemen from the west say "carried."


George Reginald Geary: I would point out to the
Solicitor General that the proviso in section 18 refers only to the period for retirement; it has nothing to do with other by-laws as regards retirement. The intention is not carried out in the proviso.


Peter McGibbon: It seems to me that
the Solicitor General, who is piloting the bill-


George Reginald Geary: Pardon me; I should like
the Solicitor General to reply to the point I have raised.
Air, CANNON:	First of all, this is a
private bill, not a government bill. In the second place, I have taken a special interest in this bill because of its importance. If the bill can be improved, so much the better; there are many lawyers in this committee with a wider experience than I possess, but I thought section 18 as drafted met the situation. If other gentlemen of the committee do not think so, the bill can be amended either here or some other place. This is private legislation.


Peter McGibbon: Will the Solicitor
General answer the question asked by the hon. member for Lincoln-whether or not he is willing to place a clause in this bill which will provide that the stock shall be retired at a certain price, namely, $110? That will not interfere with the principles of the bill, but it will protect the public.

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge


Lucien Cannon: This is not a matter for
me to decide; it is for the committee.


Peter McGibbon: Yes, it is: you are the whole works.


Lucien Cannon: I am very glad my hon.
friend has that opinion for once.


[Stage Direction]
Sestion agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
On section 20-Labour and materials.
Abraham Albert Heaps: This section refers to Canadian labour, and consequently I think I am entitled to say a few words at this point. Anything which can be placed in this bill to give protection to Canadian labour will have my hearty support, but I am wondering who was responsible for the insertion of this clause. Whoever he may be he deserved to have monuments erected in his honour on both sides of the bridge. Yesterday the Solicitor General told us that this parliament has no jurisdiction on the American side of the bridge, and I am just wondering what effect this clause will have on persons employed on the American end of the bridge.


Lucien Cannon: None at all.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then I suppose that when
this measure comes before the New York state legislature a similar clause will be included providing that American labour will be employed and American material used as far as it may be practicable to do so.


An hon. MEMBER:: Half way across.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This clause goes all the way across; it says Canadian labour and material must be used in connection with the construction of the bridge as far as it is practicable to do so. The people who will have to interpret this clause may not have to use one cent's worth of Canadian material or the labour of one Canadian workman, and I do not see the use of including a clause of this nature if it cannot be carried into effect. I should like to see a section added to this bill which would give some protection to the men employed on the job, and I would suggest that the Solicitor General insert a subsection giving the men employed on the Canadian side of the bridge the benefit of the fair wage schedule prevailing in that particular part of Ontario. That would be some protection to them at least.


Lucien Cannon: Again I may say to my
hon. friend that he is absolutely free to introduce any amendment he may wish, subject to the rules governing discussion in committee,
but the work in connection with this bridge will have to be carried on under the general laws prevailing in this country, and labour will be protected by those laws.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask what laws we have to protect labour as far as wages are concerned?


Lucien Cannon: There is a general law, I understand, having to do with fair wages.


Abraham Albert Heaps: A Dominion law?


Lucien Cannon: Certainly, and my hon. friend may rest assured that my colleague the Minister of Labour gives a great deal of attention to that particular law. I may add that if my hon. friend has any suggestions to make to my colleague who is in charge of the Department of Labour, they would be very welcome indeed.


Peter McGibbon: I rather think the last remarks of the Solicitor General were meant as a joke. In this bill he is giving a private corporation something which should not be given; that is, he is granting a franchise which will create millionaires. Then he is asked what protection he is going to give labour.


Lucien Cannon: The hon. member for Welland is sponsoring the bill; I am not.


Peter McGibbon: I agree that the hon. member for Welland is nominally responsible, but the Solicitor General is the main force piloting it through this house.


James Dew Chaplin: And through the committee also.


Peter McGibbon: Without the support of the Solicitor General it would get nowhere, and I leave it to the consensus of the house if that is not a fact.


Jean-François Pouliot: He shows his good judgment there.


Peter McGibbon: Perhaps so and perhaps not; I am not disputing the principle of the bill or the good intentions of the Solicitor General; I am merely asking a question. When he is willing to give a franchise which will result in the creation of millionaires, is he willing to protect the public who will have to pay? He has been asked that question before and has refused to answer it.


Lucien Cannon: I take no credit for that clause; it was introduced by the members of the committee, who even we^t a step further. They received assurances from the people who are behind this bill that Canadian labour would be protected, Canadian material used and Canadian engineers employed.
Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge


Peter McGibbon: I admire the skill shown by the Solicitor General in evading this question. I am not concerned with anything but this point: The Solicitor General, and the government through him, are willing to grant a franchise which will create millionaires. What is the hon. gentleman going to do to protect the public who will have to pay for all this? That question has been asked a number of times already and he has skilfully evaded an answer. I ask him now whether he is willing to incorporate in this bill a clause providing that these bonds must be retired at a certain price, as suggested by the hon. member for Lincoln.


Lucien Cannon: I am sorry my hon. friend would not take any assurance from me; I will have to ask my hon. friend from Welland to give that assurance.


Peter McGibbon: The member for Welland can give us nothing; it is the Solicitor General who can give us everything.


James Dew Chaplin: The rather naive way in which the Solicitor General now dissociates himself from the bill is really laughable. I would remind him, however, that more than once he told the committee that he had amendments to offer to different sections of the bill. Now he says, "I could not put in an amendment; such a thing is impossible. Look to the member for Welland for the amendment."


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like to move an
amendment to section 20 of the bill, to the following effect:
And that the fair wage schedule be paid to the men employed on the Canadian side of the bridge.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that is the law
of the land as a result of a resolution adopted by this house, and incorporated in all government contracts.


An hon. MEMBER:: This is not a government contract.


Hugh Guthrie: That is true. I see the
point.


The CHAIRMAN:: The amendment suggested by the hon. member cannot be accepted at this stage. Standing order No. 113 reads as follows:
No important amendment may be proposed to any private bill, in a committee of the whole house, or at the third reading of the bill, unless one day's notice of the same has been given.
The hon. gentleman's amendment is certainly an important one.


Hugh Guthrie: He can give notice of
the amendment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that a few moments ago the Solicitor General informed the house that the fair wage schedule would operate as far as this particular bill was concerned. Now in proposing this amendment I am only proposing something which may be accomplished by some other method, or may be made effective through existing law with which personally I am not very familiar. I cannot understand, Mr. Chairman, how you can call an amendment of this nature an important amendment when it does not change the character of the bill in any way, shape or form.


John Frederick Johnston: My ruling was not
based on the importance of the amendment at all. According to the rules it cannot be admitted. If we admitted the amendment at this stage we should only be establishing a precedent that would give us trouble at another time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: A few minutes ago the
Solicitor General suggested that we could make amendments to the bill.


Lucien Cannon: Under the rules, I said.


John Frederick Johnston: There is a way by
which amendments can be considered. One day's notice must be given to enable the amendment to be printed in the votes and proceedings.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Shall the preamble be adopted?


John Evans: Before the preamble carries I should like to say a word on the principle embodied in this bill. You are giving power in this bill to a private company to construct a public utility. This bridge is to be constructed over the Niagara river,, and no doubt in the future it will become very valuable to the company which owns it. To my thinking private ownership of a public utility is always an evil. We have found that out in the west, and sooner or later the government, or parliament, or the public themselves, have to deal with the situation thus created. We in the west have found that it has been necessary to take over practically every public utility with which we have had to do since settlement started in that country. There is some difference in eastern Canada and western Canada regarding public utilities. The idea in connection with a public utility is that all the work shall be done at cost. It seems that in eastern Canada, owing to protective privileges, it is possible to pass on the cost ultimately to a portion of the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
community that has no means of obtaining relief from the burden. This bill grants to a company a charter which I believe is being secured for the purposes of trading. It is a piece of legislation which gives power to the company to do a great deal of charter mongering. I have more than a suspicion, by the way, that certain clauses of this bill will permit this company to amalgamate with other companies, and that the charter is being secured for no other purpose than to rake in the dollars.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


John Evans: Levity is all very well, gentlemen, but this legislation is too serious to go through without a good deal of thought, and I am surprised to see men representing constituencies in the west sitting down and taking this thing so coolly. Whether this enterprise is to be located in eastern Canada or in the west the matter is one which affects the whole nation. It is in reality a national affair, and I feel that the putting of this great public utility in private hands is an evil that will be felt more and more in the years to corpe. When this measure came up in the committee on railways and canals last year I opposed it on the ground that it was a public utility which should never be allowed to go into private hands. It is international in its character, and if it is needed the two nations concerned should carry out the work. It should be done as the result of a joint agreement between the two countries, just as is proposed in the case of the St. Lawrence deep waterway. It can only be carried1 out as the result of a definite plan carefully studied in advance. It is certainly in the interests of the whole of Canada that the granting of charters of this kind to private companies-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Evans: -for the sake of gain should be stopped.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Evans: This may seem odd to some hon. members-


Hewitt Bostock: The hour for private bills having expired, the house will now revert to the order: House in committee of ways and means.




[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: 
James Alexander Robb: Prior to six o'clock there was some inquiry and some uncertainty as to how the change would affect the industry and certain comparative statements were made as between the former yarn items and the proposed yarn items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has to be absent for an hour and I wondier if the minister would go on with another item. The hon. member would like to speak further to this one.


James Alexander Robb: I will wait until he returns.
Item stands.
Item 538 agreed to.
Customs tariff-538a. Articles which enter into the cost of the manufacture of binder twine, or twine for harvest binders, when imported for such use exclusively by manufacturers who manufacture such twine only: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Does this include machinery for making binder twine?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-539. Cordage, exceeding one inch in circumference, wholly of vegetable fibres, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 22J per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What change?


James Alexander Robb: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-540. Woven fabrics, wholly of flax or of flax and cotton, not bleached, mercerized nor coloured, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 27i per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the following be substituted for item 540:
Customs tariff-540. Woven fabrics, wholly of flax, or of hemp, or of flax, hemp and cotton, not bleached, mercerized nor coloured, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 27J per cent.


Robert James Manion: Is this another increase?
The rates are increased, are they not?



Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-540a. Woven fabrics, wholly of flax, or of flax and cotton, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 32J per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the
following be substituted for item 540a:
Customs tariff-540a. Woven fabrics, wholly of flax, or of hemp, or of flax, hemp and cotton, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 32J per cent.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Does this represent an increase or a decrease in the duty generally, the imports being taken into consideration? It looks like an increase.


James Alexander Robb: It is an increase in part.
Also, it puts hemp in along with flax.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is the purpose
of the increase? Is it to protect some particular industry in Canada, and if so, what industry?


James Alexander Robb: It is to encourage the flax
industry particularly that has been started out in the western provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I direct attention
to the fact that at the last sitting we dealt with the cotton schedules? Is the repetition of the word "cotton" in items 540 and 540a not unnecessary?


James Alexander Robb: There is "n.o.p." there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there was "n.o.p."
in the cotton schedules also. This says:
Woven fabrics, wholly of flax, or of hemp, or of flax, liemp and cotton.


James Alexander Robb: The cottons are wholly of
cotton. These are mixtures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the item is amended it reads:
Woven fabrics, wholly of flax, or of hemp, or of flax, hemp and cotton.
That is covered in the cotton schedules.


James Alexander Robb: This may be a mixed product. The others are wholly of cotton.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Why is there a cotton item in this? I thought we were separating the cotton altogether from the flax, hemp or jute?


James Alexander Robb: This may be a mixed product.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: Is this item not passed on by the tariff board?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.
[Mr. Manion.J


William Russell Fansher: Is this increase their recommendation?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Do I understand the
minister to say that the tariff board had recommended something? I thought they were a fact-finding body.


John Evans: I wish to point out to the
minister that this is a finished article upon which the consumers have to pay about the highest rate of duty. He says that the tariff board have considered this and have given their advice on the matter. We have been placing on the free list certain yarns and other things that go into the manufacture of this article. The government is, under this item, again by legislation discriminatng between the rights of one citizen and another. I am wondering if the minister can say that this is a scientific tariff. That has been the slogan in this house for a number of years. Is it a scientific tariff when the consumer has to pay about the highest rate of duty on an article while everything that enters into its manufacture comes in free? Why cannot this go on the same plan as the binder twine where the material is allowed to come in free and the finished article is free of duty to the consumer? It is rather strange to me that we shall go on year after year-and we have revised the tariff many times during the last twenty-five years-carrying on in this way which is calculated to keep up the cost of living and to put an undue profit into the pockets of the manufacturers. We are told that this is a scientific tariff. Not only have we been carrying on in this way, but this year we have passed items that are calculated to impair the public revenue without any compensation whatever to the consumer. It it time that we called a halt to this kind of thing. Perhaps free trade is not advisable at the present time, but let us have a uniform tariff. Are we a commonwealth or are we not? Is there in this house a ruling class that has a divine right to rule? It looks as though the government has again, without any consideration whatever, coolly set this item down for the benefit of a privileged class. I could not let the item go through without entering this protest.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I did not spring my
question with the idea of trapping the Minister of Finance at all. Perhaps the minister just made a slip of the tongue. It is very important that we should know whether the tariff board made recommendations or not. I understood the minister to say yes. I think we are entitled to the information whether the tariff board is simply a

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
fact-finding board or not. If they have made recommendations, I think the committee should know as to what schedules they have made recommendations.


James Alexander Robb: I thought I made that clear
last week when we were first discussing these items. The tariff board is called in consultation and sits around a table with the ministers and the officers of the departments, not only the Department of Finance but the Department of National Revenue. Having heard all the inquiry, the tariff board naturally have a round-table talk as to what is fair and best to the producer and the consumer, and this is the result that I now bring to parliament.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: When the minister says
the tariff board, does he mean the three members of the board?


James Alexander Robb: I mean the three members of
the tariff board if they are present in the city, and if they are not all present, the members of the board who are here.


William Russell Fansher: I notice there is quite an increase in some of these rates. Was this item passed on by the tariff board and an increase in the rates recommended?


James Alexander Robb: This is the same item in
regard to which I gave an explanation a moment ago.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-540b. Woven or braided fabrics wholly of flax or cotton, or both, generally known as tapes or webbing, not exceeding twelve inches in width, with cut pile or not: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27i per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the following be substituted for item 540b:
Woven or braided fabrics, wholly of flax, hemp or cotton, or of flax, hemp and cotton, generally known as tapes or webbing, not exceeding twelve inches in width, with cut pile or not: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27i per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-541. Woven fabrics, wholly of hemp, or jute, or both, not bleached nor coloured, n.o.p.:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the following be substituted for item 541:
Woven fabrics, wholly of jute, not bleached nor coloured, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is this an increase or a decrease, or is it simply a balancing of two items?


James Alexander Robb: There is a net reduction in taxation on the basis of last year's importations of $374,032. The importations last year under item 545 were $400,577 from the United Kingdom, $33,122 from India, $65,435 under treaty rates, and $26,513, under the general rates, from the United States. That makes a total of $525,647. The imports under item 546 were, British preference, $5,066,069; general, $1,298,888. The net reduction in taxation is $374,032.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: This is a manufacturer's item, is it not?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, but not entirely.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: In item 541 we have a reduction, and in item 540a, which we have passed, apparently we have an increase in the finished article. So we are giving a little more free trade in what they buy, and a little more protection on what they sell.


James Alexander Robb: No, it does not work out that way.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I think I ought to have an answer. The two items are surely related.


James Alexander Robb: I cannot give my hon. friend any more information than I have given him already. I have given the importations and stated that there is a net reduction in taxation of $374,032.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: But my point is that
item 540a covers the same material, except that it is advanced a further step in the finishing process. One fabric is bleached and the other is unbleached. The unbleached gets a reduction and the bleached gets an increase; that is the point.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend probably has not noticed the amendment which has just been read. Item 541 deals with fabrics wholly of jute under the amendment that has been submitted.


Mr. KELLNER:: The minister quoted a reduction in taxation of something over $300,000 with respect to item 545. That item was on the free list, so how could there have been any revenue from importations under that item? Where does the reduction come in?
1534	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: I did not quote a reduction, in taxation on that item. I estimated that there was an increase of taxation of $5,000, but that the net reduction in taxation on the two items was $374,032.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister will look at the schedules, he will find that commencing with item 540 and going on to 542a, which includes fabrics of jute, hemp, flax and woven or knitted fabrics, under the proposed rates there is but one of these items free under the British preferential tariff, and that is the largest one. Before the minister touched the tariff, there were several of these items free, according to the tariff I have under my hand. Now how can it be that there is a loss in taxation in applying the new rates as compared with the old, when under the new rates there is only one item free under the British preferential, whereas there were several before?


James Alexander Robb: I am giving my hon. friend the net reduction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But how can it be so when there is only one item left free, and there were several free before?


James Alexander Robb: The importations were small.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They must be coming in under the treaty rates or under the general tariff. Item 541 deals with woven fabrics, wholly of jute, not bleached nor coloured, and that is the only item free now under the pro-prosed rates under the British preferential tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: Was that free before?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am advised the rate was 7J per cent before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the trouble. It is now a comprehensive item. Part of the item under the British preferential tariff is free, but prior to the tariff being changed, more than half of these items had the right to free importation either under the British preference or under the general or treaty rates. I cannot for the life of me see how the minister makes out a net reduction, unless he applies the general tariff to items that are now free under the British preference.


James Alexander Robb: The imports are very small.
There is an increase of $5,923. The big reduction comes in the other item, where there is an estimated decrease of $379,000.


George Reginald Geary: Has the minister any figures under his hand to show what amount of jute doth under 546 is manufactured in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: No, I have not those figures.


George Reginald Geary: We were told that item 546 was imported from the United Kingdom to the extent of some five million dollars. Is
that article manufactured at all in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: Not to any extent.


George Reginald Geary: So that is not a tax on any
manufactures here?


James Alexander Robb: No.


James Dew Chaplin: I noticed in the regular
tariff schedule at page 74 that starting with 539 every item is free all the way down to 546. It looks to me as if somebody, perhaps the tariff board, has just mixed them all up so as to confuse everybody except those in the trade.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is proceeding to argue on items that I have allowed to stand to suit the convenience of the hon.
member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), who is absent. When he returns I will explain that the imports under those items do not amount to anything substantial; one was less than a thousand dollars, and there were no imports of any kind under another item.


James Dew Chaplin: I am saying that from 539 right down to 546 there is not one single item but what is free.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is in the old tariff.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes. Now we have a similar list with only one free item in it.


James Alexander Robb: I will explain it when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre returns, or I will take the items up right now. I am willing to do anything to suit my hon. friends.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend the minister does not quite appreciate the point of the hon. member for Lincoln. We are not dealing with 537 or 537a. If the minister will look at the old tariff, commencing at item 539, which deals with fibre from Mexico and other places, and follow down the list to 545, he will find that in an amendment made by Mr. Fielding all the items were placed on the free list for the British preference, for the treaty tariff and for the general tariff. The new tariff now submitted by the minister removes every one of those items from the free list, except one which is left free under the British preference. The net result is that instead of being a reduction in the tariff there is an increase-very trifling, it is true, but still an increase.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is now discussing the very items which he asked might Stand until the hon. member for Vancouver Centre returns.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: The items which stood at
my request are 537 and 537a, rovings, yams and warps wholly or in part of vegetable fibres. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre is now here.


James Alexander Robb: But they include now 542, 543 and 543a. We might pass 541 and revert to item 537.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item 541 as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-537. Rovings, yarns and warps wholly or in part of vegetable fibres, not more advanced than singles, n.o.p., not to contain silk, artificial silk nor wool: British preferential tariff, 124 per cent; intermediate tariff, 174 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: Prior to six o'clock we had
some inquiry as to these items. The proposed items are 537, 537a, 542, 543, 543a, 750 and 711. For administrative purposes several of the former items are consolidated in one or two of the new, and these lose their identity as wholly free items.; but the jute and hemp yams for weaving which formerly entered free under item 542, and the linen yams for weaving which formerly entered free under 543 and 543a will continue to enter free for weaving in so far as the British preference rate is concerned, and the British preferential rate is the effective rate. Such portions of these yarns imports as formerly enjoyed free entry for purposes other than weaving, that is, for making twines, will now be subject to 124, 17^ and 25 per cent. That is, item 537, if single; and at 20, 22i and 25, under 537a, if plied. The so-called twines will themselves enter under the latter item, thus leaving the spread in the British preference rates of from 12^ to 20 between the yarn for twines and the twines themselves. No single former item is absolutely comparable with any single new item. Portions of imports under various of the old may enter under various of the new items. The imports shown herewith are necessarily under the former items. I will give my hon. friends the importations. Under 542, jute and1 hemp yarn for weaving twines, and so forth, the total importations were $513,191. Two thirds of these importations, or $338,107, came from the United Kingdom. Item 543, linen yarns for weaving, the total importations were $155,866. About 60 per rent, or $91,105, came from the United Kingdom. Item 543a, linen yarns for hollands. What were the total imports of this item? Nil. There were no imports from any country. Item 750, yarns of all kinds for tape lines. The linen portions are not traceable. The total importations were $936-all from the United States.
It was intimated earlier in the day that the changes would be beneficial only to one mill, but I find that the home production of twines was 2,818,600 pounds. Of this total the Doon mills produced 807,296 pounds, or a little less than 29 per cent. In this connection may I point out that this particular mill spins its own yarns and converts them into twine.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I have no
quarrel with the statement made by the minister; I think it is quite accurate. The only point I desire to make, and which I had hoped we might manage to meet successfully, was the fact that the manufacturer of twine will now be placed at a disadvantage as compared with other manufacturers who come under section 537c. I suggested to the minister two alternatives, one of which was an increase in the general protection to the manufacturer of twine on his finished product, comparable to the increase in the duty on yams which go into the manufacture of that twine. The other alternative would be to put the manufacturer of twine under item 537c. If, for instance, you are putting under item 537c the factory weaving fabrics or using yarns for insulating wire, it seems reasonable to me to bring the manufacturer of twine under the same head. It is such elementary justice as must appeal to the minister, and I thought that after the dinner adjournment he would be prepared to concede the point.


James Alexander Robb: I was fair before the adjournment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not wish alt all to irritate the minister; I am not offering these criticisms in any captious spirit. I quite appreciate the fact that these schedules are exceedingly intricate, complex and technical. But the point I have made is so utterly clear to me that it seems to ,permit scarcely of any argument. Even at the risk of being considered harsh, I would put it this way: it looks to me like penalizing the manufacturer of twine. I wonder whether the minister would consent to let this item 537c stand for a few days in order to give those affected by it an opportunity to discuss it further with him, just as he has been good enough to aillow the other item in the cotton schedule to stand for a short time.


James Alexander Robb: If I allowed this item to stand from now until Christmas the various industries concerned would not get together. They all want to get the big end of the stick. I have looked into the matter carefully and the officers of the department have also gone

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
into it very closely and we feel that the division of protection is fair and reasonable. I do not want to repeat figures I have already given, but I would remind my hon. friend that under the division one of the industries thinks it's share of protection should be 13.33 instead of 12.50, as it is now. In another case the figures are 5.50 and 4.66 respectively. I do not think that either my hon. friend or I oouM make a tariff that would suit everyone in the trade, and I do submit that the division is fair.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 537a, 537b, 537c and 541a agreed to.
Customs tariff-541b. Woven or braided fabrics, wholly of jute, not exceeding twelve inches in width: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 22J per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the item as
amended?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-542. Woven or knitted fabrics, wholly or in part of vegetable fibres, and all such fabrics with cut pile, n.o.p., not containing silk, artificial silk nor wool: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the position of this item?


James Alexander Robb: The present rates, 22J, 30 and 32J, and 17i, 321 and 35 are included in one classification, the new rates being 20, 27i and 30 per cent. The estimated reduction in taxation, on the basis of last year's importations, is about $2,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister might explain one thing that is common to several of these schedules. Why is it that vegetable fibres are all grouped together? For instance, hemip, manilla, hemp fibre and jute are all grouped under "vegetable fibres." Is it considered by the experts a proper grouping? If so, why?


James Alexander Robb: The object is to separate the cottons, woollens, linens and flax and these other fibres and make a new classification. We are also providing for cases where the product is mixed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-542a. Woven or braided fabrics not exceeding twelve inches in width, wholly or in part of vegetable fibres, n.o.p., not to contain silk, artificial silk nor wool: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27£ per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What change is there?


James Alexander Robb: There is no separate classification of imports, but there will be a slight reduction in taxation, which is included in the figures shown under 542. The changes are from 22i to 20, from 30 to 27J, and from 32J to 30.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that a fair way of
giving information to the committee? My hon. friend bells us what the value of the imports is, and yet he says-


James Alexander Robb: I said there was no separate classification of imports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then how can the minister say what the loss in taxation will be?


James Alexander Robb: I say there is a slight reduction in taxation which is included in the figures shown in item 542.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. Then the figure the minister gave a little while ago included the importations that are now covered by this item?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That bears out the point I was trying to make, that the effect of regrouping these items is to maintain the taxation at a slightly higher scale than it was before. I estimate it anywhere from 2 to 5 per cent; taking the figures given to-day it cannot be less than that. The only point I wish to make is that there has been no reduction in the items but a steady increase, if you take them in the aggregate. It is perfectly clear; it is only a question of mathematics.


James Alexander Robb: I do not want to take up the time of the committee repeating the figures I gave last week, but I have already pointed out that the total reduction involves $1,000,000 odd.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Fortunately some of us have learned how to compute; some of us know a little about mathematics. When the minister expects us to believe that there has been a reduction, after telling us that there is no separate classification, he is putting an undue strain upon our credulity. If you cannot make a computation and are merely guessing, say so; if, on the other hand, you have data on which to make calculations, give them to us. But do not guess and try to mislead the country into believing that you are doing something which as a matter of fact you are not doing. Do not try to make us believe that you are reducing the tariff when as a matter of fact you are taking a number of items, lumping them together.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
making some free and others dutiable, and presenting a tariff which involves taxation which is higher than existed the day before you touched the schedules. This adroitness and skill in the use of words cannot disguise that single-simple fact. That is the point.
I can add two and two together and make four. I do object when the minister tries to take two and two and make five: he must take three and two to make five, and that is the whole objection. I sent for the statutes this afternoon and showed him the items which had been taken from the free list, but now he says that in the aggregate they are losing money. I say that in the aggregate the government will make something like 3 per cent more under these items than was the case before the changes were made.


James Alexander Robb: I am delighted to have that statement from my hon. friend; all I ask is that he try to convince the trade of the country that he is right. I venture to say that before these items are all passed we shall be told by hon. gentlemen opposite that we are reducing the tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Once again we have the old story that hon. gentlemen on this side are standing in the way of this, that, and the other thing, while hon. gentlemen opposite are removing protection and so on. That is all so much piffle. Let us get down to business, and the point is this: Should this government endeavour to induce this house to believe it is doing something which in reality it is not doing? I say to the minister that on the statement he has given to the house in connection with these items we have been discussing, hemp, jute, flax, vegetable products other than silk and the combinations of cotton, there has been a slight increase which is capable of being shown in exact percentages. I am not objecting to the minister raising the tariff where he thinks it is desirable, but I do say he should make it clear to the house that he is not doing what he said he was endeavouring to do. In other words, the western Canadian should not be led to believe that there has been a lowering of the tariff, while the eastern Canadian is led to believe the tariff has been raised. Let us face the matter frankly; the minister is taking the responsibility of doing these things and that is all there is to it, but let us ascertain what the changes are and what the probable results will be. Surely that is not unreasonable. The minister seems to think it is necessary to offer an apology for raising the tariff, but he explained it very clearly when he said that it was considered desirable and reasonable that the protection
should be divided in the manner indicated. We do not object to that: we have nothing to say when he states that he finds protection necessary and that he divides it up between these two classes as he thinks desirable. That is perfectly all right: that is what we think should be done, but do not let him say in the next breath that he is removing protection to give free trade as they have it in England.


James Alexander Robb: I did not say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will admit that the hon. gentleman did not use those words, but at least the language he used this afternoon and this evening will prevent one of his distinguished colleagues from telling the people of western Canada how we have higher and higher protection on the one hand and lower and lower protection on the other. That is the position. We desire the minister to be frank with us, and I admired him a moment ago when he said protection had been found necessary and that it had been divided up between the two classes. That is the proper way to maintain a scientific tariff. We do complain, however, that you do not give us the facts upon which we may decide whether the tariff is scientific or otherwise except at odd intervals, and those intervals are so few that we are surprised when they do come along. HoweveT, when the Prime Minister gets loose in the hustings and tells us how bis party has reduced the tariff, I will refer him to the language of his Minister of Finance, who now says that the government have found protection necessary.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister give us the imports of velveteen from Great Britain under these items?


James Alexander Robb: I will come to that later, and will give it to my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It comes under this item, unfortunately.


James Alexander Robb: I am told it is under three items.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the absence of information I can only say that item 542, which covers linien velveteen, carries a duty now of 20 per cent, 27i per cent and 30 per cent, while the old duty was 17i per cent, 32i per cent and 35 per cent, and it is obvious that the major importations are from Great Britain. Thus the British preference shows an increase in duty of 2i per cent. I am not complaining about the increase, but I am pointing out that in the absence of information for which I have asked we cannot offer any intelligent criticism.
1538	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


John Frederick Johnston: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff

543. Sail twine and canvas of hemp, or flax, imported for use in the manufacture of boats' and ships' sails: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: May I ask the minister whether the largest importations are under the general tariff or under the British preference?


Mr. FRASER:: And would the minister give us the details of the importations as well?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have not passed item 543a yet.


John Frederick Johnston: I called it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We cannot interject an
observation if you simply read an item and then declare it carried. We ask that you pause at least long enough to enable hon. gentlemen to speak.


James Alexander Robb: Then let us consider item
542a.
Customs tariff-542a. Woven or braided fabrics not exceeding twelve inches in width, wholly or in part of vegetable fibres, n.o.p., not to contain silk, artificial silk nor wool: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friends will not
make progress by calling "carried" the moment an item is called and before we have time to look at our documents. We are going to have a look at these items if we do nothing else. Because some hon. gentlemen take no interest at all in the matter is no reason why others who are trying to take a little interest should not have an opportunity to do so.


John Anderson Fraser: Is there any redbction in
taxation under this item?


James Alexander Robb: A slight reduction, which is
included in the figures given for item 542.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is all right, as far as I am concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-543. Sail twine and canvas, or flax, imported for use in the manufacture of boats' and ships' sails: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: I was asking whether the importations under that item come under the British preferential tariff or the general tariff, because it would appear that there is a re-

duction of 5 per cent in the British preferential, with an increase of 5 per cent in the general tariff.


James Alexander Robb: That is a very reasonable
question. The total imports amounted to $4,400, of which $3,590 came in under the British preferential.


Hugh Guthrie: That will now come in
free?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, it will be free under the British preferential.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-544 agreed to.
Customs tariff-544a. Handkerchiefs consisting of woven fabrics, wholly of flax, or of hemp, or of flax, hemp and cotton, not further manufactured than hemmed or hemstitched, not coloured, not embroidered nor otherwise ornamented. British preferential tariff, 20 per cent: intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff 33J per cent.
Peter McGibbon: I would like to suggest
that we be given a little more information than is contained in this sheet which is placed in our hands. There is nothing in it at all, and I for one object to proceeding with the consideration of these items when we have practically no information before us. It is all very well for the Minister of Finance and perhaps two or three of the leading men on this side of the house to have more complete information, but I submit that we cannot intelligently discuss these matters with no information before us.


James Alexander Robb: The only change in the
amendment I have just read is that the word "hemp" is put in. The total importations will be found under 544b. These classes are separated. The total imports were $412,000. It is estimated that one-half of them come into each class.


James Dew Chaplin: What was the old number?


James Alexander Robb: It was 575.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, that was limited to
cottons? I see.
Mr. ROBB; Does my hon. friend suggest that we should reduce this?
Mr. STEVENS; No. That is an old trick of the minister, the minute we criticize an item or ask any question.


James Alexander Robb: I just wanted to know where
my hon. friend stood.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I stand for the protection, I tell my hon. friend very frankly, of Can-andian industries, a protection that is fair and reasonable.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister just said
that no item was larger than 30 per cent in the case of cotton.


James Alexander Robb: With one exception.


James Dew Chaplin: What was that exception?


James Alexander Robb: I do not remember, but I
made that statement with respect to cotton last week.


James Dew Chaplin: Here we have a new
item 544b, handkerchiefs composed of flax or of flax and cotton.


James Alexander Robb: Those are mixtures.


James Dew Chaplin: Then you do not consider the mixtures although under the general tariff you provide a rate of 35 per cent? Why make the distinction between cotton in the one case and the mixtures in the other?


James Alexander Robb: These are cotton linens.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When it relates to cotton linens it changes its nature?


James Dew Chaplin: I must say I am quite
satisfied.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I want to ask the
minister why he distinguishes between plain and fancy handkerchiefs, and if he thinks it will make it any easier to administer the law, or make it any easier for the customs officials? Under the old item 575 all kinds of handkerchiefs came in at certain rates. Now we have one rate for plain handkerchiefs and another rate for fancy handkerchiefs.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The rate is a little lower for the plain people.


James Alexander Robb: Both are reductions, my hon. friends will admit that. Is it not reasonable that what might be considered in part a luxury should pay a higher tariff?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I do not think a fancy handkerchief is very much of a luxury.


Leland Payson Bancroft: One is for show and the other for blow.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-544b.	Handkerchiefs composed of flax, or of flax and cotton, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 22£ per cent; intermediate tariff, 32£ per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: 
[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-545. Lace and embroideries, wholly of flax, or of flax and cotton, not coloured, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of underwear in their own factories: British preferential tariff, 12£ per cent; intermediate tariff, 17£ per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: 
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What does the general
public have to pay for uncoloured lace when they bring it in?


John Frederick Johnston: Carried ?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not carried, I am asking for information. This relates to lace imported by manufacturers for use in their own factories. What rate of duty do other people have to pay?
1540	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: We have passed some of these in the cottons, and some in the linens.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Under the old item 526 we' had white and cream coloured lace and embroideries, of cotton or linen, and the rates were, 124 per cent, 17J, per cent and 20 per cent just the same as is proposed here.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: This is a new item 545 which deals with lace and embroideries, wholly of flax, or of hemp, or of flax, hemp and cotton, not coloured, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of clothing in their own factories. What happens to the balance of the list that will not come in under this item but came in under the old item? Does it come in to a higher or a lower class?


James Alexander Robb: It has been passed in some of the other items. This is the manufacturers' raw material I take it. There is no change. Part of it is in 529.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There is something wrong with that information. Item 529 is exclusively a cotton item. This 545 is a hemp and jute item.


James Alexander Robb: I gave my hon. friend the information some time ago.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Does the minister say I have that information?


James Alexander Robb: I gave my hon. friend that information.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
James Alexander Robb: Those are all in items 529 and 565.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The point is with reference to cotton lace, flax, hemp and jute lace and wool. Flax, hemp and jute lace is brought in by the manufacturers at the old rate. What I am wondering is where is provision made for flax, hemp and jute lace to be brought in by the general public if they want it, because under the new definition they are excluded from importing it at this rate.
I Mr. Kennedy.]


James Alexander Robb: I am advised by the officials
that most of it comes under the former item at the same rate as now. It was administered as a manufacturer's item before.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But it cannot come in.


James Alexander Robb: Not now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It may have come in before, but where will it come in now?


James Alexander Robb: I am advised that the cotton items will come in under item 529, and the flax, hemp, jute and silk items will come in under item 565.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then we have this rather peculiar position. Taking the minister's answer, we find that this item is increased from 12J-, 174 and 20 per cent, to 20, 274 and 30 per cent in one case, and to 25, 32-|, and 35 per cent in another case. So the minister again has made an increase in the tariff.


James Alexander Robb: On a very small portion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is what the minister says every time. One would gather that the amounts were very small. What were the importations under item 526 of the old tariff?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am not raising any
special objection to this, but I am pointing out to the minister that there is need for another item or another definition. I do not see how you can classify flax, hemp and jute as silk and art silk, and if it is the purpose to divide the cotton from the flax, hemp, jute and wool, another item would be required to deal with importations of that kind. It is not so very important.


James Alexander Robb: If there is no objection we
will let the item pass.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-546. Articles made from fabrics, finished or unfinished, and all textile manufactures, wholly of hemp or of jute, or of both, n.o.p.; fabrics, wholly of hemp or jute, or of both, coated or impregnated: British preferential tariff, 12J per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the
following be substituted for item 546:
Articles made from fabrics, finished or unfinished, and all textile manufactures, wholly of jute, n.o.p.; fabrics wholly of jute, coated or impregnated:	British preferential tariff, 12J
per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.


John Anderson Fraser: What are the importations under this item, which is a rather complicated one?

Ways and, Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: A number of items are included. Most of the imports come in under item 537. The amount is $197,413.


John Anderson Fraser: Is that under the British
preference?


James Alexander Robb: That is the total. I do not
know what comes in under the British preference.


John Anderson Fraser: The minister does not have them classified.


James Alexander Robb: No. There 'is an estimated
reduction there of $18,654.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: 
[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
_ Customs tariff-547. Bags or sacks of hemp, linen or jute, and cotton seamless bags; bags in which cement or lime mentioned in tariff item 290 is imported:	British preferential
tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: 
James Alexander Robb: There is a decrease in one
:olumn. This does not cover bags imported
by the cement manufacturers in Canada. It is to cover the case where cement or lime is imported. The language is the same as it has always been in the past, but it is brought into this classification.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: This covers containers
for cement?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-548.	Clothing, wearing
apparel and articles, made from woven or knitted fabrics, and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, composed wholly or in part of vegetable fibres but not containing silk, artificial silk, nor wool, n.o.p.; fabrics, coated or impregnated, composed wholly or in part of vegetable fibres but not containing silk, artificial silk nor wool, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 22J per cent: intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the following be substituted for item 548:
Customs tariff-548. Clothing, wearing apparel and articles, made from woven fabrics, and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, composed wholly or in part of vegetable fibres but not containing wool, n.o.p.; fabrics, coated or impregnated, composed wholly or in part of vegetable fibres but not containing silk, artificial silk nor wool, n.o.p: British preferential tariff, 22| per cent:	intermediate
tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is this an increase or a decrease? It has all the appearance of a pretty stiff increase.


James Alexander Robb: The imports for the year ending March 31, 1927, were $21,733.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That is under the whole item?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. The estimated reduction is $396.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Were the importations
mostly under the general tariff or the British preference?


James Alexander Robb: I have not that information.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I called the minister's
attention before to a tendency which seems to be fairly general, and that is to increase, with one or two exceptions, the rates on oiled fabrics and oiled goods. Here, for instance, we have an increase from 20, 27J and 30 per cent to 22J, 30 and 35 per cent. Item 546 is an exception, but the general tendency seems to be to increase the tariff on oiled fabrics. What is the reason?


James Alexander Robb: 
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What do these oiled
fabrics include which are increased 2i per cent all along the line?


James Alexander Robb: A typical example would be
the satin used in the manufacture of women's shoes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-548a.	Clothing and hats
made from oiled fabric of cotton or flax, or both: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent: intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What are the importations?


James Alexander Robb: The importations for the year ending March 31, 1927, were $34,829. The estimated reduction in taxation is $1,100.


Peter McGibbon: What is the principle
underlying these reductions? There are no importations of any consequence, and therefore the duty is not of very much importance.


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend will
admit that nobody will be hurt very much. These people apparently have the whole home market to themselves, and there is no reason why they should not stand a bit of a reduction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-548b.	Collars and cuffs
wholly of flax or of flax and cotton: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent: intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the following be substituted for item 548b:
Collars and cuffs wholly of flax, or of hemp, or of flax, hemp and cotton: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There is a reduction here of 5 per cent in the intermediate tariff and 2i per cent in the British preference, while under a previous item wearing apparel of the same type, practically, celluloid articles, the preferential and intermediate rates are reduced from 20 and 37 per cent to 15 and 25 per cent. I wonder why there is such a big spread? Is the minister trying to encourage us to wear celluloid collars?


James Alexander Robb: I am in the same class with my hon. friend; I do not buy them.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-549. Wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, not further prepared than combed: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


Mr. KAISER:: The time has come in
Canada when we should think in a national sense in regard to the question of wool. I know that a year ago, when this matter was spoken of, the Minister of Finance took objection to the placing of a dulty on wool, under a misconception, I believe. I am not going to discuss this matter simply from the standpoint of the tariff or the effect the tariff may have upon the woollen industry.
This country to-day is suffering from a lack of sheep, and to a greater extent than probably any of us imagine. From time immemorial the flocks and the herds and the soil have been the three primitive assets of every nation. We stand to-night in the face of certain remarkable facts which I want to mention, and the first is this: Canada has less sheep per head of population than any other country on the face of the earth. There must be some reason for this. In 1911 the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier appointed a gentleman from my constituency, Mr. Dryden, a great breeder of sheep and probably one of the best experts on sheep in this country, to investigate the industry.	He went to the United States
and England investigating the industry, and came back in 1912 and made his report to parliament. This report has never been acted upon, has never even been seriously considered by parliament. He points out in this report, m the first place, that a country must have sheep, that they are a fundamental necessity. We speak of combating noxious weeds by means of chemical compounds, but it is absurd to expect anyone to go to a laboratory and mix up a concoction of arsenic and calcium, and expect by such means to get rid of noxious weeds. Sheep is the natural scavenger of the soil, and anyone who has been through our section of the country and chased home a flock of sheep knows that he will never find a dirty farm where a flock of sheep is kept. Twenty-five or thirty sheep will keep the farm clean; that is a common observation. Next, that farm will be a fertilized farm. Sometimes we do not realize what is taking place in this country. Take the automobile, for instance, and how it is displacing the horse. I am not going to talk against the automobile, but if the number

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
of horses per head of population in Toronto in 1891 were maintained at the same rate to-day, Toronto would require 60.000 horses to carry on local transportation in that city. As a matter of fact, it has only 3,000 horses, and the same condition applies in all our cities and towns. It is simply beyond figures to estimate the value of the fertilization obtained from a source of that kind. We think we can supply this natural fertilization of our soil by artificial means, but this I claim is only an experiment; nobody knows whether or not artificial fertilization is going to last in our oountry. We do know, however, that in certain valleys in Asia and China where they have always resorted to natural fertilizers the soil is just as fertile to-day as it was two thousand years ago. Now I find that we have not as many sheep as we had even twenty-five or thirty years ago, simply because we are paying no attention to the development of our flocks and herds. I regard this as an extremely important matter.
Sometimes I have been asked how many sheep we have in Canada. We should have at least ten million; as a matter of fact we have only two million. There is no reason in the world why we should not have at least ten million sheep. Mr. Dryden and other stock men in my riding-and I claim that many of the best authorities on sheep and other live stock reside there-advise me that we can raise as good sheep in Canada as in any other country in the world. Proof of this is to be found in the fact that when we exhibit our sheep at the great stock shows they are awarded all the prizes. I am also advised that the wool is of just as good quality as that grown in Australia and other wool-producing countries. But we pay no attention to this question, although it is fundamental. We allow mohair to be imported free of duty. I am not quarrelling with that, for this reason:	We consume
$15,000,000 worth of mohair every year. Mohair is the fleece of the little angora goat. I have only seen one of these goats in Canada. I have been endeavouring to get some wealthy men to establish an angora goat farm in order to teach our people that in these little animals there is a source of great wealth. The farmers of South Africa raise immense flocks of angora goats on their waste land, and reap fortunes from the wool crop. The place from which to get those goats is in the Angora valley of Turkey. While making investigations as to where the best quality of angora goats are bred, I ascertained that the Turkish government regard the angora goat industry of such value to their people that they prohibit the sale and export of any of these animals.
Between this city and my home in Oshawa is sufficient waste land to accommodate all the angora goats needed to supply our market with mohair. Seventy million pounds of wool are required by our people every year, yet we grow only fifteen million pounds, and half of that we export to another country for weaving. This should be investigated. The very best market in the world for wool is to be found in Canada, and yet we go to no trouble to develop sheep and goat breeding to supply this market, largely because of defects in our ideas and in our government.
I am not speaking of this government particularly. It would take ten years of concerted' action to bring about a transformation in this respect. In the first place the government should impose a small tariff on all wool, just to establish the principle, and raise it each year for ten years, and so protect the market of Canada for those of our people who would go into this business.
I wrote to one hundred of our best sheep raisers in Ontario for their opinion as to the best lines on which to develop this industry.
I asked them if they thought it would be of service to the country to standardize prices, so that a farmer for the next ten years would know what return he would get for his wool.
I believe it would be an excellent policy for the government to take into consideration at this very moment. There are many phases of this question to be attacked, and they should be attacked in an intelligent way. One of our best known farmers said to me within the last two months. "Sheep are the most profitable thing I have on my farm to-day. They give me at least two crops a year, one of wool and the other of lambs. I say it is the business of the government to consider what should be done. We should appoint a board or commission to deal with this question in order that our farmers may be encouraged to go into the raising of sheep and goats to provide wool for the Canadian market. I have estimated that to raise sufficient sheep to provide our own requirements for wool would create a living for 72,000 people. Right at our door we have the market means of developing this industry for our farmers.
I feel very strongly about this thing. I have gone to considerable trouble to investigate the facts, and in my opinion it is our business to proceed to develop our flocks and herds as one of our best assets. Ten million sheep would add to the assets of Canada 200 million dollars. It is not merely a matter of tariff. We should deal with each phase of this question as it comes up, and aim at get-' ting within the next ten or fifteen years at least ten million sheep in Canada.
1544	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Mr. Chairman, I have heard a good dead about the experts in the department who have been engaged! on this reclassification, and I notice that in this item kheep are described as "goats and other like animals". This covers the old items 554, 555 and 556. Item 554 is:
Wool and the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat and other like animals, not further prepared than washed, n.o.p.; noils, being the short wool which falls from the combs in worsted factories, and worsted tops, n.o.p.
Item 555 is:
Wool, namely, combing wools or wools known as lustre wools and other like combing wools, such as are grown in Canada.
Item 5'56 is:
Worsted tops made from such wools as are mentioned in the next preceding item.
Then we have, under the new item 549, wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat "or other like animal" not further prepared than combed. Who is the scientist in the department that classes sheep with such animals as goats "or other like animal"? I would ask why we have a reduction here and apparently further on, in connection with woollen materials, an increase?


James Alexander Robb: There is a reduction in this item.


Peter McGibbon: With all due respect to the Minister of Finance, I do not think he has answered the question. I am subject to correction, but if I understand1 this item rightly it means that all the protection which the farmers of the country have hadl on wool is being removed. Am I right?


James Alexander Robb: I will answer the question when my hon. friend has finished his speech.


Peter McGibbon: What I am going to say will be based on the answer to that question.


James Alexander Robb: The total importations for the year ended March 31, 1927, under the item to which my hon. friend refers amounted to $93, and under item 556 the total was $5,099.


Peter McGibbon: The minister has not yet answered the question. What is the policy of this government in relation to protection to the farmers on wool? Is it the policy of the government to remove all protection? In other words, is the government endeavouring to justify its name Liberal by giving away all the markets of this country to our competitors abroad? Canada naturally, by environment and climatic conditions, should be one of the greatest wool producing countries in the world1, but we know what the effect has been of the present government's

policy from 1923 and 1924 on. I wonder whether this is a further extension of that policy to destroy the sheep and wool producing industry of Canada and to take away from our farmers the last little shred of protection which has been left them. It would be interesting to hear from the farmer members of the house sitting behind the government as well as, to use the expression of my former leader, from those sitting angularly opposite the government.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps I might put on record the wool production of Canada so that we might have it for reference later on. [DOT] Giving the fiscal years ending March 31, I would point out to my hon. friends opposite that in 1913 the total production was 12,983,300 poundfe, and in 1914

under the administration which my hon. friend supported-11,-706,920 pounds. For the following years the figures are these:
1915	 1924		Pounds
1925		
1926		
1927		
We are sometimes told that the woollen industry is not growing and that under this government it has suffered materially. In 1922 the imports of wool amounted to 12,661,812 pounds; in 1923, 18,273,344; in 1924, 19,321,730. There was a reduction in 1925 and 1926, and in 1927 the total was 16,425,423 pounds. It is true that we export some of our own wool. For instance, in 1913 we exported 944,606 pounds.


John Wesley Edwards: Where did that go?


James Alexander Robb: I have not the records, but most of it goes to the United States. It is a superior wool which is used for felting purposes. It is not regarded by the spinners as the best wool for the manufacture of fine textile cloths, but it is good for felting and for carpets. The exports in 1914 amounted to 2,878,029, increasing until 1927. The exports from 1924 to 1927, in round figures have been:
Pounds
1924		 7,008,000
1925		 6,443,000
1926		 6,671,000
1927		 5,353,000
The important factor by which to measure the progress of the trade is, however, the retention of wool in Canada. In 1914, under the excellent administration of our predecessors, the retention of wool in Canada totalled

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
16,081,010 pounds, while in 1927 it amounted to 29,030,202 pounds. I submit that for the consideration of my hon. friend.


Hugh Guthrie: When the minister speaks of the retention of wool is he referring to our imports as well1 as that portion of our crop which we do not export?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, that is what I understand from the statement. I quite agree with my hon. friends that sheep are valuable to our farms; there is no question about that. But we have had some experience in this matter and we do not need to experiment. The United States had a very high tariff for many years and I am informed that there has been practically little if any increase in sheep for the production of wool in that country during the last forty years.


Peter McGibbon: Can the minister give us the importation of woollen goods for the same period for which he has given us the importations of wool? We cannot properly consider the question as a whole until we get not only the importation of wool but the importations of woollen yams and woollen cloths.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are different items.


Peter McGibbon: If they have a bearing
upon the same industry it does not matter whether or not they are different items.


James Alexander Robb: I shall be very glad to give
my hon. friend that information as we come to each particular item. I have quite a considerable file in connection with these items.


Hugh Guthrie: We are now on item
549; before the minister passes from it would he tell me the importations last year under item 544?


James Alexander Robb: The imports of wool amounted to 16,423,162 pounds valued at $5,655,667. Then I think perhaps I can give my hon. friend the other information for which he asked. The importation of tops amounted to 7,472,198 pounds valued at $4,381,459; noils, 407,812 pounds valued at $179,513, or a total value of $10,216,639. That is the raw material.


Hugh Guthrie: Then could I have the
imports under the next item, No. 555?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, $93, and under item 556 they amounted to $5,099.


Peter McGibbon: I am quite sure of my
facts; my point is that the importation of raw wool has been increasing at an enormous rate, and that very fact is responsible for the woollen mills of this country going out of
business. To the same extent, it has also destroyed the sheep industry of Canada. You only have to take into consideration the imports and exports of the different articles over a period of time to see how they have been developing. I submit that when our neighbours to the south put on such duties against the wool of this country, we should give our farmers more protection than is given at.present. I believe the United States duty at present is 15 per cent for unwashed wool, 30 per cent for washed wool and 45 per cent or 45 cents per pound for washed and scoured wool. This government, however, simply takes down the barriers and leaves the farmers of the country with no protection at all. The Minister of Finance has just said that there is a certain market in the pulp and paper industry in this country for wool, and that market is exclusive to the Canadian wool grower. If it were not for that fact growers of wool in Canada would be much worse off than they really are.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend overlooked the fact that under the only item on which there is a tariff at all the importation only amounted to $93.


Peter McGibbon: The Minister of Railways did not get the point at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry.


Peter McGibbon: Probably you are; I am sorry for you also. The fact is that the great market for Canadian wool is in Canada, and that is due to the pulp and paper industry.


Charles Avery Dunning: To the pulp and paper
industry?


Peter McGibbon: Yes, and that is what the Minister of Railways has never grasped. It is only due to the fact that that market exists that the woollen industry of this country is not worse off than it is.


Mr. FORKE:: I can tell my hon. friend
that the market for western wool to-day is in the United States.


Peter McGibbon: The Minister of Immigration does not know what he is talking about.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, he merely grows the wool.


Peter McGibbon: He does not grow very
much of it. I will leave it to any manufacturer or grower of wool whether or not the great market in this country is created by the pulp and paper industry.
1546	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Robert Forke: There never was a better
market for wool than the market this year, or if there was I never saw it.


Peter McGibbon: I feel sorry for the
Minister of Immigration; there are none so blind as those who will not see. As a matter of fact, every man who knows anything about the industry knows that Canadian wool is especially adapted for that class of work, and that that is our biggest market.


Robert Forke: Yes, but we have to import Australian wool.


Peter McGibbon: For what purpose?


Robert Forke: To make cloth.


Peter McGibbon: It is not for cloth at
all, and the Minister of Immigration has never grasped that fact. I will leave it to the Minister of Finance whether I am not right when I say that the great market for Canadian wool is not for making cloth but that the market has been created by the pulp and paper industry.


James Alexander Robb: And it is also used in making carpets.


Peter McGibbon: It is because our wool
is especially fitted for use in that industry that it commands the present price.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend
know that we exported over 5,000,000 pounds of that wool last year?


Peter McGibbon: Where to?


Charles Avery Dunning: Principally to the United
States.


Peter McGibbon: For the same purpose,
and against a tariff of 15 per cent.


Mr. BROWN:: I would like to say a word or two in regard to this question of wool. I am very glad indeed to see the hon. member showing so much solicitude for the farmers and sheep growers, but I would like to remind the house that wool is not the only feature of the sheep industry. The sale of lambs plays a very important part, and many of us have thought that the larger market in the United States which would have been provided by the reciprocity treaty would have greatly helped that feature of the industry.


Peter McGibbon: Does the hon. member know that he had that market, and that the United States barred him from it?


John Livingstone Brown: I know that very well, and I also know that we might have had it a great many years sooner if we had entered into that treaty. There is another very im-

portant feature to be considered, and if any hon. member is anxious to encourage the sheep industry especially in the western provinces I should like to enlist his sympathies in having woven wire fencing placed on the free list. There is nothing which handicaps us more in the west in the raising of sheep than does the cost of fencing. So you cannot consider this question only from the one angle.
With regard to the market for our wool, as I read the trade figures I believe we are getting the full market price for Canadian wool, or at least that we are able to sell to the Canadian trade all that can be absorbed at the present time. Not only that, but I have here the figures of Canada's trade for the six months ending in September, 1927, which show that in that period we sold to the United States 5,860,301 pounds of raw wool having a value of $1,595,801. That wool sold for 27 cents per pound. We imported wool also; during the same six months period our importation of raw wool, camel wool, alpaca wool and goat wool amounted to 5,450,020 pounds, with a value of $1,900,066, while from Australia we imported 204,278 pounds, having a total value of $91,442. That wool was bought at 45 cents per pound, and the very fact of that difference in the price per pound indicates that there is a reason for that trade. What benefit would it be to Canadian manufacturers of woollen goods if we placed an increased duty on that imported wool and compelled them to pay a higher price for their raw product? What advantage would such a duty be to the Canadian farmer who has not got that particular quality of wool to sell? Now those figures surely have some significance. The very fact that we import that quantity of wool from abroad indicates that wool is needed by our Canadian manufacturers.


Peter McGibbon: Will my hon. friend say that wool could not be grown in this country?


John Livingstone Brown: Evidently it is not being
grown.


Peter McGibbon: " Evidently " is no argument.


John Livingstone Brown: Very well, it is not being grown-


Peter McGibbon: But it could be.


John Livingstone Brown: -and the judgment of the men versed in the business is that that particular quality of wool could not be grown-


Peter McGibbon: No such thing.


John Livingstone Brown: -in Canada. But I am reminded of a conversation that is supposed to

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
have taken place between a Scotch shopkeeper and a customer. You have to understand broad Scotch to appreciate it, but the conversation was in these terms:
Customer: Oo?
Shopkeeper: Ay, oo.
Customer: A'oo?
Shopkeeper: Ay, a'oo.
Customer: A'ae oo?
Shopkeeper: Ay, a'ae oo.
That means that the question was not only was it wool, but it was all the same kind of wool. Now this question of wool cannot be considered by thinking of wool all in one class. There is wool and wool, and there is a particular class of wool that is being imported for the benefit of the manufacturers. We do not want to hurt them in this matter, and the putting of a duty on this wool would not be an atom of protection to the Canadian farmer, because the export market in the United States fixes the price for the wool that is used in our Canadian industry.


Peter McGibbon: You cannot convince the Canadian farmer that you are taking proper care of him.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I should like to add one or two words further. First of all. I should not like to have my hon. friend (Mr. Brown) get too badly mixed up in some of his figures. Some five million pounds of Canadian wool are exported, and that woo! is exported to the United States. You may ask yourself the question, " Why is that?". Did the hon. member for Lisgar ever go to any of the leading exporters of wool and ask them some questions concerning this?-


Peter McGibbon: No, he never did.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Well I have done so, and they told me this-


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member for
Lisgar might learn something if he did that.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: They told me that one of the' great difficulties about the wool business in Canada is that we have scarcely any men in this country trained to grade wool. I have been told by these men that if our large industries-ns they will do sometimes-need
100,000	pounds of wool of a certain class and a certain grade, it is convenient for them to buy it in tremendous quantities. Unfortunately for us our people have never been trained to grade wool in the way those manufacturers require. Now these men tell me there are factories in the United States that can use one wool, no matter whether it is 56103-99
graded or not, for the purpose of making large quantities of rough blankets and Indian ware where grading is not required, and that is the reason they export their ungraded wool to the United States. What I want to get at is this: The men who know about sheep-and I claim that I have been associated with men in my county who are regarded as authorities on sheep not only in Canada but in the United States and in every other country-tell me, and I am inclined to believe it, that we can grow any kind of wool in Canada that can be grown anywhere else in the world and of as good quality, and that we have a market right at our door. But we require government assistance and government leadership in order that the fleece should be brought to certain centres in each province and men taught there how to grade and handle the wool. If we had a school of this kind we would be able in a few years in Canada to meet the requirements of this country with our own wool produced from our own sheep, and in that way help the Canadian farmer. I am satisfied that if my hon. friend from Lisgar would get in touch with the men who are authorities on this question he would change his mind in a great many respects. We have the best market for wool in the world. Our people use more wool per head than the people of any country on the face of the earth. We have the soil for raising the sheep, and we have the dheep that can produce the wool, but it will require concerted action and leadership on the part of the government, in co-operation with the stock raisers. When we secure that we shall be able to accomplish results in Canada equal to those achieved in Australia, New Zealand, or any other country that has faced this problem.


James Alexander Robb: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Chairman, let me refer to importations of wool from the United States which the hon. member for Lisgar quoted. I think the figures he quoted were 5,473,041 pounds. If those figures are for 1927 they are correct. The hon. member also quoted certain small importations from Australia running to a little over 200,000 pounds. I rose to point out that the importations coming into Canada from the United States are not United States products; it is largely wool that is centred in Boston and is distributed throughout the world. Every person in the wool business knows that the two world markets for wool are London, England, and Boston, Massachusetts. The wool we bring in from the United States is largely Australian, South African and New Zealand wool. We imported last year 6,145,684 pounds from the United

C.N.R.-Accounts

Kingdom. The importations from the United States are shown as 5,473,041, but I repeat it is not fair to assume that very much of it was the product of that country. We also imported1 from New Zealand 3,025,475 pounds.
Progress reported.	-


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 21, 1928