1928-04-12

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. -Mr. Cahill.

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on
the table the orders in council in connection with Bill No. 62.
PRIVILEGE-MR. BELL (Hamilton)


Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, if I am in order, I wish to rise to a question of privilege.


Mr. CAHILL:: On the orders of the
day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: At any time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: An hon. member may
rise at any time to a question of privilege.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I
have had an opportunity of perusing in Hansard of yesterday the remarks addressed to the house by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) on the question of privilege then raised by him. I am glad to see him in his seat, and I am sorry that when he had occasion to make those remarks-in which I appear to be slightly interested-unfortunately I had not arrived.
Needless to say, sir, I very cheerfully and very readily accept what my hon. friend then chose to state as being the condition of his own-shall I say?-affairs so far as they relate to the steamship-I should say the schooner W. C. Kennedy. However, it does devolve upon me as a matter of privilege to make some reply to what my hon. friend then asserted. At page 1918 of unrevised Hansard I find that he objects to my designation of "steamship", and I cheerfully make the correction and acknowledge that I should have described the Kennedy as a schooner.
[Mr. Adshead.l
On the same page I find my hon. friend said that I was in error in saying that at the time of the seizure of the Kennedy he was its owner. Again, I cheerfully accept his statement, but until yesterday the only information available to me in regard to the ownership of the schooner was that given under oath before the special committee of this house which in 1926 investigated the Department of Customs and Excise. At the bottom of page 1918 of Hansard my hon. friend is reported as follows:
If I remember correctly, I sold the W. C. Kennedy in 1923, about six months before she was illegally seized-mark you, not legally, but illegally seized-in Northumberland straits nine and a half miles east by south of Pictou island. At the time of this illegal seizure I had no interest whatever in the schooner,-
The remarks that I addressed to the house in connection with this matter on Tuesday last-not by way of any criticism of my hon. friend but on a resolution in amendment of the Customs Act to prevent smuggling- certainly did come from me on the assumption and in the honest belief that my hon. friend was at that time the owner of the boat. My reasons for so concluding are to be found in the statement by Percy D. Rafuse, master of the W. C. Kennedy, which will be found at page 1202 of the proceedings of the special committee which in 1926 investigated the Department of Customs and Excise. Let me quote it for the benefit of the house:
Statement of Percy D. Rafuse, captain boat W. C. Kennedy.
Q. What is your name?-A. Percy D. Rafuse, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia.
Q. Are you a British subject?-A. Yes.
Q. Are you the master of the Kennedy?- A. I am a certified master.
Q. Of what tonnage is the Kennedy?-A. 112 tons.
Q. Where is she registered?-A. Lunenburg, Nova Scotia.
Q. To whom does the Kennedy belong?-A. To Mr. William Duff. Lunenburg, that is as far as I know, but she is under charter to Ronald Betts and Charles Mee.
Q. Who pays you your wages?-A. Mr. Duff, also the crew but I have a telegram from Mr. Duff instructing me to take my orders from Mr. Mee.
Q. By whom are you employed?-A. By Mr. William Duff, Lunenburg, N.S.
Q. How long were you hovering off the place I found you?-A. About three days or three and one-half days.
Your Honour will readily appreciate that, gladly hailing as I do my hon. friend's statement yesterday, I might well be forgiven down to the time of that very convincing explanation for thinking that my hon. friend was the owner of the schooner W. C. Kennedy at the date on which the master so emphatically swore that he was.

Treaty with Spain
I notice also that my hon. friend has taken exception-it is apparent in the paragraph to which I have alluded-to the statement in regard to the boat having been seized for hovering. I have just read what was stated about the hovering that occurred, and I find on page 1194 of the report of the special customs committee the following statement by the chairman, the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier):
I must remark that this is a question of law. Each one of us may interpret this question as we like, but I would like, if there is an opinion given by the Department of Justice, to see it.
Mr. R. L. Calder, K.C., counsel for the committee who had gone over the file, answered :
The entire file reveals no opinion, but the action was taken by the Customs department, merely on the representations of the owners of the vessel, that that was the true legal position. Without referring to the Department of Justice, the decision was made.
May I say again that, with the very best intention in the world to do justice to my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough, no one can legitimately complain that I accepted these statements without reserve from the sworn evidence given before the customs committee. I was not present yesterday, but my hon. friend felt called upon to make some comments on certain things that had occurred when I visited Lunenburg in the campaign of 1926. I shall not attempt to follow him there, but I would say-Sufficient unto the election is the campaign speech thereof. I am willing to leave the matter at that.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guysborough) :: Mr. Speaker, I presume-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: There can be no debate on the explanation given by the hon. member.


William Duff: I am rising to a question of privilege and I think I am within the rules of the house in replying to the statements made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell, Hamilton), in his attempt at an extenuation of the remarks he made in this house the day before yesterday. You will have noticed that the hon. member did not refer to what he had said about my being president of the company owning the cargo of the W. C. Kennedy, valued at $20,000. He made that statement deliberately and now he offers no excuse and gives no reason for it.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The captain said
you paid him.
56103-124J


William Duff: The captain stated no such
thing. I did not pay for or own the whisky. I am talking about the cargo, and the hon. member cannot deny the fact that he stated that I was president of a company which owned the cargo of the W. C. Kennedy. That statement, I say, is a falsehood, and I am surprised that the hon. member should have dared to give utterance to it the other day, or to get up now and try to explain it away.


Leslie Gordon Bell: To do what?


William Duff: I say you made the statement that I was president of the company that owned the cargo.


Leslie Gordon Bell: So did the captain.


William Duff: The captain said no such thing; you are not telling the truth.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Duff: What the captain said was that he had been hired by me, and I am willing to make an affidavit to the effect that I never hired the captain, and I never paid the captain.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Duff: It is all right for some of my hon. friends to laugh, but the less some of them say about rum or booze, the better. If they want to discuss either rum or booze or anything else I am ready to do it any time or any place. If the hon. member for West Hamilton will make, outside the house, the statements he made here two days ago I will put him where he belongs.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I rise to a point of order. That is a distinct threat and menace, according to the rules.


William Duff: I repeat you are exactly what I called you yesterday-nothing more and nothing less.



TREATY WITH SPAIN

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 201, respecting a certain treaty of commerce and navigation between the United Kingdom and Spain and a certain agreement between the United Kingdom and Spain regulating the treatment of companies.
He said:	We shall be prepared when the
bill is presented, to give details of trade. On April 10, 1925, Canada entered into an agreement with Spain whereby Canada granted the intermediate tariff in exchange for the second column of the Spanish tariff, which is the clause involved in the agreement
Commercial Treaties
[Stage Direction]
On June 27, 1924, Great Britain and Spain entered into an agreement concerning the treatment of companies. The company agreement is of value to several Canadian companies including Canadian banks. The Spanish tax on capital and reserves is one per cent; under the agreement it will be reduced to one-quarter of one per cent. The trade agreement will be of considerable value to Canadian products shipped into that country.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 202, respecting a certain trade convention between His Majesty and the president of the Czechoslovak republic.
He said:	In December 1926 a temporary
agreement was made between Canada and the Czechoslovak republic whereby, on the main items of export from Canada, most favoured nation treatment was given, while in exchange Canada granted the republic the benefits of the intermediate tariff. This agreement was made for a term of fifteen months with the understanding that in the interval further consideration would be given the question of a permanent treaty. These negotiations having taken place, this bill is now introduced with a view to that agreement.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 203, respecting trade between Canada and Esthonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Roumania, and the Serb, Croat and Slovene Kingdom.
He said: The United Kingdom has various commercial treaties with world powers, most of them being styled "for commerce and navigation". It is the general term of these treaties that they shall not apply to any self-governing dominion unless such dominion gives notice that it intends to accept the treaty in whole or in part. In the treaties with the foregoing countries it had been deemed advisable to accept the clause providing for the extension mutually of most favoured nation treatment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. MacDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: 1.	Was one Arthur MacDonald of Sydney
employed bv the government to investigate charges of political partizanship against government employees?	.
2.	How many such investigations were held
by the investigator?	., . ,,
3.	What remuneration has been paid to the said Arthur MacDonald for his services?


Mr. RINFRET:: _
1.	Yes.
2.	Ten.
3.	Fees, $520; expenses, $505.62.


LIGHT AND POWER FOR OTTAWA GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. HEAPS:: 1.	From whom does the government purchase its light and power?
2.	Does it purchase some from the Ottawa Electric Company?
3.	If so, why does it not purchase all its light and power from the public owned hydroelectric system of the city of Ottawa and the province of Ontario?


Mr. KING (Kootenay) (for Mr. Elliott):: 1.	The Ottawa Electric Company and The Ottawa Hydro-Electric Commission.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No advantage in doing so. Besides Ottawa Electric Company was original company connected to government buildings and pays taxes to the city.


REPARATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has a report of the Reparations Commission been printed? If so, when?
2.	Has there been submitted to the government a draft bill giving effect to the report of the Reparations Commission?
3.	Has the government received on account of reparations from the Dawes report or other source a sum approximating eleven millions of dollars? If so. has such sum been incorporated into the consolidated fund?
4.	If incorporated in the consolidated fund, is it the intention of the government to await this year's payment under the Dawes scheme before making payments on account of reparations as recommended by the Reparations Commission?
5.	What is the approximate amount of the pavment to be made this year to the Dominion of Canada under the Dawes scheme?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to recommend to parliament payment of interest on reparation claims as recommended by the Renarations Commission, and will reparation claims be paid in full or on the instalment plan?

Questions


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	A few copies of the report of Commissioner Friel on illegal war claims were printed on the 7th of March, 1928.
2.	This relates to proceedings in council which are confidential.
3.	Canada has been paid to date $10,800,992.91 under the provisions of the London agreement, bringing the Dawes plan into effect. This sum has been paid into the consolidated revenue fund.
4.	The Secretary of State made the following declaration in the House of Commons on March 30, 1928, concerning the Friel report; Hon. Fernand Rinfret (Secretary of State): "I may say in reply that the government is not in a position to submit any legislation on the matter during the course of the present session. Pending the consideration of possible legislation at a later date, the government think it would be inadvisable to have the report tabled at present."
5.	No information.
6.	Answered by No. 4.
radio-CANCELLATION OF LICENSES


Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Is the government considering refusing
to continue the license of the broadcasting station	C.H.C.Y.	Edmonton	(International
Bible Students) ?
2.	If so, for what reason?


Mr. CARDIN:: In view of the developments in recent times of radio broadcasting and having regard to the seemingly unsatisfactory conditions now obtaining, the government is giving	consideration to	the	question ofwhether or not it would be generally advantageous to adopt a policy of national broadcasting along the lines adopted in this respect	by the	British	government. TheDepartment of	Marine	and	Fisheries is
responsible for the administration of the Radiotelegraph Act under which every radio station in Canada must be licensed. With the advent of broadcasting, the department as the licensing authority, at once realized its responsibilities to the listening public. Each application for a broadcasting license was, with these responsibilities in mind, dealt with as far as practicable from the viewpoint of the broadcast listeners.
When the Bible Students applied for a license to erect and operate a station at Toronto in 1922, their application received very serious consideration, but from information available the department was of opinion that it would not be in the best interests of the public to grant a license and the same was consequently withheld. An application was finally made in 1924 by an individual unit of
the association at Saskatoon for a station at that place. The request for hours of broadcasting appeared modest and upon the recommendation of the department's local inspector that they be given a trial, more particularly for the benefit of the country people in that large farming section of the country, a license was issued to them. Subsequently applications were made and licenses issued to individual units of the association at Vancouver, Edmonton and Toronto, respectively. It may be stated here that all licenses automatically expire at the end of each fiscal year, namely the 31st March. Thus the department is in a position to review the same before granting renewals.
When the licenses for the Bible Students expired at the end of the fiscal year, 1927, some consideration was given to the question whether they should be renewed, because of complaints made by the listening public against the matter broadcast by these stations. It was decided, however, to give the association a further trial and the licenses were extended for another year. While the licenses were originally applied for by individual units of the association at the places named the broadcasting stations appear to have become organized under the central authority at Toronto, who last year made application and in whose name the four licenses were renewed. Whether this reorganization has any connection with the matter is not certain, but complaints from the listening public have gradually increased until to-day the department has received a large number of protests and petitions asking that the broadcasting activities of this association be either curtailed or entirely suspended. The matter being broadcast is generally described by complainants as having became intolerable and that the propaganda carried on under the name of Bible talks is said to be unpatriotic and abusive of all our churches. Evidence would appear to show that the tone of the preaching seems to be that all organized churches are corrupt and in alliance with unrighteous forces that the entire system of society is wrong and' that all governments are to be condemned.
The department'has before it many letters and a petition asking that the Toronto station be closed. A petition from the board of trade at Saskatoon asks that the association's broadcasting from the station at that place be restricted and the local inspector, who originally recommended the granting of the license, says that he has a "continual deluge of complaints." Complaints have been received from officials of the city and provincial authorities against the Edmonton station, and there are many protests from other prominent people in regard to the same station. Finally,
Questions

a joint petition has been received from the Greater Vancouver Radio Aassociation and the Radio Trades Association of Vancouver asking that the license for the Vancouver station located at Burnaby, British Columbia, be not renewed for next year.
It should be emphasized that these communications and petitions are unsolicited, and should be taken as fully representative of the broadcast listeners in general. On the other hand the supporters of the association are protesting against any restriction of their broadcasting activities or the closing of the stations, but we are informed that these protests have been solicited. It should be borne in mind also that in granting licenses after first refusing them the department indicated its entire impartiality in the matter and its willingness to give the association a fair trial, to be either accepted or rejected by the listening public.
There are many who say that if the listener does not want to hear what any particular station has to say he has merely to tune it out. This may be so in some cases, but a large percentage of receivers in use at the present day are not sufficiently selective to do this; especially where the station is in close proximity we know very well that the listener has either to accept the program of the local station or listen to none at all. If we were in the fortunate position of having an unlimited number of radio channels available, it could be well arranged so to place stations broadcasting matter of the character objected to where their transmissions could be easily eliminated, but we have a very limited number of these channels and cannot accommodate all requests. The demand for channels from proposed stations ready to broadcast desirable programs of a high order far exceed the number of channels available, and up to the present we have refused nearly a hundred applications for broadcasting licenses. The i present trend of the listening public is for stations employing high power and providing "entertainment" of the better standard rather than propaganda.
The evidence now before" us would indicate that the broadcasting of the association does not meet with the approval of the listening public, and in reviewing license renewals for the current fiscal year, mindful of its responsibilities to the broadcast listeners as the licensing authority, the department is persuaded that in the general public interest the licenses of the Bible Students' stations should not be renewed.
I may add one further word. In view of the recent development in radio broadcasting,

and having regard to the seemingly unsatisfactory conditions now obtaining, the government are giving consideration to the question whether or not it would be generally advantageous to adopt a policy of national broadcasting along the lines adopted in this respect by the British government.


REFORESTATION AT CHALK RIVER, ONTARIO
Mr. COTNAM:: 1.	How many men are employed in reforestation work at Chalk River, Ontario?
2.	How many day labourers were engaged, and at what wages?
3.	How many teams were employed, and at what rate per day?
4.	On whose recommendation were such men or teams engaged to work?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	During 1927 the following was the staff employed at the Petawawa forest experiment station: 4 permanent technical officers, 640 man days; 1 forestry student assistant, 122 man days; 3 monthly labourers, 205 man days; 49 day labourers, 3,062 man days. The foregoing staff was employed for all phases of work including reforestation, silvicultural research, forest protection, forest improvements, etc.
Segregating reforestation proper from the foregoing, 9 labourers were employed under the direction of one technical officer for a total of 59i days.
2.	The number of day labourers is given in answer to question 1 above. Wages paid were as follows: 5 special labourers on silvicultural research, surveys, etc., $2 to $3 per day with board; 2 forest rangers, S3 per day without board; 1 handy man, $2.50 per day with board; 1 telephone lineman, $2.25 per day with board; ordinary labourers, $2 per day with board.
3.	Four teams employed for a few days at a time, to a total of 86 team days at $6 per day.
4.	Selected by officer in charge of work.


DOCTOR WALLACE MCKAY
Mr. COTNAM:: 1.	Is Dr. Wallace McKay an employee of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment?
2.	If so, by whom was the appointment recommended?
3.	What salary?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Unit Medical Director, Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, Ottawa.
3.	$150 per month.

Geneva Opium Convention



SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS


Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What was the total amount of money deducted by the packers of Canada under condemnation insurance during each of the years 1926 and 1927?
2.	Do the packers report to the government the amount of loss incurred by them through diseased animals?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1. The Department of Agriculture has no information as to the amount of money deducted by Canadian packers on account of *condemnation insurance, as this insurance is based on the purchase price of the animals slaughtered in the respective plants.
For the years 1926 and 1927, however, the total number of animals slaughtered at these establishments were as follows:
1926	1927
Cattle	
995,864	1,108.831Sheep	
521,874	554.893Swine	
2,464,755	2,545,963
2. No report is made by the packers to the government of the loss sustained by them through diseased animals, but the reports of veterinary officers at the packing plants show that, for the years 1926 and 1927, the following were the numbers of carcases totally condemned.
1926	1927
Cattle	
18,182	17,078Swine	
6,915	7,255



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	Does the Post Office department, or any other department of the government, allow [DOT]charity collectors to solicit contributions or sell tags or such like in the post office and the various government departments?
2.	If so, from whom is permission obtained?
3.	Was such sale or collection in the Ottawa post office recently carried on?
4.	If so, by whose authority?


RADIO LICENSES
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	How many licenses were issued by the government in Canada for radio broadcasting as at March 1, 1928?
2.	To what parties or corporations were these issued ?
3.	At what date or dates do such licenses expire?
4.	How many of these have been or are being refused since the above date?
5.	What are the names of the license holders [DOT]and reasons for cancellation in each case?



GENEVA OPIUM CONVENTION

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the Geneva Opium convention and protocol signed at Geneva on the nineteenth of February, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five, after the second opium conference, and which was signed, on behalf of Canada by the Canadian representative duly authorized to that effect;
And that this house do approve of same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there have been three important international opium conferences; one at Shanghai in 1909, another at the Hague in 1912, and a conference at Geneva in 1925. At the Hague conference an important convention was agreed to by the nations there represented, and Canada became a party to that convention on December 17, 1912. At the conference at Geneva, Canada was represented by the Hon. Dr. Beland, who at that time was Minister of Health, and by Dr. Amyot, the deputy minister of the department. They were present during most of the sessions, though, owing to the necessity of Dr. Beland having to return to Canada to attend the sittings of this house, his place was taken by Dr. W. A. Riddell, Canadian advisory officer at Geneva. It was decided at Geneva to make more effective the Hague conference of 1912. The terms of the convention and of the protocol are set forth in the document I tabled in the house before the recess. The convention contains thirty-nine articles. They are intended to complete the provisions of the Hague convention of 1912 and to bring about a more effective restriction k>f the production of narcotics in the effort to secure a closer control of the trade, and for the appointment of a permanent central board to watch the international trade. The board will prepare every year a report which will be sent to the contracting parties, and will also make recommendations.
In the protocol the signatory states recognize their obligation under chapter 1 of the Hague convention to establish such a control over opium as will prevent illicit traffic; and they agree to take steps within five years to prevent the smuggling of opium, so as to prevent its unlawful use in the countries where its use is at present authorized.
At the convention at Geneva Dr. Beland was chairman of the most important committee, and, as will be recalled, rendered a highly important international service by bringing about accord between the different countries, as embodied in the agreement subsequently drafted.
The purpose of this motion is to obtain approval by parliament of the convention. It
Geneva Opium Convention

was signed by the Hon. Senator Dandurand, When representing Canada at a subsequent meeting of the League of Nations, and it will be ratified by the king when parliament has given its approval. Canada will then become one of the several countries bound by the terms of this convention. It is desirable that the convention should be approved at once because it binds all countries only after a certain number of the signatories have had the convention approved and ratified.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: I think under clause 36 it requires ten of the states to be signatories. How many have signed at present?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will find the signatures at the end of the document which I tabled. There are considerably over ten.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) :: May I ask the Prime Minister why a resolution like this should take from the 19th February, 1925, to the 12th April, 1928, to be brought forward? Are we to be merely a rubber stamp? It appears so. It appears that this was signed on behalf of Canada by the Canadian representative duly authorized in that behalf. If he was authorized, who authorized him? This parliament never authorized him. It seems to me to be a lot of red tape. We are supposed to be a nation. Is parliament to be just a rubber stamp for all the countries bordering the seven seas? It seems to me we are just going around in a circle. Here is a resolution for a convention, and it appears that three years ago it was signed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reply to
what my hon. friend has said, the procedure with respect to the appointing of a representative or the signing of a convention and where desired the approval by parliament is precisely the same in the case of Canada as it has been in the case of Great Britain. My hon. friend will, I imagine, be prepared to acknowledge that Great Britain is a nation. The present is following Great Britain's procedure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate, informing Their Honours that this, house has adopted the above resolution and requesting that Their Honours will unite with this house in the approval of the above mentioned convention, and that the Clerk do carry the said message to the senate;
And that this house do approve of same.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the International Sanitary convention and of the protocol of signature signed at Paris on the twenty-first of June, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, and which was signed, on behalf of Canada, by the Canadian representative acting under full powers issued by His Majesty;
And that this house do approve of same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, from May 10th to June 21st, 1926, an international sanitary conference was held in Paris. The purpose of the conference was to consider effective means, as between the nations, for preventing the spread of communicable diseases. At this convention Canada was represented by Dr. Amybt, the Deputy Minister of the Department of Health. A convention, which I presented to parliament before the Easter recess, was drawn up art; that conference. This convention contains general provisions to be observed by the signatories on the appearance of plague, cholera, yellow fever, and certain other communicable diseases in their territories, and provides for measures of defence against these diseases. Its chief object is to provide with the least interference possible to shipping and transportation, effective procedure based on scientific knowledge for the prevention of the entrance and dissemination of the great epidemic diseases and 6uch others as might become widely epidemic.
On the recommendation of the government of Canada Dr. Amyot received full power from His Majesty the King to sign the convention, and the convention is now being submitted to parliament for its approval.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I should like to ask the Prime
Minister on what theory parliament is called upon to approve this convention. I understand that in Great Britain, when a convention of this nature is executed by His Majesty, it becomes a part of the public law of that country and if it is a convention referring to other parts of the dominions, the empire as a whole, it becomes a part of the public law of those dominions. Does the Prime Minister assume that the approval of this convention by the parliament of Canada makes it a part of the public law of Canada, or is it his intention to provide by statute for carrying into effect within Canada the provisions of the convention with regard to sanitation? I had the opportunity during a part of an evening to read over the provisions of this convention, but it seemed to me to call for
APRIL 12, 192S	.1955
Sanitary Convention-Mr. Mackenzie King
a very large expenditure of public funds, for a large increase in the whole machinery of health inspection at the ports of Canada, and for the provision of new hospitals for dealing with those who, having an infectious disease or having been liable to infection, enter certain Canadian ports. I should like to know briefly:	Does the approval of this convention by the parliament of Canada make the convention the public law of this country? Second, is it the intention to bring into the house legislation by statute to carry the provisions of the convention into full effect? Third, wilt such statutory provisions be enacted to increase the work, I suppose, of the Department of Health and health authorities in the various cities, to extend the hospital system and all the resit, involving a large expenditure of money? Are we to took for such ancillary legislation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say to my hon. friend first with respect to the course of procedure that is being adopted of having parliament approve this convention, that that course is in accordance with the principle underlying a resolution of this house which, was introduced by myself a year or two ago and at the time unanimously adopted. The resolution provided, so far as Canada is concerned, that important treaties should be approved in the first instance by this parliament. That is the reason why this convention, which to all intents and purposes is in the nature of a treaty between different countries, is being submitted to parliament. The purpose is to secure in the last analysis the control of parliament over any agreements of international significance which may bind the people of this dominion. If I caught my hon. friend's remarks aright he asked at the outset, why it should be necessary to have this parliament approve, seeing that His Majesty the King had signed the convention and that that would serve to bind all.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Pardon me. That was not
the point. I was asking as to the effect of this approval. Does this convention become a part of the public law of Canada on the approval of parliament being given?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me present to my hon. friend the development that has taken place in the signing of international agreements of this character. At the time of the Peace conference at Geneva the signature of the British Empire as a whole was given by one of the British ministers. In fact, if my hon. friend looks at the signatures to the Geneva Opium conference, he will see what may on the face of it appear to be something of an anomaly. That agreement
is signed for "the British Empire by Malcolm Delevingne. Then there appears the signature for Canada of Hon. R. Dandurand, and following that the signatures for _ Australia, New Zealand and India of their respective representatives. I understand that at the time of the Peace conference the various governments of the empire represented there found it impossible to arrive at a final agreement as to how the several dominions should have reserved to themselves the right of signature through their own representatives, where they were to be held to be bound by treaties and the signature of the British government held to be for Great Britain alone as contrasted with the British Empire as a whole. My recollection is that there was reached at that time,
I will not call it a compromise but a method of meeting the then existing situation. It was this: while the British representative signed as for "the British Empire", his signature was held to bind only Great Britain and Northern Ireland and in order that the other parts of the empire should be held to be bound the signatures of their respective representatives were to be separately affixed. At the Imperial conference of 1926 that method of procedure was changed and it was then agreed that the practice should be discontinued of having international agreements signed by Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the designation "the British Empire;" that as regards treaties binding different parts of the empire the signature of the representative of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be as for that part only of the empire which did not include the self-governing dominions and the signatures for the self-governing parts of the empire would be in the names of their respective representatives. In order that this agreement or any other of like significance may bind Canada, it is necessary under our practice to bring to this parliament for approval the convention itself, and that is why the convention is now being submitted. After parliament has given its approval and before the convention becomes binding, His Majesty will be obliged to ratify it. Ratification, as my hon. friend knows, is an act of the crown, of the sovereign, but it is an act so far as Canada is concerned, that will be performed on the advice of the government, given after the approval of parliament has been obtained. Upon ratification the terms of this agreement will bind the Dominion.
My hon. friend has drawn attention to possible expenses. He has pointed out that our approval may necessitate the introducing of many measures that are far-reaching and
1950	COMMONS
Sanitary Convention-Mr. Cahan
possibly costly. If my hon. friend had read through the whole document he would have found that Canada had been careful to reserve to herself the determination of what in certain important particulars may constitute necessity for action and this, so far as she is concerned, as respects the very measures which I think my hon. friend has in mind. There is attached to the convention a protocol which is in the nature of a special reservation made by Canada, and the reservation is as follows:
The delegate of Canada reserves for his government the right to decide whether, from the point of view of measures to be applied, a foreign area should be considered as infected and to determine the measures which should be applied in special circumstances to arrivals in Canadian ports. Subject to this reservation the delegate of Canada declares that his government is ready to take into consideration the obligations of Article 12 of the convention and the official information which it may receive on the subject of the existence of diseases in foreign countries.
Article 12 of the convention is as follows:
_ The government of a country in which an infected area is situated shall inform other governments and the office International d'Hygiene Publique in the manner specified in Article 4, when the danger of infection from that area has ceased, and when all the preventive measures have been taken. On the receipt of this information the measures prescribed in chapter IT. shall no longer be applicable to arrivals from the area in question, except in exceptional circumstances which will require to be justified.
So that, as far as Canada is concerned, this country has been put in the position of determining for itself what enactments may in certain cases be necessary to meet an international menace arising from disease. And so far as statutory enactments may be concerned, it will be for parliament to decide as the occasion arises.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am sorry I have not my documents with me and the notes I made, and that I shall have to speak from memory. I read that reservation, but it seemed to me that the reservation reserved very little indeed. Canada is becoming a party to a treaty, and it is bound legally and morally to carry it out fairly and fully and to assume full responsibility to that end. The reservation that it will be within the discretion of the government and parliament of Canada to decide as to the extent to which they will carry it out is more a reservation pro forma than an effective reservation. I do not wish to go beyond the subject under discussion, but I must say that in a number of cases dealing with matters treated at the Imperial conference, we have assumed very grave moral re-
sponsibilities indeed. In connection with the League of Nations, I think we have assumed more serious obligations than this country has ever yet realized, and we have consoled ourselves from time to time with a reservation in somewhat similar form to this, that it will be within the discretion of the government and parliament of Canada as to the extent to which they will carry out their legal obligations. But the fact is that a reservation such as that does not diminish the moral responsibility of this country to carry out such conventions to the full extent necessary in order to give full and complete effect to them.
As to the form in which the treaties are now negotiated, I presume that at some other time we may have an opportunity of discussing that matter, but, as I understand it, there is a grave difference of opinion between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and some of us on this side of the house who have given some attention to the subject. In the form which has now been adopted by virtue of the resolutions passed at the conference of 1923, as amended by the Imperial conference of 1926, I understand that Great Britain signs for Great Britain and Ireland, but she signs for more than Great Britain and Ireland; she signs for every part of the British Empire outside of the dominions. Therefore, Great Britain is really signing for the British Empire except for South Africa, Australia, Canada New Zealand, and the Irish Free State.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a pretty big part.


An hon. MEMBER:: And Newfoundland.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, Newfoundland does not come within that Class. Under the resolutions passed at the Imperial conference of 1923, which were submitted to this house by the Prime Minister, and which were approved unanimously by this house-I am speaking from memory again; I wish I had time to send to my desk for my notes-we dealt, I think, solely and exclusively with treaties which involved active obligations on the part of Canada. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister later, and as I still insist, the resolutions passed in 1926 dealing with the negotiation of treaties very seriously amended the resolutions of 1923, and I have always contended that in justice to this house the Prime Minister should have placed before this house the whole of the Imperial conference resolutions for its consideration and approval, or at least should have placed before this house for approval the resolutions of the Imperial conference of 1926, which so seriously amended

Sanitary Convention-Mr. Cahan
the resolutions of 1923, which this house had previously approved. But that has never been done. Therefore, some day, at a very early date, we must come to a clear understanding as to where we are in the matter of the negotiation of these treaties. The same distinction arises in connection with our appointment of ministers to Washington, Paris and Tokyo. If I remember correctly-I am speaking solely from memory again, because I have not my notes here-when the Irish Free State sought to appoint a minister plenipotentiary to AVashington, there was a conference held between the Free State government and Mr. Thomas, who was then Secretary of State for the colonies, and they agreed as to the terms of the communication which would be made to the Secretary of State of the United States with regard to the terms and conditions and restrictions under which the Irish Free State would appoint a minister.


Frank S. Cahill: Was that not before 1926?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, in 1924, if I remember correctly. In that communication, which has been published in a white paper, which I have read, and which has also been published by the United States in its diplomatic correspondence, the British ambassador at Washington stated to the United States government that the condition upon which an Irish Free State minister would be appointed was that he should deal in his negotiations with the United States government solely and exclusively in relation to those matters which solely and exclusively affected the Irish Free State, and that was the condition on which the United States government agreed to accept the minister. That communication from the British ambassador at Washington to the Secretary of State of the United States-I am sorry I have not it here-went on to state that all matters which affected Great Britain and other parts of the empire, and not the Irish Free State solely and exclusively, would still continue to be dealt with by the British ambassador at Washington. Subsequently I made a motion in this house, to which the Prime Minister agreed, asking that there be brought down the documents in relation to the appointment of the Hon. Mr. Massey as Canadian minister at Washington, and again I am dealing with those documents from memory. Those documents indicated that the Canadian minister was to represent Canada in respect of Canadian affairs. I remember a short time afterwards reading the debates of the British House of Commons-and I shall be glad to give hon. gentlemen the reference- where Mr. Amery was asked, what is the
position of the Canadian minister at Washington? In answer, he referred to the reply that had been given some two or three years before by Mr. Thomas, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, in relation to the appointment of the Irish Free State minister at Washington, and said that the same conditions and restrictions would apply to the work of the Canadian Minister to the United States.
Therefore I assume-and I am simply trying to follow this out in my own mind-that the Imperial conference resolutions effected a constitutional reform. Those resolutions have never been approved by this parliament nor by the Australian parliament nor by the Imperial parliament. I do not know whether they have been approved by the parliament of the Irish Free State, but I see they were approved the other day by the parliament of South Africa. But assuming that they do effect a constitutional reform, I understand it to be this; that Canada, through its representative at Paris or at Washington; may negotiate treaties which solely and exclusively apply to Canada and affect no other part cf the British Empire; that the duties of a Canadian minister at Paris or at Washington are confined and restricted solely to matters which affect Canada, and Canada only, and that he has no jurisdiction to deal with matters which affect Canada in common with her sister dominions and Great Britain or other parts of the empire.
Consequently, in the negotiation of treaties I still understand that if they do not involve active obligations, as this treaty seems to, but only passive obligations-and the Prime Minister must admit, if he looks into it carefully, that there are a hundred and one matters affecting the most precious rights of Canadian citizens in all parts of the British dominions which are only passive obligations -with regard to those passive obligations, this government has acknowledged no duty to submit such treaties for the approval of the Canadian parliament.


Mr. THORSON:: May I ask a question?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I wish to proceed with my argument for the moment. Secondly, that such treaties as affect other parts of the empire may be negotiated by the ministers of the crown or representatives of the administration at Westminster, and that this government will be kept advised of the negotiations; but that unless this government raises serious objection and refuses to be bound by certain provisions, the British representative-either the ambassador at some foreign post or the British minister in London-may still negotiate treaties in the name of Great Britain
19t>S

Sanitary Convention-Mr. Cahan
and Ireland which when ratified in the name of His Majesty, bind Canada and its citizens in every respect as if those treaties had been approved by the Canadian government and by the parliament of Canadla. That seems to me to be the position in whidh we are now placed.
Let me give an illustration. I am speaking now from memory; I would rather have had my notes at hand. Take the Lausanne treaty. If I remember correctly, the Prime Minister raised certain objections to Canada being bound by that treaty. Those objections have been the subject of discussion in this house and in the press. They were approved by a majority of the house at that time, but there was no formal vote. After the treaty had been negotiated, and ratified by His Majesty the King, the Prime Minister-I think I can turn up the quotation-said that despite the fact that Canada had objected to the treaty, nevertheless now that it had been ratified by His Majesty, it was binding upon Canada as a part of the British Empire. I do not remember his exact words, but that is pretty nearly the effect of them. The Prime Minister shakes his head.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I drew attention to the fact that Canada was not represented at the Lausanne conference, had not signed the Lausanne conference agreement, that the parliament of Canada had not approved the agreement and that therefore the government would not authorize its ratification; and that therefore subsequently if it ever came to be a question of the obligations we were supposed to have assumed under it, all those facts would be a very important consideration in determining the extent of any of our obligations.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so; and if I did not stress that, it was not because I wished to misrepresent the right hon. gentleman. Nevertheless, if my memory is correct-and I think I can produce the passage-the Prime Minister said that the Lausanne treaty was in force with respect to Canada, with this exception, that Canada had not legally assumed any active obligations under it; but the treaty had put an end to the war with Turkey, and Canada was then in a similar state of peace in relation to that country.
Now, take the Locarno treaty. I remember the Prime Minister, two sessions ago stating in this house that Canada would not accept the Locarno treaty until it had been placed before this house for consideration and had received its approval. The Prime Minister in the exercise of his discretion has never placed the Locarno treaty before this house,

and it has never been discussed here; we have never had an opportunity of considering whether its terms should receive our approval or not. But after having refused permission to this house to consider the Locarno treaty, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) at the last meeting of the Imperial conference united in a resolution, which bound them and their government, expressing the highest approval-I am not quoting the exact language-of the action and policy of the British government in carrying through the Locarno treaty. That resolution meant something or it meant nothing. Did it mean that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice when in England were so anxious to curry favour-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: We did not curry favour with that resolution.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -that they endorsed resolutions which in the mind of the British public, and certainly in the mind of the British government and parliament, accentuated the fact that they were giving the moral support of this parliament and this country to the Locamo treaty, and that they subsequently refused to allow this house to consider it in all its bearings? But what is the effect so far as the British public mind goes? It is that the members of this government have taken this dual position, that we are morally bound, and should live up to our moral liability;-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -though they have made an indefinite reservation that the extent to which we will carry out that moral liability is left to our own discretion. It is a dual position which is not worthy of Canada, and the time is coming, in fact I think it is already here, when, if Canada is to assume the high duties and responsibilities of nationhood, at least her government should have the courage to state to this country, to the British commonwealth and to the world at large as to when she assumes obligations and when she declines to assume them.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what we are
doing.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is what you are doing
under a shield. You are saying one thing in Great Britain and another here. You are adopting in Great Britain one policy Which is being properly and intelligently interpreted there and you are returning to this country with an entirely different enunciation of your

Sanitary Convention-Mr. Lapointe
policy. It seems to me that the hon. gentlemen who compose this government have never taken the trouble to probe beneath the surface of the problems with which they are dealing. The other day, in reply to a question I had asked in a previous discussion as to what was becoming of the rights of Canadians as British subjects and British citizens throughout the world, under the program which he proposes to carry out, the Minister of Justice flippantly said to me across the floor of the house, " That will be hereafter determined by a Canadian parliament representing the Canadian people." It puts me in mind of a story I read in a newspaper the other day. A teacher was speaking of God being omnipotent and one of the boys in that country class suggested that there was one thing that He could not do: He could not make a three-year old colt in a minute. It is equally impossible for the Canadian parliament, by any legislation which it may pass to give Canadian citizens any rights whatsoever throughout this empire as British citizens and British subjects. And when you destroy the ties which at present bind us to Great Britain and the other parts of the empire, you leave us in a position where, unless you institute new conventions and agreements between this country and Great Britain and between this country and the other British dominions, which will establish for the future the status of Canadian citizens once they have passed beyond the confines of this country, you will find it absolutely impossible to maintain what I believe is the most precious possession to the great majority of Canadians who owe allegiance to the crown, the most precious thing which they desire to preserve-their status as British subjects throughout the world; you cannot preserve that status by a Canadian statute.
I have spoken at greater length than I had intended, but I was led into doing so. Another time I may have an opportunity to deal more in detail with this question. It seems to me that the policy which the hon gentleman and his colleagues are pursuing- a policy of assuming one attitude to the world and another in Canada, one attitude to Great Britain and the other British dominions and another attitude to their partisans here, their policy of trying to reconcile two conflicting ideas, is placing us in a position that is dishonouring Canada and dishonourable to the Canadian people.


Ernest Lapointe: I fail to see in what way my hon.
friend (Mr. Cahan) connects all his remarks regarding treaty negotiations and other inter-imperial questions with the subject matter of the present resolution. I did not want to call him to order, but most of his remarks were certainly wide of the mark, so far as this discussion is concerned.


Mr. BENNETT:: It began with the Prime Minister.


Ernest Lapointe: No; I think my hon.
friend is wrong there. He is sometimes wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Often.


Ernest Lapointe: This is merely a resolution asking the house to ratify a convention which the representatives of this country have signed on behalf of Canada as a member of the League of Nations. Canada is a member of the League of Nations of its own right. This convention was signed prior to the Imperial conference of 1926, and anything which was done in 1926 has no bearing on the present question. Canada signs a treaty of peace as a member of the League of Nations on an exactly equal status with Great Britain and with the other members of the British commonwealth of nations. Some Canadians do not like it, but even most of those who do not have come to the point where, when speaking publicly, they express pride in our equality in that respect, and claim credit for what is done. And I am pleased that they should claim credit in some way, because after all it shows the trend of public opinion in Canada. This convention has been signed by Canada as a separate member of the League of Nations. It has been signed by "the British Empire," which means Great Britain and Northern Ireland and other parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League of Nations. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said, there was an anomaly in that respect, and at the Imperial conference of 1926 it was decided unanimously- and the British government agreed-that in future even conventions that are made in the League of Nations will be revised in respect of the title: the words "British Empire" will be replaced by "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and other parts which are not separate members of the league.
My hon. friend says that the changes which were made at the Imperial conference of 1926 have not been submitted to the British parliament and to the other parliaments. He is right in that regard. But the British government has given effect to those resolutions of the Imperial conference and the League of Nations has been notified that now the title to be given to that part of the empire com-
1960	COMMONS
Sanitary Convention-Mr. Lapointe
prising Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall be so designated and shall not be called "the British Empire," which certainly made for confusion. The new conventions and agreements which have been signed since 1926 have carried into effect the provisions of the report of the Imperial conference of that year in that respect.
As to ratification, my hon. friend asked, why should this be submitted to parliament? As the hon. gentleman knows, ratification of treaties and agreements is a formal matter which differs in various countries. In Great Britain ratification is made by His Majesty the King, naturally on the recommendation of his advisers; in other countries it is different. In the United States the senate is the body that ratifies international treaties. I remember that when Mr. Lloyd George submitted to the British parliament the treaty of Peace, he took care to say that under the British constitution it was not really necessary, before His Majesty gave his assent to the ratification of the treaty, that it should be submitted to parliament. He thought it was such an important matter, however, that parliament should approve of it before His Majesty ratified the treaty, and this viewpoint was also accepted by the Canadian government at that time. Mr. Lloyd George said that this did not mean all treaties should be submitted to parliament, while on the other hand there is a strong body of public opinion in Great Britain which believes that all international agreements and treaties should be submitted to and approved by parliament before being ratified by His Majesty. This is the policy of the Labour party, and I believe they are right. This was the view accepted in Canada; a resolution has been passed by this parliament pledging that all treaties shall be submitted to parliament before they are ratified. This Question was discussed casually during the present session, and I may say if there is any treaty coming into effect as the result of negotiations with the United States with regard to water transportation, this house will approve of the treaty or will reject it before it is carried into effect in any way.
My hon. friend spoke about Locarno, and said that the Prime Minister and myself were very good boys when we were over there. He also said that we approved of the treaty of Locarno and that we were morally bound by it. We were not parties to the Treaty of Locarno; we were not represented when it was signed. Included in that treaty was a clause which stated that Canada and the other dominions would be bound if they agreed

to the treaty, but when it was submitted to the Canadian government we took the attitude that ive did not want to be bound by it. As I remember it, we were asked not to take any formal or definite step before the Imperial conference was called, which was to be held at a certain time in 1926. At that Imperial conference the treaty of Locarno was discussed and the dominions were asked to accept it. I hope I am not betraying any confidence now, but I am forced to tell this because of what my hon. friend has said; Canada, took the stand that we would not be bound by that treaty, and in view of the stand taken by Canada and perhaps one or two other dominions, no resolution was brought forward for the purpose of binding the dominions by that treaty. There was a nice little resolution congratulating Sir Austen Chamberlain upon the part he took in bringing about European peace, and I am free to say that he played a fine part at Locarno; as far as I was concerned, I had no objection to congratulating him on the really great work he did there. As far as my country is concerned, however, we never agreed to accept that treaty, and as a Canadian citizen I do not see that Canada should assume obligations in connection with the boundaries between France and Germany, any more than England should assume obligations in connection with the boundaries between Germany and the rest of central Europe. They agreed to guarantee the present boundaries between Germany and Belgium and Germany and France, but they did not agree to guarantee the boundaries between Germany and Poland or the other states of central Europe. One reason was because the eastern boundary was too far from England; well, the western boundary is still further from Canada. I do not believe it would have been good policy for us to assume any obligation which might result in a war to guarantee any boundaries in central Europe or elsewhere outside our own country. I have no objection to stating publicly and openly what my stand was in that regard, and I am willing to submit it to the Canadian people for approval or disapproval.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Might I ask a question? Did not Germany herself guarantee those boundaries?


Ernest Lapointe: Surely; they are her
own boundaries. I am quite willing to guarantee the boundaries of Canada at any time.


Peter McGibbon: But that treaty was one of peace, rather than one of war.

Sanitary Convention-Mr. Manion


Ernest Lapointe: It was a treaty to
guarantee the present boundaries between Germany and her neighbours; it was for the purpose of keeping peace. I will admit that, and I think it was a good treaty as far as European peace is concerned. However, I do not see why Canada should bind herself by any such treaty. I am free to admit that as a member of the League of Nations Canada has certain obligations, and if she is ever called upon to fulfil them, if there is a war with regard to any of these boundaries, Canada will have to consider what are her obligations as a member of the league. We are a member of the British commonwealth of nations, and we are quite willing to assume all our obligations and responsibilities in that respect. If there is a war, it will be for the Canadian parliament to decide whether the situation of Canada as a member of the British commonwealth of nations would compel this country to take part in that war. This, however, is quite different from binding ourselves to take part in wars with which we have no concern, just because these treaties or agreements might be conducive to the peace of Europe. As I have already said, I think the Locarno treaty was a fine instrument, but I also believe Canada could not be bound by it and should not accept it.
In concluding his remarks the last speaker said he wanted to keep our allegiance to His Majesty the King, and I agree with him absolutely in what he said. I yield to no one in my devotion to the king and in my desire to adhere to that allegiance to His Majesty, but my hon. friend and I differ as to the best way to retain that allegiance. I believe that the present constitution of the British commonwealth of nations is more secure and will be better safeguarded by acknowledging that all the citizens of the different parts of the British commonwealth of nations are equal in status and free to look after their own affairs. We all consider the king as the great bond of unity between us, and we want to keep that bond as sacred as possible.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: 
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, there are a large number of people and a large section of Canada who do not agree with the ways and means taken outside the British Empire under our new status in signing these conventions. It is all very well for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to stand up in this house in 1928 and ask this honourable body to agree to the sanitaiy conventions on terms adopted in 1926 by delegates who were supposed to represent this parliament, and who had no authority to sign a convention and in my opinion were never authorized to do so. You will notice the wording of the resolution, " and which was signed, on behalf of Canada,

by the Canadian representative acting under full power issued by His Majesty". The first point is as to the status of the representative to sign that convention.
We have in Canada to-day a new disease, the new status disease, which must be cured first and exterminated from the shores of Canada. The Governor General is to-day represented here for the first time in a convention. The Governor General does not represent Downing Street. He is now a mere viceroy. If he were to ask for advice, they would tell him that he possesses in the front benches all the advice which can be given him. He is the representative alone of the government of Canada and cut off from His Majesty entirely. We have been content as a nation to depend upon the mother country, upon the British board of health, the British board of trade, the British Medical Association, and the medical health officers of the country and their organizations and especially on education in these matters. There are two or three hon. members who have spoken in this debate, and who, if they want laws for public health, should start at home. May I say to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) that they need a proper Public Health department to look after their public health in the city of Montreal; their water supply should be owned by the city, and that would do more for national public health in Montreal than all the conventions signed at Geneva, Rome, Paris and all the other places on world sanitary matters. Three-fourths of this convention does not apply to Canada at all. What have we to do with disease on the Red sea?
Who are the deputations which have been over the country asking for this legislation? Two or three of these gentlemen come from the city I represent, and they can hardly get together a corporal's guard at their league meetings. It is all very well for Canada's delegates to the League of Nations to waste the country's money on trips to Geneva; and what do I find? I find that instead of these Canadian representatives patronizing Canadian steamship ports they go down to New York. And what do they do when they get over there? Some of them are so-called labour men, and some of them are defeated Liberal candidates from the Toronto district. I know one of them who went over to represent us who knew nothing about public or international health laws. In all the great fights which we have had by Doctor Hastings, I have never known that gentleman to be on the public platform. We have in Toronto a great public health department and a great health officer. Dr. Hastings, one of
APRIL 12, 1928	ig63
Sanitary Convention-Mr. Church
the finest on this continent, but I never knew one of those gentlemen to spend his time over in Geneva spending the taxpayers' money on health matters or sanitation. We have gained a seat in the League of Nations but a seat in the National or American baseball leagues will accomplish as much for peace and goodwill as the mythical, academic, League of Nations. I have absolutely lost faith in the League of Nations, which is a menace to the British Empire. Of all the foolish resolutions that have been passed by that league, I think the one in regard to sanitation is the worst, and it deals with many matters foreign to the soil of Canada. I venture to say that not one per cent of the members have read this amazing new status report. The other day the Prime Minister said that we had nothing to do with the Anglo-Egyptian treaty, yet we to-day are dealing with sanitary affairs in the Suez canal. We have no navy. How are we going to enforce these conventions, supposing anybody breaks them? Last year the Conservative party had a convention and passed resolutions. Some years ago the Liberal party held a convention and still another one, of the women Liberals, is to be held at the Chateau Laurier next week. Are we to wait for two or three years, as we waited for this one, in order to get these resolutions before the House of Commons after the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice deal with these matters although they are already signed and have for three years been binding in Canada?
The matters covered by this convention are foreign to the soil of Canada, and dear knows what the cost of carrying it out is going to be. Some of these Geneva resolutions have been applied to the building laws of the city of Toronto- The plumbing regulations in Toronto have been incorporated into a bylaw and they include amended resolutions that have been passed by this academic, mock parliament known as the League of Nations.
If you look over this report in regard to cholera and other diseases you will find they want to regulate the Dead sea, the Suez canal and the seven seas. Whither are we drifting under this new status? If we go on this way I do not know where this parliament is going to land. This convention will not increase the crops of our farmers, but will empty their pockets in payment of taxes which this fad now puts into the form of conventions binding Canada the world over. If the government want to do anything in the way of preventing diseases of this kind and for sanitation, let them start at home and deal with
the diseases from which Canada is suffering to-day. Let them start right in this city of Ottawa and make the city clean up its streets and thus prevent diseases from arising. They do not know how to keep their streets clean; they have the worst kept streets of any city in Canada, and any health officer will tell you that there are more germs and diseases to be found in the streets of a great city than anywhere else. Let us begin at home and let us stop signing all these conventions. If this is a result of our new status, dear knows where we are going to land. If we are going to enforce these conventions we shall have to maintain a large army and navy. Why do we not begin at home by placing on the great lakes life-saving stations for some of our magnificent crews that are handling the great western crop in November and December? Let the government apply sanitary laws to the mining camps, for instance, the Hollinger and other mines in New Ontario where seventy men lost their lives recently, when we had to go to the United States to get sanitary devices and life-saving crews to rescue the survivors.
Let us not forget that we are part and parcel of the British Empire. Let the government co-operate with the provincial governments and the municipalities in matters of public sanitation and health instead of going off to the Dead sea, the Suez canal and all the countries that border on the seven seas. This sanitary convention is the most remarkable document that I have ever seen in my life and I do not think we should be called upon now to approve a convention set out in a document consisting of forty pages and which was formulated in 1926. The Liberal party held a great sanitary convention in the city of Ottawa and there were twelve pages of recommendations in their platform but not one of them was carried out. How many clauses of this particular sanitary convention, with the high-sounding names that are used to describe it, will ever be put into effect? I venture to say not one per cent of them. I have discussed this proposition with some of the ablest health officers in the country and they do not approve of what is being done. One of the most prominent health officers on this continent told me that it would be far better if Canada would continue in an educational way to work with the British board of trade, the British board of health, our sister dominions and the British Medical Association in matters of public health and sanitation. A great deal of good could be accomplished by educational means through the universities and hospital organiza-

i4	COMMONS
Sanitary Convention-Mr. Woodsworth____
tions of the country without our going to the seven seas of the world and signing conventions passed a few years ago.
I protest against this reckless waste of public money in sending all these large deputations over to this mythical League of Nations which is causing more trouble to the British Empire than any other agency I know of to-day. We are part and parcel of the British Empire, and it was a very sorrowful day for this country when we changed the status which had been good enough for Canada for nearly one hundred years, when we departed from that principle and started signing treaties as a separate country regarding Egypt, Persia, Russia and everything the League of Nations proposes to get up. Where will it all end? It is a nice way of spending money for some gentlemen to take a trip to the League of Nations, going via New York instead of patronizing our own ports. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has criticized this convention somewhat and I agree with him that charity begins at home. If the members of this house will see that their own constituencies are properly regulated in regard to health matters, that will be much better for Canada than all these proposals in the convention. We can well leave these sanitary laws so far as the overseas part is concerned, to the British government, the British board of trade, the British Medical Association and the shipping companies who are beyond the control of this parliament.
Mr. J. 8. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to have
had a word before the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) spoke, because what I have to say is rather in nature of a question. I quite agree that the procedure adopted by the government in this case is the correct one. It seems to me that parliament ought to ratify these conventions. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) that the decisions and resolutions of the Imperial conference ought to have been brought and ought still to be brought before parliament. I think that was done this last year in South Africa in the case of some of the more important decisions reached at the Imperial conference.
In connection with this sanitary convention, I have wondered whether the labour conventions of the league were ever ratified by parliament. I cannot recall that this was the case and I should like to ask the Prime Minister:	If not, why not? Why should we
not ratify the labour conventions which I think are equally binding and perhaps of much

more far-reaching importance than this sanitary convention? So far as I remember, parliament has not had an opportunity of making a declaration on the matter. Someone suggested to me that at that time we had not the status which we have now. I cannot see that that has anything to do with the matter because at that time we were signatory to the peace treaty and we were a member of the League of Nations. I will ask the government why we have not had the ratification by parliament of these other conventions?
Further than that, I am interested as to whether this is to be simply a sort of pious resolution, or whether what has been already suggested is really the case, that this resolution if passed will carry the implication that we are going to proceed to implement this convention. Is that clearly understood? Is it understood that if we pass this resolution to-day it means that the terms of this convention will be implemented by Canada? During the past seven years in which I have been a member of this house I have been trying from time to time to bring up the various clauses of the conventions and treaties which have been passed by the League of Nations, and almost invariably we are told, with regard to each matter, that this is not a matter over which the Dominion government has any jurisdiction whatever. We were so informed in regard to old age pensions; we were so informed in regard to unemployment; we were so informed in regard to the hours' and conditions of labour. All these matters, we were told, under the British North America Act come under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities. We have had before the house this session the question of sickness insurance, and there are those who suggest that this is a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. So I would ask with regard to this sanitary convention, are we quite clear that the Dominion of Canada has jurisdiction; I am speaking now of the nation of Canada, not as a part of the British Empire, but in its relation to the several provinces which comprise this Dominion. In this country we seem to have a sort of divided sovereignty. My own contention all along has been that if Canada has the right to make treaties at all, Canada has the right to see that they are enforced; I cannot see that we are a nation otherwise.
In regard to this resolution then, irrespective of the contention that may be put forward by provincial authorities that some of these matters are entirely within the purview of the provinces, in spite of what has been said as to the provinces having control in the matter of certain civil rights and all

Sanitary Convention-Mr. McGibbon
the Test of it, if we endorse this convention, we should undertake to see that it is fully enforced, and that in the event of an outbreak of disease in any one province we shall have the machinery at hand to cope with it and take whatever steps may be necessary. I should like to have the assurance of the government that we are on safe ground, and that this is not merely the "rubber stamping," as someone has put it, of something that has been done by the League of Nations, but rather that we are solemnly entering upon the endorsation of this convention with the understanding that we are to implement it by definite legislation, and that never again will anyone here assert that this is beyond our powers.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):: In the publication of this report I think the League of Nations has left itself open to a great deal of criticism. It is not that the articles in the so-called convention are not proper, but the fact is they are not agreed to; The protocol, in fact, is nothing but a summary of one nation after the other making reservations in regard to different articles of this convention. If you will look at the protocol you will see that Germany makes a reservation in regard to " observation ", and that Brazil, Chili, the United States of America, and in fact nearly every country signs the articles of this convention with reservations. If we are going to have a convention to which no one is agreeing 100 per cent, what is the use of it? Read the articles one after the other, and you will see that the most important articles in this convention are accepted only with reservations by the different countries.
I wonder if the Prime Minister or the Minister of Health actually realizes what he is agreeing to in this convention. Article 14, for instance, reads:
Governments undertake to maintain in their large ports and in their surroundings, and as far as possible in the other ports and their surroundings, sanitary services possessing an organization and equipment capable of carrying out the application of the prophylactic measures in regard to the diseases mentioned in this convention and especially the measures laid down in articles 6, 8 and 13.
If the Minister of Health were in the house,
I would ask him what preparations he has made in this regard. What lies at the basis of all these articles is the compulsory notification of diseases, and there is not a country in which these diseases arise that has compulsory notification, and each country, one after the other, has signed this convention with reservations simply because they are not able to carry it out. We agree to prepare all our ports to deal with these diseases. Delousing, for instance; what preparations have we at our ports for carrying this out? I think we ought to be assured by the government whether or not they have made preparations to carry out the different articles of this convention-the different methods of preventing mosquitos from getting on boats, delousing, and all this kind of thing. It is worth while reading the different articles of this convention, because then you must come to the conclusion that somebody is making a monkey of us.


Peter McGibbon: It is quite evident to my mind that this legislation is like a lot of other legislation that the government introduce; they hardly know where it is going to stop. Certainly the government do not know what expenditure this will run the country into, for neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Justice has been able to give us the least idea what our financial obligations will be under this convention. It does seem to me that the government of the day has resorted to the method of sending a representative of this country almost any place on God's earth, with almost unlimited power, to commit the government of this country to any expenditure, and then come back here with an agreement to which the government says, " hear, hear," and then asks this parliament to ratify it. It is treating this parliament with a certain degree of contempt. A resolution of this kind comes along, and this house is asked to ratify it when the government can give us no information at all regarding it. I would ask the Prime Minister, where is this going to stop? Are the limits even on the American continent or are they in Europe? It is absolutely impossible to my mind even to estimate what our financial obligations will be under this convention.
Again, why should we undertake all these obligations? It is quite true, as the hon. member for Port William (Mr. Manion) has pointed out, that some of these diseases are more or less common in this country, but the great bulk of them are not, and we are simply undertaking to police the world, so to speak, from a sanitary standpoint, to delouse the world, ships and everything else. We are simply asked to go forward blindfold and accept the responsibility of this undertaking. I do not know what powers were vested in Dr. Amyot when he went over there, but I certainly think they were much too wide when he comes back to this country with an obligation of this kind. I recall in 1920, when the present Prime Minister was then leader of the opposition, he wanted to

Convention-Mt. McGibbon
Sanitary
restrict the Prime Minister of that day as to what he should and should not do at the Imperial conference. But the whole attitude oi tills government seems to have changed. Having come back from the Imperial conference, they do not even ask parliament to ratify what they have done. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) this afternoon argued that Mr. Lloyd George adopted a similar course when he was Prime Minister of Great Britain, and that consequently the parliament of Canada has no right to be consulted at all.
I wonder what has caused this change of heart on the part of the government. Is it due to the fact that we are a member of the League of Nations?-which I quite realize does not bring any comfort to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice. Why are we asked to undertake obligations so foreign to the needs of this country when our national needs are absolutely neglected?
I am sorry that the Minister of Healtn (Mr. King) is not in his seat, for I intended to put some questions to him. I intended to ask him what his department has done to Tid this country of the grave narcotic evil. I have been trying to ascertain from the department, but I can get practically no information. And yet the narcotic habit, which every year is taking down thousands of our best citizens into an untimely grave or, what is worse, to debauchery, is increasing right under the very eyes of the Department of Health, but apparently they are oblivious to what is going on. I would say^ to the Prime Minister, if he wants my advice as a medical man, that he had better shake up his department, or it will discredit his government. Although the department has been in existence for some seven or eight years, I can say without fear of successful contradiction that it has done nothing to justify its creation; it is a dead letter throughout the country to-day so far as the preservation of the health of the nation is concerned. One of the specific purposes for which it was created was to deal with the soldier problem. What has it done in this respect? Practically nothing. It was also promised that there would be incorporated with it a department of scientific research-one of the most important branches of research under God's heaven in any government or any land. But what has it done? It has not even started to organize yet. To-day I do not believe that the Department of Health is doing anything more, or doing it any better, than heretofore was done by other departments of government. It seems to me that we have to go far afield, to undertake obligations which may

be far-reaching financially and otherwise, in order to give the department an excuse for existence.
Many extraneous subjects have been brought into this discussion. The Minister of Justice introduced the Locarno treaty, and also our status as one of the partners in the Britannic commonwealth of nations. He said he was equal to defending our position there; which is quite correct. But ask him what this country is doing to-day to help shoulder the burdens of empire now carried almost entirely by Great Britain, and there is no response. It is true that we are availing ourselves of all the protection accorded us by the Imperial authorities. Our complacent attitude in this respect always puts me in mind of the boy who has grown to manhood and still lives on his old father. That is what Canada is doing in relation to the mother country. In my opinion the time has arrived when we should shoulder our share of the necessary expense of the empire from which we are drawing very substantial benefits.
I also think that we might have participated in the Locarno treaty. I do not lay down the doctrine that we should bear any responsibilities where we are not consulted; but if Canada is in earnest in trying to preserve the peace of the world, we should do everything in our power to that end. As I said the other day, I think the Locarno treaty, if properly carried out, will do more to preserve world peace than anything that has been accomplished in the last four or five years. I recognize that we were not represented at Locarno, but I think we might have been. With Germany, France and Great Britain guaranteeing the European boundaries both east and west -Great Britain did not guarantee the eastern boundary; she said she could not be the policeman of the world, but she was willing^ to do so as far as she could. But to my mind the important feature of that treaty was that Germany herself guaranteed to protect those boundaries both east and west; and if she did that there could be no war between the nations concerned at least. I think if the spirit of Locarno had been carried out, if Great Britain, France and Germany had signed that treaty, it would have done more to preserve peace in Europe than anything else imaginable.
As a member of this house I object to undertaking obligations concerning which we know so little. We have not even been given an estimate of what this convention is going to cost Canada, or how far we shall be involved. I wonder if this convention is similar to the treaty we signed with Hungary and Turkey. When our accredited representatives signed

Sanitary Convention-Mr. Bennett
that treaty, and this house on the motion of the present Prime Minister endorsed it, and we were asked to say if we were going to stand by it, the government said we didn't know whether we were or not. Are all of our international agreements to be treated in that way? Here is a convention with certain reservations. How far are we involved; where are we going to stop? It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the time is come when we must consider the revenues of this country as something not akin to an artesian well; we must recognize that there is a limit to the amount of taxation which we can collect, and I for one protest strongly against these unnecessary expenditures while our taxation is as high as it is to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended
to participate in this discussion. That it has wandered very far afield from the motion upon the order paper is quite apparent, and I think this is attributable to the explanations made by the Prime Minister as to how treaties should, might, could or would be signed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was in reply to a question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be that the right hon. gentleman is correct in saying that a portion of his answer was attributable to the question asked; but the fact is that we have taken about two hours to deal with matters extraneous to the subject matter under discussion. The motion before the house is to approve of a convention entered into between certain countries at Geneva-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At Paris.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At Paris; an international sanitary convention. My own personal view is that Canada would have been well-advised not to have touched the convention. I say that for this reason. We have here a federal union-the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) touched upon the point-and the provinces are charged with the responsibility of public health, except where the Dominion deals with it by reason of sea ports or the international boundaries between us and United States. But even in the latter case, where health is concerned it has been the contention of the federal power that the provinces must be responsible for stamping out any epidemic within the provincial area. This convention is made between governments; the federal government of Canada, as a member of the League of Nations, is entering into a convention with other nations of the world. Clearly when Canada undertakes to
do certain things with respect to certain diseases, as to which under the constitution the provinces only have jurisdiction, this Dominion cannot exercise any power. The mere fact that the federal government signs a convention does not enable it to transgress the constitution of the country. This convention confers uo constitutional powers upon the federal government. The government's powers are just as they were before, and each of the provinces may be affected by outbreaks of the disease of smallpox, as mentioned. What power has this parliament to deal with smallpox? What power has this parliament ever exercised with respect to outbreaks of that disease? The provinces and the provinces only are concerned with the question of smallpox, and if an epidemic of smallpox should break out in Quebec or in Alberta the province of Quebec or the province of Alberta, as the case may be, must deal with it. The Dominion can do nothing at all in the matter. What is more, neither this parliament nor this government has the right under the constitution to impose upon any provincial government the necessity of making any return to the Minister of Health that sits yonder.
Had I been asked whether or not in my opinion we should become a party to the convention, I would have said. Certainly not. What purpose does it serve? I do fear-and I put this to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)-that we in this country are beginning to think that because Canada is a member of the League of Nations it makes us appear to be important in the eyes of the world if we sign conventions and treaties. I regret to say this, but there is marked evidence of it. There is a jaunt across the water to Geneva. It is a lovely place and a delightful time is had. This country pays the expenses. There is excellent food on the ship and excellent provision is made for entertainment in Geneva and elsewhere. And then you must do something; you must sign a convention.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend suggest that we should have no representation in the League of Nations?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in the least.


Ernest Lapointe: Then why criticize the
food?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said the food was excellent; I did not criticize it. All these entertainments are admirable, but in many instances they are holidays for those who participate in them. I do not say that it was a holiday for the Minister of Justice (Mir. Lapointe) when he went over in connection with
1968	COMMONS
Sanitary Convention-Mr. Bennett
the question of naval disarmament-in respect of which, by t'he way, he nas not yet given a report to the house. That, I suspect, was not a holiday for him. But it has been a holiday for some of our representatives who have gone there. And, what is more, they were unable to participate in the proceedings of the League of Nations to the same extent as my hon. friend has done because of their lack of understanding and of appreciation of all that transpired.
Now here is a convention we are asked to approve. The ratification of a convention is, of course, as the Minister of Justice has said, a prerogative of the crown. The crown acts on the advice of its ministers, and in this instance the ministers from Canada will advise the crown that the convention is a sound one in which Canada concurs, if the Canadian parliament, comprising both the Commons and the Senate, approves of it. I wholly agree that it is desirable-indeed, I have always so held-that both the Commons and the Senate of parliament should be asked to approve of conventions or treaties that carry international implications or responsibilities. That, I think, is clear. When we are asked, as the Commons house of parliament, to give our approval to this convention, I submit that it is abundantly clear that we should not seek to commit the Dominion to do something with respect to the provinces which the Dominion has no constitutional jurisdiction to do. And clearly that is what is implied here; there is no escaping that conclusion if this means what it says. For that reason therefore, I would have said, with respect to a matter of this kind, "We are entirely of the opinion that there is no necessity for us to become a party to this convention ", That, I suggest, would have been the proper attitude for the Canadian representatives to have taken. I repeat, I see in all the proceedings of the League of Nations, so far as this country is concerned, an increasing evidence as the days go by of a desire on our part to find a place in the sun by signing conventions and treaties, thus suggesting that we have become a very important people. Importance in the world is not measured, I submit, in any such manner.
I go a step further. Some discussion has arisen with respect to the League of Nations. What is the League of Nations? The League of Nations is a covenant between various peoples that they will do certain things named in that covenant. Each of the contracting parties has incurred obligations, one of which is to enforce sanctions in the event of any member of the league violating the provisions of the covenant. That involves economic
UVIr. Bennett.]
sanctions and, if necessary, military sanctions as well. The Canadian people, then, have obligated themselves if necessary, so far as the League of Nations is concerned, to become parties with other nations to the enforcement of economic and, if needs be, of military pressure to 'carry out the will of the league.
Now what is the difference between the League of Nations and the British commonwealth of nations? The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has been speaking in terms of war. The League of Nations involves in its very essence the exercise of military power, if needs be, for the purpose of giving effect to its will as against a transgressing member. That is all that can be said regarding it. The British commonwealth of nations is made up of a very large number of self-governing communities as well as of crown colonies and mandated territories in various portions of the world's area, embracing a quarter of it altogether. It is perfectly true that when Great Britain goes to war this country is also at war. It is equally true that this country need not participate in any such war unless this parliament sanctions our participation. That is clear. We have provided that by statute.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The hon. gentleman considers, then, that the statement made in South Africa recently is not well founded?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not believe that any lawyer thinks for a moment that it is well founded. With all deference to Mr. Hertzog, who is an eminent lawyer-as I think the Minister of Justice will agree-it is not possible for any portion of the empire to be neutral while the empire is at war. That is clear. If, however, his meaning was that any part of the empire comprising a self-governing dominion need not participate in that war, the statement is correct, inasmuch as it is for the parliament of that self-governing dominion to determine what action shall be taken. I do not think there can be much doubt about that in the light of all that has been written on the question and with which we are familiar. There can be no doubt about it in view of the statements that are made from time to time, not only by British but by Canadian statesmen as well, notably by the great leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that when Great Britain was at war Canada was at war. That was the position taken by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and it cannot be successfully disputed.
The position, then, with respect to the League of Nations and the British commonwealth of nations, is not wholly analogous We have become parties to the League of

Sanitary Convention-Mr. Bennett
Nations by a covenant which we have signed. A covenant is an agreement under seal. We have incurred certain obligations under the League of Nations and in the event of transgression on the part of any member that has signed the covenant, that member may be brought to book by the concerted effort of all the other signatory members including Canada, with economic sanctions and military power if needs be.
On the other hand, the British commonwealth of nations is a group of self-governing countries, including Great Britain; and under our system of government-under the system that has evolved through time and under which we now live-if Great Britain goes to war we are at war. But we are not compelled, as we are under the covenant of the League of Nations, to make contribution either of a dollar or of a man except in so far as we may decide to do so. This parliament having given its sanction to the covenant of the League of Nations, we are bound by that covenant- whatever we may think of it-to give effect to any decision it may arrive at for the purpose of enforcing its will against a transgressing member.
This convention is alleged to have for its object the preservation of peace, and that enables one to make some reference to the Locarno treaty. That also was intended to preserve peace, but this government thought it undesirable to be a party to that treaty. It will be recalled, with reference to the policy of Locarno, that the report of the Imperial conference of 1926 contained these words:
It then became clear that, from the standpoint of all the dominions and of India, there was complete approval of the manner in which the negotiations had been conducted and brought to so successful a conclusion. Our final and unanimous conclusion was to recommend to the conference the adoption of the following resolution:
"The conference has heard with satisfaction the statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to the efforts made to ensure peace in Europe, culminating in the agreements of Locarno; and congratulates His Majesty's government in Great Britain on its share in this successful contribution towards the promotion of the peace of the world."
I do not think any person unacquainted with the subleties of mind of hon. gentlemen opposite would conclude anything but that this parliament had given its approval, or at least that the government had given its approval, to the Locarno treaty; because when you find a gentleman saying that it is clear from the standpoint of all the dominions and of India that there has been complete approval of the manner in which the negotiations have been conducted and brought to a successful conclusion, followed by congratulations for
the results obtained, it shows, as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) remarked, a desire to make it plain that there is complete unanimity on the part of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa as to the Locarno treaty. That is the attitude it is desired to express in England, while in Canada they wish to make it appear that they will not make any promises which will involve this country in anything beyond the three mile limit.


Ernest Lapointe: I said then exactly what I have said this afternoon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then my friend must
have voted the other way.


Ernest Lapointe: No. This is not a
resolution which was proposed; it is merely a congratulation to Sir Austen Chamberlain.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is a unanimous report.


Ernest Lapointe: He has been receiving
congratulations from all over the world.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is nothing here to indicate that in the final and unanimous conclusion at which the conference arrived the Minister of Justice spoke one way and voted the other.


Ernest Lapointe: No, I am not in the
habit of doing that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only reading it as it appears here; it says it was unanimous.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely this is unanimous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It recommended to the
conference the adoption of the resolution, preceded by the statement that it became clear from the standpoint of all the dominions and of India that there was complete approval of the manner in which the negotiations had been conducted and brought to a successful conclusion.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad to hear what my hon. friend has to say; it will be submitted on another occasion in order to show our friends in England how our actions are interpreted by hon. gentlemen here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Far be it from me to
place upon the conduct of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice any meaning other than that which he intended, but I only read from the report, which is said to be unanimous. Although the hon. gentleman says he took the position there which he has taken here, I can only say that he must have voted differently from the way in which he spoke,
1970	COMMONS
Sanitary Convention-Mr. Bennett
because he could not have spoken as he did this afternoon and arrived at this conclusion without indeed a great feat of mental gymnastics of which I think him hardly capable.


Ernest Lapointe: I am happy to follow
my hon. friend's example.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am so delighted to
have the Minister of Justice follow my example in anything; it indicates a modesty on his part which I had scarcely expected.
There is just one other matter I would like to mention, arising not out of this debate but rather from the answer made by the Prime Minister to a question asked by my friend from St. Lawrence-St. George. The question was this: Is this part of the public law of Canada when the convention has been approved by parliament and ratified by His Majesty? That question has not yet been answered. With his usual attitude of mind, when he was asked that question the Prime Minister immediately launched into an exposition of the signing of treaties, and avoided a direct reply. That is the position, and that is how this debate has been precipitated. The question was very simple; it was simply whether or not this became part of the public law of Canada after its approval and ratification, and it was answered by a long address on how treaties have been and will now be signed.


Ernest Lapointe: My friend is not serious; he knows that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George started the debate on the treaties when he mentioned Locarno and everything else. I merely followed his remarks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the hon. member
for St. Lawrence-St. George only did that after the Prime Minister had made this exposition as to how treaties should be signed. The question put to the Prime Minister was whether this was part of the public law of the country, and that question still remains unanswered.


Ernest Lapointe: My friend knows the
answer; it is the simplest thing possible, and the answer is obvious.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is it?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend knows
very well that if this house approves of this convention and it is ratified, the convention will be binding upon Canada. If there is need of statutes or legislation, the house will be called upon to pass that legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am so delighted to have the Minister of Justice answer the question.
[Mr. Bennett.}	j>
* * J


Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased to delight my hon. friend in this respect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if the minister realizes just what he has said? To carry into effect what he has just said involves an amendment to the British North America Act; that is all.


Ernest Lapointe: It is so easy to amend
the British North America Act, according to my hon. friends. We will amend it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. You say it is the easiest thing in the world to do that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask the hon. gentleman who said that?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, hon. gentlemen opposite say so all the time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would my hon. friend
name the member who said that?


Ernest Lapointe: I will.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will he do it now?


Ernest Lapointe: It has been stated in
this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Please name the member now.


Ernest Lapointe: The answer is not here
at the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is what?


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend wishes to debate this matter I shall be pleased to join him at any time, here or elsewhere.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is
very valiant, but will he answer the question?


Ernest Lapointe: Not necesarily valiant
to meet my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not valiant; it is
an easy thing for him to meet the member for Wrest Calgary, but I suggest that my hon. friend answer the question. Who has said that it is an easy thing to amend the British North America Act?


Ernest Lapointe: I will have to consult
Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the hon. gentleman has no particular person in mind? In other words that was a bald statement supported by no authority. I have not heard anyone say in this house that it is an easy thing to amend the British North America Act. That is a constitutional contract between four provinces, providing for the addition of other provinces, and being a constitutional contract

Sanitary Convention-Mr. Bennett
it cannot be easily amended without the consent of the contracting parties. As far as I have heard, no one has made the suggestion in Canada that it is an easy thing to secure the consent of the contracting parties. However, now we have the answer of the Minister of Justice that this convention, when approved by this parliament and ratified by the sovereign, will become a part of the public law of Canada, binding this country and imposing upon our people the necessity of passing such legislation as may be necessary to give effect to it, if need be. I point out to him that that involves changes in the constitution of Canada, because it places upon this parliament a power which parliament cannot exercise, having regard to the constitutional provisions of the British North America Act which confer those powers upon the provinces and not upon the Dominion. Let there be no misunderstanding about this question to which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George vainly sought an answer, and which is now answered by the Minister of Justice. Does the Prime Minister wish to ask a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was going to say to my hon. friend that I think he is entirely wrong on that point, and I would like to give him my reasons later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know that it rests with me to give my right hon. friend permission to do that. The rules of the house are there and I cannot change them. As far as I am concerned, if the right hon. gentleman has the right to speak he can do so, and if he has not that right he should not speak. Unfortunately I cannot add to that or take away from it. However, I cannot be wrong with respect to this; under our constitution, if we were to have an outbreak of smallpox, an epidemic, in one of the western provinces, the obligation rests with the provincial rather than with the Dominion government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will read the convention he will see that he is entirely wrong in believing that the provincial authorities have that obligation; under the exclusive jurisdiction given this parliament, we have to deal with matters of quarantine, navigation and the like, and those are the matters primarily referred to in this convention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was very anxious to
satisfy myself on that point, and the Prime Minister is quite correct in drawing attention to the fact that this parliament has power only to deal with questions of quarantine and with ships and shipping. But the
convention deals with cars and railways passing international boundaries. I will turn up the section if my friend desires; it deals with crossings between the United States and Canada, and under those circumstances there is no jurisdiction on the part of this parliament to deal with an epidemic of smallpox in Alberta. They may deal with the trains and with the passage of the trains, but they have no power to compel the province of Alberta to make any report to this Dominion in respect to an outbreak of smallpox; and until you amend the constitution you will have no power to do that, because matters of health rest wholly with the local authorities, as we have found out in times past in appeals on these very matters. The minister may sit here and make suggestions, but the provinces need not act upon them. This is not a matter on which the Dominion has concurrent powers. It has exclusive powers of quarantine, but this parliament has no power over a province in respect to smallpox.


Mr. CANNON:: May I ask a question?
Would not this parliament have power to deal with the matter to prevent the spread of smallpox from one province into another?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The courts have held to the contrary. That is the reason this parliament had no authority to deal with the epidemic of typhoid in Montreal and prevent it from spreading into Ontario, beyond the questions which I have pointed out, subject to the reservation as to the passing of interprovincial trains, et cetera, where the Dominion would have power to deal with this matter. There will come an opportunity later to discuss the question as to the powers of those who represent Canada either at Tokyo or at Washington or elsewhere; but the statement made by the hon. member from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) is a very careful and accurate statement of the situation. He had not his notes before him at the time but they are now in my hand, and the letter of Sir Esme Howard to the Secretary of State of the United States, dated June 24th, 1924, says:
The handling of matters at Washington exclusively relating to the Irish Free State should be confided to a minister plenipotentiary accredited to the United States government.
And that the Irish minister-
*-would be furnished with credentials which would enable him to take charge of all affairs relating only to the Irish Free State. He would be the ordinary channel of communication with the United States government on these matters. Matters which are of imperial concern or which affect other dominions in the commonwealth in

Sanitary Convention-Mr. Bennett
common with the Irish Free State will continue to be handled as heretofore by this embassy.	,
The arrangements proposed by His Majesty's government would not denote any departure from the principle of the diplomatic unity of the empire. The Irish minister would be at all times in the closest touch with His Majesty's ambassador, and any question which might arise as to whether a matter comes within the category of those to be handled by the Irish minister or not would be settled by consultation between them. In matters falling within his sphere the Irish minister would not be subject to the control of His Majesty's ambassador, nor would His Majesty's ambassador be responsible for the Irish minister's action.
I have been instructed to expess the hope that the United States government will concur in the appointment of an Irish Free State minister at Washington on the footing I have indicated above.
The United States Secretary of State in replying on June 28, 1924, notes that the Irish minister will have "the handling of matters at Washington exclusively relating to the Irish Free State", and that he will "take charge of all matters relating only to the Irish Free State." On December 7th, 1926, when the Hon. Mr. Massey was appointed, a question arose as to what his powers were, and his letter of credence issued on the day of his appointment shows that he was appointed "with the especial object of representing in the United States of America the interests of our Dominion of Canada." And when the Right Hon. Mr. Amery was questioned in the House of Commons as to the functions of the Canadian minister at Washington, he replied:
I would invite reference to statement of the Secretary of State, June 26. 1924, on the occasion of the appointment of the Irish Free State minister to Washington. The position is similar in the ease of the Canadian minister.
As to the powers of a Canadian minister in matters of the kind to which the Prime Minister has referred, and which have been mentioned by my friend, it is quite clear that they deal only with matters which affect Canada. Nothing better illustrates possibly the necessity of a clearer appreciation and understanding of any convention that is submitted to parliament than just what has taken place this afternoon. There are involved provincial rights; there are involved vast expenditures of public moneys, if this convention is approved. The ratification of it by necessary legislation will involve the amendment of the constitution of the country itself. It is necessary that those who represent us at the League of Nations should be advised that in matters such as this it is inadvisable that Canada should participate, because of our federal constitution, and due to
[Mr. Bennett.l
our peculiar position, differing from Australia and New Zealand, in relation to the United States to the south of us. And if we follow the course which prudence would dictate and the law which governs in such a matter, we should not be a party to this convention; for certainly the reservations which are mentioned in this protocol do not cover, in my judgment, the point which should be covered if we are to avoid being charged with bad faith in the future, because it affects provincial rights in respect of which this parliament has no control.


Hewitt Bostock: This will close the debate if the right bon. the Prime Minister speaks.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Article I of section I, in the first chapter, provides that:
Every government must immediately notify to the other governments and, at the same time, to the Office International d'Hygiene-Publique.
(3)	the existence of an epidemic of typhus or of smallpox.
It has nothing to do with navigation at all. You have no authority, and you have not the knowledge.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me read Article 42, which is under the subhead "smallpox", and which is really the important section dealing with smallpox:

Sanitary Convention-Mr. Mackenzie King
Ships which have had, or have a case of smallpox on board either during the voyage, or at the time of arrival, may be subjected to the following measures:
(1)	Medical inspection.
(2)	The sick shall immediately be disembarked and isolated.
(3)	Other persons reasonably suspected to have been exposed to infection on board, and who, in the opinion of the sanitary authority, or by a previous attack of smallpox, may be subjected to vaccination, are not sufficiently protected by recent vaccination, or to surveillance, or to vaccination, followed^ by surveillance, the period of surveillance being specified according to the circumstances, but in any event not exceeding fourteen days reckoned from the date of arrival of the ship.
(4)	Bedding which has been used, soiled
linen, wearing apparel, and other articles which the sanitary authority of the port considers to have been recently infected, shall be disinfected.	.
(5)	Only the parts of the ship which have
been occupied by persons ill with smallpox and which the sanitary authority regards as infected, shall be disinfected.	_
The ship shall immediately be given free pratique.
It rests with each government to take, after disembarkation, the measures which it considers appropriate to ensure the surveillance of persons who are not protected by vaccination, and who arrive on a ship which has had no case of smallpox on board, but who have left an area where smallpox is epidemic within the previous fourteen days.
Article 43.-It is recommended that when ships call in countries where smallpox is epidemic, all precautions possible should be taken to secure the vaccination or revaccination of the crew.
It is also recommended that governments should make vaccination and revaccination as general as possible, especially in ports and in areas near frontiers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Over which parliament has no jurisdiction and the provincial authorities have.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not interrupt my hon. friend. It must be clear to hon. members that the great purpose of this convention is to deal with diseases that are communicable through agencies of transportation and particularly agencies of transportation overseas. It is to prevent plagues and other communicable diseases from spreading from one country to another. Practically all of the sections relate to different diseases which may be carried from one place to another by infected ships. They are such diseases as the bubonic plague, smallpox, typhus, cholera and the like. Those are all referred to in the section.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Are the quotations which the Prime Minister has made not all under section 4 on page 8. "measures at marine ports and frontiers," while the other sections apply to other than marine ports and frontiers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The sections which I have quoted are all sections which apply to this country under this convention, and it is only the federal government which can take action on these matters of inspection at ports in the manner which the convention describes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But section 6 deals with the land frontiers between the United States and Canada. .


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would again submit that we have a federal Department of Health which was instituted for the very purpose of dealing with these matters of health that are likely to be of concern to the entire Dominion and every province would have a right to expect that the Dominion would cooperate with it in every possible way to prevent the spread of diseases of the character in question. May I say that when one takes into consideration the trade of Canada, expanding as it is towards all ports of the world, and the fact that this treaty is signed by such countries as Japan, China, India, there is the strongest of reasons why we in this parliament should be anxious to become a party to a convention of this kind. It places obligations upon those oriental countries immediately to notify other countries that are parties to the convention of any outbreak of disease which may occur in their ports and which may be communicated in the course of transit of a ship from one part of the world to another. If it were for no other reason than that of protecting our own people from disease this convention should be welcomed by this parliament.
My attention has just been drawn to section 132 of the British North America Act which provides:
The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British Empire, towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not cover this.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend might there say that we have again a question of interpretation of what is and what is not the British Empire. I hope he will be able to see that under that clause the last vestige of his argument fades awray.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has no relevancy to
this.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect
to the advisability and desirability of this country associating itself with other countries, particuarly those countries with which it is
1974	COMMONS
Sanitary Convention-Mr. Mackenzie King
trading, in an endeavour to prevent the spread of such frightful national plagues as cholera, smallpox, typhus and the like may I say a further word. If there were not even an advantage to Canada itself, there is I think an obligation upon our Dominion as a country to co-operate with other countries of the world in a humanitarian endeavour of this kind. Much has been said about furthering movements that will make for peace. The other evening we had a long discussion of that subject and on the importance of cultivating the international mind as a means of bringing about a better understanding between nations. I do not agree with the leader of the opposition when he says that Canada should not be represented at. these national conferences. I think as a nation we should take our share with the other nations of the world in helping to further those movements which make for greater international security and greater international goodwill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that Canada should not be represented at an international gathering.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But that was the inference I gathered, or perhaps it was from remarks that were made by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) who took rather strongly the position that in some of these matters we should not be represented.


Peter McGibbon: I beg the Prime Minister's pardon. I took no such position.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will come
back then to the leader of the opposition who I think did use words to the effect that, because Canada was a member of the League of Nations, she was taking herself very seriously and felt that as a nation she should participate in all these national conventions and sign them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that it was our
duty to attend once we became a member, but I said that there was no reason why, to make ourselves great, iwte should sign conventions; that was not a test of our greatness.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This convention relates to the important matter of disease in which this country is vitally interested. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) spoke about contradictory attitudes, but I think his own speech betrayed his own contradictory attitude, because the first part of it denounced us for assuming fMr. Mackenzie King.]
obligations and the latter part of it reprimanded us because we were trying under a special clause to evade some of the obligations.
Apart, however, from any of the particular points of discussion, viewing generally and broadly the wisdom of inviting parliament to consider the approval of treaties, might I say this further word in conclusion . in regard to the matter of bringing conventions and treaties to this parliament for approval. I submit that the day has passed when any government or executive should feel that they should take it upon themselves without the approval of parliament, to commit a country to obligations involving any considerable financial outlays or active undertakings. In all cases where obligations of such a character are being assumed internationally, parliament itself should be assured of having the full right of approving what is done before binding commitments are made. I would not confine parliamentary approval only to those matters which involve military sanctions and the like. I feel parliamentary approval should apply where there are involved matters of large expenditure or political considerations of a far-reaching character. As the Minister of Justice has said, a better example could not be given than that with respect to a possible treaty between the United States and Canada on the St. Lawrence waterway development. This government, should it be in office at the time that a treaty of the kind is being negotiated, has always had the intention of submitting it to parliament and of having it understood in advance that all negotiations involved the submission to parliament of any such treaty. It should now be understood that approval by parliament will be expected and necessary before that treaty, if it ever should come into being, would in any way bind this country. I say that this is a wise doctrine to follow in regard to all treaties irrespective of their particular character wherever they involve large national obligations.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wonder if the
Prime Minister would give information on the point I raised as to whether the federal authorities feel they have jurisdiction in a matter of this kind to bring forward legislation implementing this convention, and that there will be no difficulties with regard to the provincial authorities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I think the government has full authority for all it has agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.

Privilege-Mr. Cannon
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the senate, informing Their Honours that this house has adopted the above resolution and requesting that Their Honours will unite with this house in the approval of the above mentioned convention, and that the Clerk do carry the said message to the senate;
And that this house do approve of same.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. CANNON
On the orders of the day:
Lucien Cannon: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that it is now six o'clock, because I shall have something to say in regard to the matter the hon. gentleman is now raising.


Lucien Cannon: On April the 10th the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr.- Bennett) raised a question of privilege in connection with the release of one Baldy Robb, and his statement is to be found in Hansard at pages 1872 and 1873. I do not wish to re-open the debate, and I reiterate that such matters should not be discussed in the house.
In the course of his remarks the hon. member for West Calgary stated:
I had no communication with the Solicitor General with respect to this matter. I made no recommendations of any kind regarding the release of this convicted criminal; I left the responsibility where it belonged.
My hon. friend's memory is not accurate. He did have communications with me on two different occasions-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is untrue.


Lucien Cannon: -once in Ottawa and once in Montreal, and moreover his interview with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) was reported to me by the latter. I wish to declare now, as I did on March 29th last, that the hon. member's action in this matter does not cast any reflection upon his character as a public man or as a private citizen, but was dictated by a high sense of duty.


Hewitt Bostock: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just what I thought, an absolutely untrue statement.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend wants to make a statement he can make it; I will be here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is going to; don't you worry.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BENNETT

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, on the 29th of March I was absent from the house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I find it difficult to speak much louder, my throat being somewhat sore. On that occasion a statement was made with respect to Baldy Robb during the course of a discussion, and the member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) was warned by the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) that the leader of the opposition-referring to myself -would be able to give certain information as to the release of Baldy Robb. I leave it to this house to imagine what would have been the effect of that " warning " had the matter been left just as it then was.


Hewitt Bostock: This is a -question of
privilege?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely. But fortunately the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), followed the matter up and the Solicitor General then made certain other observations. In his statement to-day he says that he repeated what he had said on the previous occasion, that there was no reflection on the leader of the opposition as a public man. Let me quote his words:
-that the hon. member's action in this matter does not east any reflection upon his character as a public man or as a private citizen, but was dictated by a high sense of duty.
Why there should have been any necessity on the part of the Solicitor General to give his so-called warning in respect of such action I am unable to say. Last Tuesday X gave an explanation in respect of the matter, and yesterday the Solicitor General told me that he had read it. He added that he had had a conversation with me once in Mr. Robb's office when we were discussing pension matters and on another occasion in the Windsor hotel in Montreal in reference to Baldy Robb. To-day he sent me a copy of the statement he proposed to make, and I despatched a note to him stating that surely
Privilege-Mr. Bennett

he did not desire to say that I had had any communication with him as to this man. I was very careful in the statement I made to the house on Tuesday to use the word " communication ", because last session there was a great deal of discussion about Baldy Robb and considerable levity throughout the house in connection with the case, and I could not be certain whether or not I had had any conversation with any particular person in respect to it. Fortunately I find that on February IS, 1927, when speaking on the Atha-baska election inquiry, I made reference to the matter and stated my position. I said that the man was not entitled to a ticket of leave, that the Minister of the Interior had made certain statements, and that while I oould quite understand that he sympathized with the accused in the matter and had mentioned it to the Solicitor General, in the end the law officers of the crown must accept responsibility for whatever action they might take. I continued-and I am quoting from page 309 of last year's Hansard:
I remember distinctly the ease of Baldy Robb and two others being spoken to during the fall. I recall an expression of my own opinion with respect to the matter to the effect that it was important that an example be made. It is far more important-this is the attitude I took . that the law should be vindicated, though not vindictively, and that its majesty be upheld than that feelings of sympathy should prevail in relation to any individual. We have all experienced those things; every man in public life knows that he has to make the choice between sympathy and public duty. His sympathies naturally impel him to do what the bon. member from Athabaska (Mr. Kellner) rose in his place to-day and so admirably stated-"I signed a petition for the parole of these two prisoners, for the reason that my sympathy found expression in the act". _ That was done to change and mould the opinion of the Solicitor General and of the Minister of Justice favourably towards the request. But as a public servant, owing a duty to the public, it is not open to any public man occupying a position of trust to sign any petition for the release of any prisoner under a system of ticket-of-leave.
When yesterday the Solicitor General reminded me that he had had a conversation with me in the office of the Minister of Finance on an occasion when we were dealing with the pension bill and certain amendments which I desired to move to it, which the Minister of Health (Mr. King), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and he himself were considering, I turned up the journals of the bouse and found that the third reading of the bill was discussed on April 13, 1927. I have no recollection of that conversation; but I do not say for a moment that a casual conversation with respect to Baldy Robb did not take place during that

discussion. Nor do I say, although I have no memory of it, that the Solicitor General and I may not have spoken about the case in the Windsor hotel at Montreal. But I do not regard that, nor do I think would any hon. member, as a communication made to the Solicitor General with regard to leniency to be extended to Baldy Robb. However, I did state very distinctly in the house on Tuesday, in order that there might be no misapprehension, that I had said to the Minister of the Interior-to the Minister of the Interior, mark you-that I did not propose to criticize the action of the government if they released Baldy Robb. I never desire to escape responsibility for anything I have said. I gave the minister my reasons, although just prior to that I was under the impression that Baldy Robb was out on ticket of leave, and had so read in the newspapers.
The Solicitor General stated in the house this afternoon:
My friend's memory is not accurate. He did have communication with me on two different occasions, once in Ottawa and once in Montreal,-
I abject to his language. I am not going to say whether there were any conversations or not. If there were, they were casual conversations, not communications. I had no interview with him in regard to the case, nor did I discuss it with any member of the government save the Minister of the Interior. The Minister of the Interior bore me out in that last Tuesday. I repeat, he is the only one with whom I had any discussion on the subject.
Since recess I understand that the word "communication" is used by the Solicitor General and other lawyers in the province of Quebec in the sense of conversation.


Mr. POWER:: It is used that way in the
dictionary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; but we do not use it in that way. In my statement on Tuesday I referred to my "communications" with the minister, and then I added that I "stated" to the Minister of the Interior so and so. That is the distinction I was drawing at the moment. I went further; I said:
I made no recommendations of any kind regarding the release of this convicted criminal; I left the responsibility where it belonged. I did state, however, that I would not criticize any action that might be taken in the circumstances by the law officers of the crown.
That is, I made no recommendations involving my placing communications on the files of the department with respect to Baldy Robb, and I could not do so after the speech

Privilege-Mr. Bennett
I had made in the house in February last year. Had the Solicitor General used the word "conversation"-and I think he might have done so-instead of "communication" I would have no objection to the statement that he has made; I am not prepared to challenge him when he says that he had a conversation with me, if that term is to be applied to casual observations about Baldy Robb, for I fancy there are at least twenty-five or thirty hon. members who last session had conversations with respect to Baldy Robb. In fact the case was treated with considerable levity and there was a good deal of joking as to when he would get out of the penitentiary. When it was announced in the papers that the convict had been released, I thought he was at liberty up to the time when the Minister of the Interior in his office told me that this was not so.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that I had no communications with the Department of Justice with respect to this man, and that I made no recommendations. If the casual conversations that took place between not only the Minister of the Interior and myself but with dozens of other hon. members with respect to Baldy Robb are to be termed "communications", then the Solicitor General's statement is correct; but those casual conversations were not so treated by me, and in my observations last Tuesday I was very careful to draw a distinction between what I regard as a communication and the statement which I said I made to the Minister of the Interior. I have no apologies to offer for my attitude in this case first, last and all the time, but I do resent keenly the covert suggestion that there was something wrong about my action, that the member for West York had to be warned, when the "warning" turned out to be nothing more than that I had done my duty as a public servant, that in fact there was no reflection on me one way or the other. I do not think that that was the intention of the so-called warning, and fot that reason I have risen to vindicate myself. I resent most strongly the suggestion that I had communication with members of the government for the purpose of securing the release of Baldy Robb. As the Minister of the Interior very frankly and very honestly said on Tuesday, I left that responsibility where it belonged. I told him that I was perfectly willing not to criticize any action the government might take upon a proper realization of the circumstances, that is, that they should be governed by the opinion of the judge and the warden of the penitentiary.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, on the question of
privilege, I wish first to congratulate my hon. friend on the tone which he has adopted this evening. It is a welcome change from the attitude which he took at recess. As to the word "communication", in justification of myself I may say that before using the word I was careful to look it up in the dictionary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That makes it worse.


Lucien Cannon: And this is what the word "communication" means - Murray's New English Dictionary, volume two, page 700:
Communication: the imparting, conveying, or exchange of ideas, knowledge, information, etc., whether hy speech, writing, or signs. Interchange of speech, conversation, conference, converse, personal intercourse.
In Webster's New International Dictionary, at page 452:
Communication:	(2) intercourse by words
letters, or messages; interchange of thoughts or opinions, by conference or other means; converse; correspondence; (3) that which is communicated or imparted; intelligence; news, a verbal or written message.
Therefore I contend that I was perfectly justified in stating that there had been communications from the leader of the opposition to myself in connection with the matter. The hon. gentleman has mentioned a note which he sent over. In fairness to myself and in fairness to the house I think that the note should be quoted as sent. And this is the note:
The Solicitor General: Surely you do not mean that I ever sent you any "communication" regarding Robb. You must mean "conversation". I -was very careful to say "communication". R.B.B.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask my hon. friend to explain why he was so careful to use the word "communication" if he wanted to exclude conversations, when, in the paragraph before that relating to myself, he quoted a conversation with the Minister ot the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton). Why should conversations with the Minister of the Interior be relevant and conversations with myself have nothing to do with the matter? I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is good thing that this incident should close now, and again I congratulate the leader of the opposition upon having adopted to-night a tone which is by far more in keeping with the very high position he occupies in the house than was the tone he adopted this afternoon.


Charles A. Stewart: On a question of privilege, seeing that I seem to have been the central spirit in this discussion, may I make it very clear to the house, as I think I did on a
Privilege-Mr. Bennett

former occasion, that I have no interest in Baldy Robb. Indeed, if my interests had been consulted perhaps they would have been best served by leaving him where he was. But being in receipt of a very largely signed petition from people in the province of Alberta, and being asked in that petition to take action, I did so. I want to say here and now, however, that never at any time had I any interest in this prisoner such as I would not take in any other prisoner in the province of Alberta. I make this statement because the inference might go abroad that I was the person in this house who was going about interviewing people on behalf of Baldy Robb. That I never did. As a matter of fact I have suffered more at his hands than I have on account of any other person in that province. I bear no ill-will in the matter, however. I was perfectly willing to do what I could to meet the request contained in the petition, just as I should do for any other prisoner. But, I repeat, I have no interest in the individual.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) was good enough to ask me a question, which I think I may answer in the terms of Hansard itself. I do not wish to quote too much of what I said the other day, but I may read the following:
It transpired that the minister was correct and we had some conversation touching the matter.	My recollection is that I stated I
would have nothing to do with it, pointing out, however, that I had recently been in Edmonton where I had learned that a large number of people there, who had been associated with the prosecution of Robb, were of the opinion that the ends of justice had been satisfied and the law vindicated by his conviction and imprisonment, and that, having regard to the fact that his wife and family were in poor circumstances, there was no reason why, if the government deemed it a proper course to pursue and such a recommendation should be made to His Excellency, Baldy Robb should not be released on tieket-of-leave. If I remember rightly the Minister of the Interior inquired whether I would have any objection to communicating that fact to the leader of the opposition. I told him I would not. I ascertained that the leader of the opposition was absent from Ottawa, as was also the Solicitor General, and I telephoned the Minister of the Interior to that effect.
I had no communication with the Solicitor General with respect to this matter. I made no recommendations of any kind regarding the release of this, convicted criminal; I left the responsibility where it belonged. I did state, however

I emphasize that.
__that I would not criticize any action that
might be taken in the circumstances by the law officers of the crown. The view I intimated to the Minister of the Interior, the only minister with whom I had had any discussion with reference to the question.

Those are the facts. Casual convensations with regard to Baldy Robb certainly were not discussions concerning him, and the only discussion I had was with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton). If, however, casual conversations are to be regarded as discussions, then it is a warning to me in the future, with respect to at least one of the law officers of the crown.



COPYRIGHT ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I desire to ask a question of the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret). Having regard to the report of the special committee of 1925 dealing with amendments to the Copyright Act, and in view of the urgent need of such amendments, is it the intention of the government this year to bring down these amendments?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In addition to the amendments embodied in the bill to which my hon. friend refers, a considerable number have been submitted to my department, but it is not the desire of the government to put through this year any measure with regard to the Copyright Act. As my hon. friend is aware, an international conference on copyright will take place in Rome next month, and we deem it advisable to avail ourselves of the benefit of the deliberations there and of such resolutions as may be adopted, before suggesting any further amendments on our own behalf.
ECONOMIC CONFERENCE AT GENEVA	[DOT]
On the orders of the day:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for St.
Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) inquired prior to the Easter recess whether it was the intention of the government to ask the approval of parliament of resolutions adopted at the economic conference ait Geneva last May at which, he said, the government was represented. I informed my hon. friend that I would give him a reply after the recess. At the time I was not quite clear as to which conference he had in mind-we have been represented at a good many, as to-day's debate would disclose. The conference to which the hon. member alludes was a conference of economic experts called originally at the instance of the League of Nations. The government as such was not represented, but did appoint delegates to the conference to deal with the questions that were presented there, and the report, as adopted by the conference, was in the nature of a

St. Lawrence Waterway
basis for consideration and discussion by the different governments. It was never intended, however, to treat it as a document to be submitted to parliament for approval. In the circumstances it is not the intention of the government to submit any of the resolutions of the conference for approval.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY REPOST OF JOINT ENGINEERING BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: While discussing the question of reports, may I say that last night my hon. friend (Mr. Cahan) directed the attention of the house to the fact that he, as well as other hon. members, had through some inadvertence failed to receive the report of the joint engineering board on the St. Lawrence waterway project. I have made inquiries as to what took place with regard to the distribution of the report and I find, as I intimated yesterday, that the report is in two volumes. It is rather bulky and includes a number of expensive plates. The actual cost of publication of the report is 812.50 for the report and plates. At the time of its receipt the government did not have it distributed generally, although I understand, any members who had applied to the Department of Railways-not to the distribution office-were supplied with copies. Some hon. members, however, seem to have been under the impression that the report was being distributed through the distribution office, and not having received copies there were naturally surprised. I may observe that copies are available for all members of the house, but those gentlemen who have already received copies from the Department of Railways will not expect additional copies unless for some special reason. Any members who so desire may receive a copy of the report on application. When the report was laid on the table of the house it was distributed to the leading newspapers throughout the country, to the universities, the provincial governments and a number of leading libraries as well as engineering journals and societies. It has been made available at a nominal cost of $5 to the members of the engineering profession, and indeed to any person interested in it for professional reasons. It was not thought advisable to distribute a report of that magnitude and cost free of charge, and the government will maintain the nominal charge of $5 for a report which has cost it $12.50 to print.
I have just one other observation to make. The report has been printed at the expense 56103-126
of the department, but it has not been translated into French. I think it should be translated; I believe it should be made available to all members of parliament and I hope the committee on public printing of this house will consider the advisability of the tran. slation and publication of this report in French.


Hewitt Bostock: The necessary instructions will be given.



REPARATIONS COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: I
desire to ask the Prime Minister whether the government have come to any conclusion with regard to the tabling of the Friel report?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought the Secretary
of State (Mr. Rinfret) the other day made a clear and comprehensive statement on that subject. It was to the effect that the government did not contemplate bringing in any legislation this session with regard to any of the matters referred to in Mr. Friel's report. Having decided not to bring in legislation during this session we do not think it advisable to have the report made public until some subsequent time. The report contains recommendations which must be taken into consideration by the government in any legislation which may be brought down, and we think it would be prejudicial to make the report public until such time as the government is prepared to bring in the legislation which may be based thereon.



BRITISH COLUMBIA LANDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Leon Johnson Ladner: May I ask the Prime Minister if the government have concurred or intend to concur in the report of Mr. Justice Martin relative to the Peace River block and Dominion railway lands in British Columbia, and whether the government are taking any steps to give effect to that report?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid my hon. friend has not seen the statement which was made by the Minister of the Interior on that subject a day or so ago.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The statement does not
deal with those points at all.

Seeds Act Amendment


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
that my friend wants to know whether the government intend to act on that report. I may tell him that the government do intend to act upon it, but the time of such action is something which we must reserve for further consideration.	.



SEEDS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 11, to amend the Seeds Act-Mr. Motherwell-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Sale, etc., of clovers, grasses, seed grain and fodder seeds.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister considered whether or not section 4 as contained in this bill is a legal and valid section?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do the law officers say it is valid?


William Richard Motherwell: I presume it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I said the other day, I do not wish to raise questions of this kind unnecessarily, but I think it my duty to point out the fact that there are grave questions connected with a statute of this parliament which forbids any person having seed in his possession unless under certain conditions; that is a serious matter. This section states:
No person shall sell, offer, advertise, expose or have in possession for sale for the purpose of seeding in Canada any seeds in containers containing seeds of clover, alfalfa, grasses, flax, sorghums, millet, wheat, oats, barley, rye, corn, buckwheat, sunflower, field peas, field beans, vetches, or other kinds of seeds that may be prescribed by regulation, nor shall any shipment be billed as seed unless each container containing such seed, or a tag or label durably attached thereto, is branded or marked on one side in printed characters ....
Certainly the powers of this parliament are very wide with respect to agriculture, but I cannot help thinking that the rights of the provinces are invaded in some degree by the provisions of that section. I am not expressing an opinion, but I think it should be submitted to the law officers before the bill is finally passed out of committee.


William Richard Motherwell: I realize that there is an element of doubt as to our jurisdiction, especially with regard to transactions between citizens of the same province. There are three kinds of sales; there is the sale for export, over which we have undoubted control; there
'Mr Ladner.]
is the interprovincial sale, which we also control, and there is the sale between persons in the same province. This has stood all the tests since 1911, so I think we are fairly safe in letting it go through again.


Mr. FRASER:: Is this a change from the existing regulations?


William Richard Motherwell: This is really one of the most important changes which has been made. Perhaps the chairman would read subsection (e).


The CHAIRMAN:: Subsection (e) of section 4 is as follows:
(e) the name of the grade of seed, which shall be one of the following:-
(i)	for the general seeds of commerce, No. 1, No. 2, No. 3;
(ii)	for seed derived from an inspected seed crop that was pure as to variety and was registered by the Canadian Seed Growers' Association, registered extra, registered No. 1, registered No. 2, to which grade names there may be added such further word or words as may be prescribed by regulation to describe such damage to the seed as may not impair its utility value for seeding;
(iii)	for mixtures of grass, clover, or other fodder or forage crop seeds, No. 1 mixture, No. 2 mixture, No. 3 mixture.


John Anderson Fraser: There is quite an amount
of seed grain grown in British Columbia. What effect will this have upon people buying seed from one another?


William Richard Motherwell: The seeds will be
the same, but they will be of different names.


John Anderson Fraser: What about the regulations?


William Richard Motherwell: There are no
changes in the regulations yet. Regulations are never drafted until after the bill is adopted. That will come later.


John Anderson Fraser: They grow a great deal
of timothy seed up in the valley. If a man sells timothy seed to another man in a different part of the province, does that have to be graded?


William Richard Motherwell: There is no change in regard to timothy seed.


Mr. SPENCER:: In regard to seed grain
in the province, will it have to come under the regulations?


William Richard Motherwell: No, no change
whatever. It is just in the nomenclature of the grades. The grades of seed are now 1, 2 and 3; the registered grades are' registered extra, registered No. 1 and registered No. 2; three grades in each. Nos. 1, 2 and 3, are commercial grades.

Seeds Act Amendment


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the statute now stands, it applies to all transactions whether inside or outside of the province?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whether it is legal or
not is another question; but as it stands it now applies to all, inside as well as outside of the province.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to
me that this clause is going too far in establishing three more grades. Goodness knows we have enough grades already. There is another feature which I do not like. It provides for grades higher than 1, 2 and 3; the consequence is that a man going into a store to buy grass seed, the unscrupulous dealer, if there are such, says: Here is No. 1 grade, and quotes a price for it. The man naturally thinks that is the best grade, and the dealer does not tell him that there are three grades ahead of it. I think it is a great mistake to have fancy names. If there are six grades and a man is told that a certain seed is No. 6 grade, he knows what that is; but if it is No. 1, he thinks it is the best. It has always been a standing grievance that the government will put on "extra" and "fancy" grades ahead of No. 1 grade, which to the man on the street gives a false impression. If you must have six grades, I think they should run from one to six. I should like to know what would be the germination of the sixth grade.


William Richard Motherwell: The grades are not all registered. The grades 1, 2 and 3 are just seed, whether of wheat, oats or whatever it is; it is not aristocratic seed. But as to high class, registered seed, that is called now in the bill " registered extra," " registered No. 1 " and "registered No. 2." I think what my friend is getting at is why they are not called by corresponding names to the unregistered. That is at the request of the seed growers1 association, who have done a lot of useful work in western Canada. They do not like the idea of a registered No. 3; that is setting down too low when it comes to a high class registered grade. They suggest that it should be called "registered extra", "registered No. 1" and "registered No. 2". They avoided the 3. Personally I would rather have seen it registered No. 1, 2 and 3, to correspond to the other grades 1, 2 and 3.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Why does not the minister change it now?


William Richard Motherwell: I am following the rulings of the agriculture committee. I do not see in the house the farmers' repre-56103-126i
sentatives on that committee. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) and myself were in the minority. If this committee thinks that is [DOT] the sensible thing to do, naturally I will be agreeable; but I would say that the agricultural committee wanted it in this way because of the successful work done by the seed growers.


Frank S. Cahill: What about the buyers of seed?


William Richard Motherwell: It is more understandable by them, and after all they are more numerous than the growers.


James Dew Chaplin: The buyers are the ones to protect, and you protect them better with this suggestion.


William Richard Motherwell: If anyone made the motion that the registered grades should be registered No. 1, registered No. 2 and registered No. 3, I would accept it. But remember that these parties have made a very strong bid for it the way it is. We are sacrificing convenience a good deal to meet the class of men who are doing extra work and think there is something in these names and do not like to adopt the standard No. 3 for seed.


James Dew Chaplin: As a matter of fact, the minister admits that in practice there is a No. 3, but it is called something else. We had better call it what it is.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know whether my hon. friend would agree to that when it is applied to fruit.


James Dew Chaplin: It would apply to everything.


William Richard Motherwell: We like to get away
from the numerical grades 3 and 4.


Mr. MILLAR:: While the seed growers' association represent the seller, do they to any extent represent the buyer?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, that is right; the Canadian Seed Growers' Association naturally represent themselves.


John Millar: They do not represent the buyers.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, no doubt they sometimes buy from each other. The growers of registered stock sell back and forth to farmers; but those transactions are small in comparison with the purchases of the average man who is buying seed grain.


Seeds Act Amendment


Mr. McMILLAN:: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move:
That subparagraph (e) of clause 5 be amended by striking out the word "extra", so that the clause will then read:
Registered No. 1, registered No. 2 and registered No. 3.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Alan Webster Neill: Should a further amendment not be made in the last sentence, which reads: To the grade names registered No. 1 and registered No. 2-
That should read-
Registered No. 2 and registered No. 3.
-in order to carry out the purpose of the section.


William Richard Motherwell: There are only two or three copies of the written amendment that was made in the agriculture committee. With the amendment now made it will read:
(2) For seed derived from an inspected seed crop that was pure as to variety and was registered by the Canadian Seed Growers' Association, registered No. 1, registered No. 2 and registered No. 3.
That it the way it will read now.


Alan Webster Neill: I am referring to the next sentence, which reads:
To the grade names registered No. 1 and registered No. 2 may be added such word or words as may be prescribed by regulation to describe any damage to the seed when such damage does not affect its seed value.


William Richard Motherwell: That has been
changed in the committee. It now reads:
Such further word or words may be prescribed by regulation to describe such damage to the seed as may not impair its utility value for seeding.
That is in the case of some slight damage by frost or a little hail.


John Anderson Fraser: What facilities is the minister providing whereby growers of seed may get those certificates?


William Richard Motherwell: There are inspectors and seed laboratories at convenient points.


John Anderson Fraser: Will the minister have one in the northern part of British Columbia?


William Richard Motherwell: If it is not too far north, we might.


John Anderson Fraser: Along the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific?


William Richard Motherwell: There is one at
Smithers on the Canadian National.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
	" U- l~\ \
On section 7-Sale, etc., of field root, garden or vegetable or flower seeds in lots of two ounces or less.


John Frederick Johnston: There is an amendment in the 37th and 38th lines. The words: "a tag or label, durably attached thereto" have been struck out and the following substituted: "each container of such seeds''.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Power to change name.
Henry Elvins Spencer: If a registered name is granted to a seed grower, can that name be changed or cancelled without the seed grower being consulted?


William Richard Motherwell: The proper thing
to do would be to acquaint him of the fact that a change was contemplated and to give him an opportunity to justify the continuance of the name. For instance, if a variety name had been granted and the seed proved not to be living up to its name but to be merely developing into a strain of some other variety, such as marquis wheat or something like that, there would be no reason to continue the name; but in ordinary courtesy the seed grower should be notified and given an opportunity of proving that he was right and that the department was wrong. The advisory board and the department would be the final authority in the matter. The purpose of this is to correct any mistakes that have been made in the past in the matter of too much generosity in granting licenses for new varieties. We have been suffering from a plethora of varieties of grain, especially wheat.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I have in mind vermilion wheat. I am not going to say whether in my opinion it is a good or a bad wheat, but I understand that some question has arisen whether it is a good milling variety, and I believe a license was granted to the grower and later on was taken away from him without notice.


William Richard Motherwell: That would not be done. He would be given proper notice and an opportunity of defence.


Robert Gardiner: What steps have been taken to determine whether or not a variety of grain or seed is valuable, and whether a variety should be given a name?


William Richard Motherwell: First a proper
sample of it would be taken, preferably sealed and certified to as being of that variety. Mr. APRIL 12, 1928
Seeds Act Amendment
Newman, the Dominion Cerealist, would then make a milling test and a baking test, and he would have it judged on its merits in that respect. The primary purpose for which we grow wheat is its value as a food.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-False advertising.
Alan Webster Neill: I should like to draw attention to the last part of this clause, which reads:
Nor shall cereal grains, grasses or clover seeds be advertised for sale unless the grade name is included in the advertisement.
Let us think what that means. Feed stores generally sell and advertise seed grain and grass seeds, and every time they put on their billhead or in their advertisement in a little monthly or weekly paper that they sell these things, they will have to put, in the case of clover, the fact that they are selling registered No. 1, registered No. 2, registered No. 3 and No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 grades. It is absurd that they cannot advertise the fact that they have for sale seed grain or grass seed without inserting the grade of every particular variety they have. That is wrong. If the intention is to prevent a person advertising one grade as another, that is all right, but it should be so expressed. This will prevent any man advertising, either on his billhead or in hi3 weekly paper, the fact that he sells grass seeds unless he names the grade of every one of the grass seeds he carries. If he carries ten kinds with six grades for each kind, his billhead will be filled up with this information.


William Richard Motherwell: Section 14 makes
four distinct exceptions to the application of this bill which I think will cover what my hon. friend has in mind. The farmer often has to sell a carload on the basis of grade after it is cleaned by the seed merchant. I have sold many carloads that way myself without any grading. We will let this section stand until we come to section 14.
Section stands.
On section 11-inspection and grading.


William Richard Motherwell: This has been tested out and has proved to be satisfactory. There is no change except that the new grades are inserted.


Thomas McMillan: This section should
be changed to correspond with the changes that have already been made. The words
"extra No. 1," and "extra No. 2," and so on, should be changed to read "registered No. 1," "registered No. 2," and "registered No. 3," and I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Importation of seeds.
John Frederick Johnston: This section has been amended to read:
Section thirteen of the said act is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor:
No person shall import into Canada for the purpose of selling or offering for sale, or for the purpose of seeding, any of the seeds named in section five of this act, or any kinds of garden vegetable seeds that may be prescribed by regulation, unless they are branded or marked or coloured in accordance with the provisions of this act and conform to the regulations thereunder.


John Anderson Fraser: This seems rather a radical change. What is the explanation?	fl".


William Richard Motherwell: No, it is quite
simple. My hon. friend will note that it says "unless they are branded or marked or coloured." I do not know whether my hon. friend knows, but it is the usual practice in Canada and elsewhere to have a certain percentage of imported clover and alfalfa seed coloured. We rather like the idea, because it indicates which is Canadian seed that has a high reputation in other countries. The same conditions prevail with regard to identifying seeds in other countries.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14.
Thomas McMillan: We have not a copy of the bill as amended by the committee, Mr. Chairman.


William Richard Motherwell: It is not the usual practice to reprint the bill unless the changes made are very considerable.


Alan Webster Neill: I think much of this confusion is due to the facts that our new rules, of which we have heard something before, were amended last year to cut down largely the numbers on the agriculture committee, and the consequence is that half the members who are interested in farming now see this bill for the first time, whereas had there been the same number on the committee as in former years we would have been able to discuss this matter much more intelligently,
Seeds Act Amendment

and there would not have been all this confusion. That is one more thing to the credit of the beloved new rules.
Section 14 agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
On section 10-false advertising.


Alan Webster Neill: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that section 14 does not refer in anyway whatever to section 10. It makes exemptions under sections 5, 6 and 7, but it does not in any way refer to section 10. I would draw the attention of the committee to the original section 10, which will be found on the opposite page of the bill, and which says, and very properly, that no person shall sell any seeds that are falsely represented in any advertising. That is perfectly proper, but that is not what the new section says. The new section says that you shall not advertise grains, grasses or clover seeds unless the grade name is included in the advertisement. I know something about this business because I have been in it for fifteen years, although out of it now, and I know that it is customary for people in this business to advertise that they are dealing in these things. They simply say that they have a supply of grains and grass seeds on hand, and there is no false description and no false advertising about it, but under this new section they are forbidden to put that simple advertisement on their billheads unless they specify every individual grade of seed, and there are six of every kind of seed which they handle. I know what the government is getting at, but it is not expressed correctly. It would be much better left as it was originally in the act.


William Richard Motherwell: If a seed man advertises so much grass, clover, wheat, oats or any other seed, how can the buyer make an intelligent bid unless he is told whether it is grade 1, 2, 3 or registered 1, 2, 3? It seems to me that at present there is plenty of room for fraud, unintentional perhaps; to advertise such and such seed in extravagant terms. If my hon. friend bought that seed, say a certain variety of clover, and found it below grade, he would be very much disappointed. That has been our experience in the administration of the Act.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister does not grasp my point. The old section covers what he has described. It made it an offence to falsely describe what you are offering for sale. Customers in the retail trade do not bid; they come in to buy and know what they are

getting. If they are buying No. 1, they see that they get No. 1. But this amendment refers to advertising. If I advertise No. 1 seed and supply No. 2 I am liable under the old act and can be punished. But now I have to be prevented from advertising by way of my bill head unless I set out a whole rigmarole of ten or more different kinds of seed, each of six grades. If anyone will take the trouble to read the old section on the right hand of the page he will see that the public is fully safeguarded against any fraudulent advertisement. If I advertised myself as a dealer in potatoes, would I have to describe the life history of each potato?


William Richard Motherwell: I have no seed
catalogue under my hand, but my experience is that every parcel of seed sold by a seed house is graded.


Alan Webster Neill: Certainly, but not advertised.


William Richard Motherwell: If that is so with the seed firm, then everyone who sells seed by advertisement should comply with the same conditions in order to give the prospective purchaser a chance to buy intelligently. If he does not know what he is getting, he is buying a pig in a poke. Suppose he is buying wheat, there is a tremendous spread between the best and worst grades. I think my hon. friend might look into this a little more thoroughly.


Alan Webster Neill: I have been looking into it for sixteen years.


William Richard Motherwell: This amendment is sought to remedy the injustice done to buyers of seed by reason of glowing seed advertisements in newspapers without any grade being specified.


Alan Webster Neill: That was fraudulent, and the old section covers it.


William Richard Motherwell: We are a party to the fraud if we do not close that open gate.


James Dew Chaplin: It seems to me that this section is badly drawn to accomplish what the minister has in mind. The objection taken by the member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) is well founded. If seed people advertise it would be entirely right for them to state in their advertisements that they have a stock of seed on hand for sale.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


James Dew Chaplin: That is reasonable and business-like. You ought to arrange it so that when seeds are presented for sale the bags and packages shall show definitely what is being

Seeds Act Amendment
sold. As the hon. member for Comox-Albemi says, you should not require a man to advertise all the grades he has in stock. That is his point.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think there is any abuse by the seed houses at all; their catalogues are before the whole country.


James Dew Chaplin: If that is the case, cut this out.


William Richard Motherwell: This is to cover the case of a person who inserts a short advertisement in the newspapers that he has such and such clover seed for sale at certain prices. I do not see how any prospective purchaser can buy that seed with any safety unless he knows what grade it is. If the committee thinks that the man who buys as a result of reading an advertisement should buy with his eyes shut as to the quality of the seed, we can leave the section in its original form. But I have some regard for the buyers; they are in the majority.


Mr. BOYS:: But you are prohibiting a man from advertising that he is a seed merchant.


William Richard Motherwell: I am prohibiting him from faking a prospective buyer by offering something, the quality of which is unknown.


William Alves Boys: Everybody agrees with that; but the section goes much further as it is worded.


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon. friend think it better that the buyer should buy blindly?


William Alves Boys: Certainly not.


William Richard Motherwell: He would if the seed is not graded.


William Alves Boys: If the seed merchant is going to sell specific seed of specific quality he must comply with this act; but the section is broad enough to prevent his advertising at all.


William Richard Motherwell: Our whole grading system would be set at naught if we did not buy and sell by it.


William Alves Boys: The minister does not grasp the point.


William Richard Motherwell: It is simplicity itself. Let us dispense with grading; then wheat is wheat, clover is clover, grass seed is grass seed.


John Anderson Fraser: I gather from the member for Comox-Albemi that thousands of farmers throughout the Dominion buy their seed from
the small retail merchants. I sell car loads every year. This section would prohibit those merchants from advertising that they are simply selling seed unless they insert a whole
page ad. specifying the different qualities for sale. I do not see any sense in it.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is none.


William Richard Motherwell: Is the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) referring to the small packages of seeds we see in every store?


John Anderson Fraser: No; in quantity. The retail merchant might buy a carload of clover or timothy seed for distribution in his locality. To sell that seed he has to advertise. But if he does so you compel him to advertise each and every grade that he has in stock. The member for Comox-Alberni contends that all he should be required to advertise is simply this: I have clover or timothy seed for sale. He should not be required to specify every grade. Surely the farmer knows enough to ascertain the grade when he buys seed.


William Richard Motherwell: I think this is a
decided safeguard for the buyer. If we prefer to legislate for the seller, then the buyer must look after himself. Which is the greater interest? All who favour legislation in this particular instance for the benefit of the seller will be in favour of eliminating it. I should prefer to legislate for the buyer. Joking aside, the primary object of the Seeds Act, the reason for its adoption twenty-five years ago, was after all to introduce a reasonable measure of fairness between buyer and seller, not only as regards home consumption, but as well for the protection of the buyer in Canada against spurious importations from abroad. I should not like to change this section offhand, but I am agreeable to having the bill stand in committee. Of course we all like to get our bills through, but I would rather have the bill stand than hurriedly change it.
Mt. MdMILLAN: I think you are trying to get the farmer to do the very thing that you say he should not do. When I go into a store to buy my seed I use my eyes, but the minister suggests that the farmer does not need to do so.


William Richard Motherwell: If the hon. member will second the motion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and accept the responsibility for what is done we can have the words in question eliminated. Or perhaps the committee would prefer to let the matter remain in committee. I want to be as amiable as possible to-night.
Seeds Act Amendment


John Millar: It seems to me that the objection of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi would be met by a differentiation between advertising and selling. Leave advertising free from the application of this new clause.


Alan Webster Neill: That would meet my objection, but it would not be fair; it would not impose a penalty on people who falsely advertise. Why not strike out section 10 altogether, and have the old section 10 reinstated? That section reads:
No person shall sell, offer or have in possession for sale any seeds or plants that are falsely represented in any form of advertising.
That provision would cover the matter. I suggest that we leave out the section altogether and have that old provision put into effect.


William Richard Motherwell: There is a practice, particularly in the west, when advertising seed grain, grass seeds and clover seeds, to mention the price but not the grade.


Mr. FORKE:: How can you grade your grain in your granary? If it is in your granary and you advertise it for sale, how will you grade it?


William Richard Motherwell: The farmer cannot sell it until he gets the certificate of the Seed branch. We are not discussing commercial grain sold by the carload. In my opinion it would be a mistake to strike out the section, and I would therefore suggest that we leave the matter in committee and have the section redrafted so as to protect the buyer in the manner indicated, without giving offence to the seller in the way implied by my hon. friend from Comox-Albemi. I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 170, to amend the Special War Revenue Act-Mr. Robb-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. EULER:: When this bill was in committee on Tuesday evening every clause had been adopted, but it was proposed by the leader of the opposition, I think, that the bill be not taken out of committee until such time as we had considered a suggestion made by the hon. member for West York in regard to the manner in which we should proceed to make collections of sales tax. Before I deal with that I want to make one or two observations in explanation of certain questions raised on Tuesday. The leader of the opposition inquired as to how many cases of sales tax were
rMr. Motherwell.!
actually in the courts. I made the statement then that I thought there were between 500 and 600; I was quoting from a tabulated report. I was in error. To be exact, the number is 347-not so great as I thought at the time. There was also in the report in Hansard the statement that the amount of money which we expected to collect from brewers and distillers in oases now in the courts was half a million. As a matter of fact what I did say was, nearly five millions. A further question was asked by the leader of the opposition as to how many exemptions from sales tax had been passed by order in council. I said at the time that I thought there were none. I shall have to modify that slightly; there were a few. The roasting and grinding of coffee were exempted from the application of the sales tax for the reason that it was impracticable and unfair to apply it. The grocery stores were grinding and roasting coffee and were in competition with the ordinary roasters engaged in business on a large scale. We thought this was unfair and we made the exemption by order in council. We exempted from the sales tax the statue of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as well as official stationery from His Majesty's stationery office in England for the use of the British trade commissioner in Canada, and provided further for exemptions in the case of paintings in oils and water colours valued at not less than S20 and imported by the National Gallery and Archives. That was all.
When the bill was in committee, as I said, all the clauses had been adopted, but the hon. member for West York suggested that we should make some amendment, if necessary, in regard to the collection of sales tax items overdue, as we did in the case of income tax arrears. I promised then to take the matter into consideration. Last session a provision was passed enabling us to proceed in exactly the same way as we now do in the case of the income tax. We make an application to the Exchequer court and we may receive a certificate of default which at once becomes a judgment, and we can proceed to execute that judgment. In probably 75 per cent or more of the cases for arrears of sales tax we have proceeded in precisely that way. There are some cases which we do not take to the Exchequer court, as hon. members who are lawyers know; if the cases are taken to the Exchequer court there is practically no defence permissible by the taxpayer. Of course in some cases no defence should be offered, when it Is merely a matter of collecting a tax and there is no doubt that the sums are owing. There are numerous cases, however, where that procedure would not be fair; there is sometimes a

19S7
Special War Revenue Act
reasonable doubt whether the amount is correct or perhaps whether it should be collected at all, and in those cases it is surely fair that we should allow the taxpayer to make his defence in the ordinary courts of the province.


Peter McGibbon: Would the minister tell us how many people are in arrears on their sales tax, with the amounts?


William Daum Euler: I have not the figures before me, but I would say to my hon. friend what I said the other night, that the number of debtors in arrears from the old days has been very considerably reduced, and the number is not being added to.


Peter McGibbon: That does not answer
the question.


William Daum Euler: I cannot tell my hon. friend the exact number; I can get the information for him if he really desires it. I think what I said with regard to the powers we have under the new act would answer the suggestions of the hon. member for West York and the leader of the opposition.


James Dew Chaplin: Has the minister the
right to add interest to overdue sales tax?


William Daum Euler: Yes, and we are doing so.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Will the minister
tell me if any of the cases instituted by the hon. member for South Wellington during the summer of 1926 are among the cases now pending? If the minister has no record of this at present, will he get that information for me?


William Daum Euler: I am sorry I did not catch
the first part of the question.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I will repeat it.
The minister will remember that during the summer of 1926, before the present government came into office, certain actions were instituted for the recovery of sales tax and income tax by the hon. member for South Wellington, who took over the work of collecting the revenues of the country in addition to his other duties. Have those actions lapsed, or can the minister tell us whether or not they are still pending? I am referring now to actions commenced during that summer as a result of the report made by the parliamentary committee which investigated the Department of Customs and Excise, as distinguished from the royal commission which sat later.


William Daum Euler: In every case where action
has been instituted, so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned, it has been prosecuted; I do not know of a single action which has been withdrawn. A great many others have been instituted as well.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Is the minister
able to give me this information without inconvenience, or is it a matter in connection with which I should wait? I should like some information as to the present position of those actions which were instituted during the summer of 1926.


William Daum Euler: Many of these actions havebeen settled, and some are still in the courts,, but none has been dropped. I would also say that quick decision in some of these matters is not under the control of the department. That is for the courts, and I am free to say that I have not always been satisfied with the postponements which have taken place.
I think the committee will realize, however, that after all this is a matter beyond the control of the minister in charge of the department.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am not making my inquiry in any spirit of criticism; I merely wish to learn the present position of these actions. If the facts are not at the disposition of the minister at this time I do not wish to press for them.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid I cannot tell
my friend anything more at the moment.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I suppose I can
get that information?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one question I
would like to bring up, having to do with the licenses. The department has recently given notice that it proposes to cancel these licenses on July 1, I believe. It is very difficult for many merchants to meet that situation, and I think the commercial community would be gratified if the minister would make some statement with respect to the whole question of sales licenses. This would seem to be an opportune time to do so, in view of the fact that this is mentioned in the statute under consideration.


William Daum Euler: The hon. gentleman is quite right when he says it is the intention of the department to cancel the great majority of the licenses now held by wholesalers with, regard to the sales tax.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why?
Special War Revenue Act


William Daum Euler: For a number of reasons
One reason is that it will make the work of the department a great deal easier, and another is that it will save money to the department. For example, if a wholesaler who holds a license does not pay his sales tax when he buys from the manufacturer, or if he happens to have bought from the manufacturer and there is a reduction made in the sales tax, as happened this year and last year, the department losses the revenue from the reduction of the sales tax. Another reason is this: I take it that the theory of the application of the sales tax is that it should be applied as nearly as possible at the source, that is, the manufacturer or the importer, and that is the principle we would like to carry out. I would add that the wholesalers, through their organizations, waited upon the minister and made their representations, and I am informed that they are pretty well satisfied with the change. We are trying to make it as easy as possible; we are making it easy with regard to the taking of the stock as of June 30, and we are making it easy for them to pay the sales tax on the stock on hand. We are not asking for an immediate payment of the whole amount of the sales tax, but are permitting them to pay by instalments. I believe the change is in the interests of the department and I believe the method we are going to adopt now is the method which should have been adopted in the first place. I also believe the wholesalers will be quite satisfied, and in fact are now very well satisfied with the method we are going to adopt.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has clearly stated the intention of the department, and July 1 is not very far away. I have received communications from wholesalers in various parts of the country indicating that it may work a very great hardship upon them to have these licenses cancelled as of July 1. It has been alleged also in some cases that political pressure was being brought to bear to secure the waiver of the operations of the prescriptive rule in the cases of some wholesalers and not in others. I am sure the minister is not a party to any such transaction; as a man of business himself I know such would not be the case, and I hasten to assure my hon. friend that that was not my understanding, it might be advisable to consider whether, having regard to the fact that the fiscal year so far as the revenues of the country are concerned ends on March 31, these licenses should not be allowed to run for the six months following, which would be half of our fiscal year. That would bring it to October 
1, which I think would be better than July 1. That was suggested to me by a wholesaler in one of the eastern provinces, and I pass it on to the minister for his consideration.


William Daum Euler: Originally it was the intention of the department not to renew these licenses after March 31, but the wholesalers made representations that that was rather short notice. I appreciated their point of view and found no objection from them when we decided to advance the date to June 30. This is the first intimation I have received that any of these gentlemen are dissatisfied with the decision of the department. I would be quite prepared to consider any change if there is real hardship involved, but I am inclined to believe that June 30 will be pretty fair to everyone. With regard to the statement that political pressure has been brought to bear, I want to say to my hon. friend in all sincerity that if it has been brought to bear it has not been upon the Minister of National Revenue; and I can assure him that if it is brought to bear it will have no effect whatever. I may add that there would be no purpose in taking away the license from a wholesaler who sells practically his whole stock to manufacturers, because when he sells to manufacturers there must be a refund made of the sales tax. We have not come to an absolute decision as to which of these will be allowed to continue with a license, but I would say in a general way that where a wholesaler does sell say seventy-five per cent of his product to manufacturers we shall probably continue to grant him a license.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the circular said fifty per cent.


William Daum Euler: I do not think it is as low as that.


William Alves Boys: I am not familiar with the
practice of the department in connection with this tax. When a man goes into default the certificate is filed in the exchequer court and judgment issued. I should like to know whether the execution is filed in the county in which the man resides, or is issued from the exchequer court and is valid throughout Canada. For instance, if there was some arrear from a taxpayer and there was an advance made to him, it might happen that on a search being made it could not be found in his own county. In connection with the income tax, the tax took precedence over all debts; but a change has been made in that respect. It seems to me that this should not precede any loan made in the county, unless filed in that county.
19S9

Toronto Terminals Railway


William Daum Euler: I do not know the details
with which the thing is carried out, but the Commissioner of Excise will be here in a moment.


William Alves Boys: If it is filed in the county
anyone can search and find out. If it is not filed there, must the person who wants to do business with the taxpayer search in the Exchequer court every time? There might be a judgment for $1,000 or $5,000. The execution to be issued should not take precedence over anything in that county unless it is filed in the county in which the debtor resides.


William Daum Euler: I will give the hon. member
that information afterwards.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to ask the
minister, when he mentioned the number of cases outstanding, some 300 odd, how many besides that were reduced to judgment on
which execution issued.


William Daum Euler: I may say that included in
the 347 are the actions against the brewers and distillers, some 30, and I think also 138 against job printers. Those are in the courts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My friend from Hamilton mentioned the recommendation of the parliamentary committee in connection with a very large number of cases, some in Toronto, some near the border, and near Lindsay. Have all those cases been either liquidated or reduced to judgment?


William Daum Euler: The commissioner informs
me that in his opinion the majority of those have been paid or settled and the remainder
are in court.


Mr BENNETT:: The method of the
arrangement I fancy would be better discussed in connection with the estimates than here.


William Daum Euler: Yes. In reply to my friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Boys), executions are filed with the sheriff of the county.


William Alves Boys: Do I understand the minister to say that the execution is issued to the sheriff of the county in which the taxpayer resides?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


William Alves Boys: And until that is done it does not take precedence over mortgages, loans and executions filed with the sheriff of that county?


William Daum Euler: Not at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: When this bill was last before the committee they adopted the sections up to section 9.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the acts relating to the Toronto Terminals Railway Company be amended to provide that the amount of $7,000,000 which the Canadian National Railway Company was authorized to issue by the amending act, 1925, e. 28, may be increased to $10,500,000 to be used for the purposes therein prescribed and for defraying the cost of other railway facilities necessitated by or incidental to the construction of the said viaduct and works.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. DUNNING:: It may facilitate the discussion if I state to the committee that after the bill is read a second time I intend to ask that it be referred to the committee on railways and shipping, as it is distinctly a matter which could be advantageously examined in detail by that committee. The whole Toronto terminal project is, as most of the members of the committee know, a very involved one. I have before me figures and so forth relating to the matter, but I think it would be for the convenience of the members generally if the bill were referred to the committee in question. The evidence taken before the committee is, as hon. members know, recorded and printed, and it would then be available for later discussion in committee of the whole house on the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Personally I wholly agree with that view, because in that way we shall get more information than we otherwise would.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 204, respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times.


Charles Avery Dunning: I move that this bill
be now referred to the special committee on national railways and shipping for examination and report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Excise Act Amendment

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill No. 54, to amend the Excise Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Minister may refuse or suspend license.
Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to new
section 10, I desire to make a few observations. It will be remembered that the parliamentary committee had to investigate certain matters that involved the exercise by the executive of the powers contained in the former section which is now replaced by this new section. I need hardly point out that that was the cause of much abuse. There is given to a minister a power that no single man should exercise politically. Although one may entertain the highest possible opinion of the present minister or his successors or predecessors, the fact remains that the government have made it possible, for purely political reasons, to work a very serious and great hardship upon the public revenues by showing on the one hand favouritism and partiality or, on the other, vindictiveness. The evidence before the special committee was very clear upon that matter and it is very clear to any thoughtful member. The proposed new section reads:
The minister may for any reason which he deems sufficient in the public interest refuse to issue any license or to grant any privilege authorized by this act, or may suspend, cancel or revoke a license granted or any privilege given by this act.
Without appeal, with the mere assertion that it is in the public interest, the minister may suspend or cancel a license. The old section was open to the same objection. The evidence before the committee clearly indicated that the moment there was a violation of the law and the department desired to cancel the license which could not then be renewed, the pressure of political friends became so insistent that, however willing the minister might be to discharge his plain duty, he was in many instances overborne by the pressure of that political influence. The converse also was true; that where you found those engaged in the business opposed to the administration of the day and there was a possible breach of the law, the pressure of political friends against that political opponent to break down his business by cancelling the license was very great. The cases we had before us were clear. Obviously, of course, they did not say that that was the reason for doing this. I suggest that there should be

a power of review. It is not right that in the hands of a minister such a power should rest, nor should it be a purely political power. It must be remembered that that is a punishment of the most severe character. It destroys the business of the person concerned. That is not the prerogative of government. It rests with the courts awarding sentences, fines-and penalties, to carry into effect that punishment which follows an infraction of the law; but the punishment here is to destroy the man's business, and it may be done. I am perfectly frank; I say to the minister that I do not think he would do it, but I also say that he might do it without knowing he was doing it. Not that the minister is in any sense lacking in astuteness, but the exigencies of political necessities in cases such as I have had occasion to observe may result in that end being attained, although the reason given for it will be a very high-sounding one, and in the public interest, of course, in the noblest sense of the term. We have heard of these things happening before. I suggest that this section should be reconsidered. If it were as it stood originally I intended to speak to it, because it was quite clear before our committee that this section placed in the hands of the minister a power dangerous alike to the subject and the crown, and I think it should not be there without the right of appeal.


William Daum Euler: The bill as now printed, which is I believe in the hands of members, is somewhat different from the bill as introduced into this house and given its first reading. After the bill was given its first reading, certain representations were made, some from western Canada, asking for other amendments to the Excise Act, and we thought that we should make those changes. I therefore propose to move certain amendments as we proceed, introducing these other changes, but they have already been incorporated in the bill which is now known as Bill No. 54. What is now the first section of the bill was not in the bill as originally introduced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not in the bill
when it was given its first reading?


William Daum Euler: No. I move, Mr. Chairman, that the following be inserted as section 1 of the bill:
1. The said act is amended by inserting after section nine thereof the following section:
9a.	(1) The rates and duties of excise
imposed by this act or any other law relating to excise as well as the rates and duties of excise heretofore imposed by any law' relating to excise or inland revenue enacted and in force since the first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven, shall be binding and are declared and shall be deemed to have been always binding and payable by His Majesty in

Excise Act Amendment
respect of any goods which may be hereafter or have been heretofore manufactured or imported by or for His Majesty, whether in the right of His Majesty's government of Canada or His Majesty's government of any province of Canada, and whether or not the goods so manufactured or imported belonged at the time of manufacture or importation to His Majesty; and any and all such acts as aforesaid shall be construed and interpreted as if the rates and duties of excise aforesaid were and are by express words charged upon and made payable by His Majesty. _ Provided, however, that nothing herein contained is intended to impose or to declare the imposition of any tax upon, or to make or declare liable to taxation, any property belonging to His Majesty either in the right of Canada or of a province.
(2) Without restricting the generality of the foregoing when any goods subject to excise have been seized or forfeited by His Majesty's government of any province in Canada or any public authority established by or under the authority of any such government, the duties of excise imposed by this act shall be payable and may be recovered in the same manner as if the said goods were found in the possession of any private person.
I might explain that this amendment arises out of legislation which has been passed by one of the provinces giving the province the power to go into the business of distilling liquor. There is some doubt whether when a province does that, the Dominion government has the right to impose excise taxes and we just want to make sure that we can collect excise taxes on liquors whether the liquor is made by private manufacturers or by the province. I think the committee will see the reasonableness of that amendment.
Mr. BENNETT; Does this refer to brewing and distilling?


William Daum Euler: To collecting the excise taxes [DOT]on the distilling of liquor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Minister may refuse or suspend license.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the section to
which I was speaking, which was section 1 in the bill as originally introduced. My hon. friend from North Simooe has made a suggestion which I think would do much to meet that difficulty, and that is to amend it to read that the minister may, in the case of [DOT]conviction, do so and so.


William Daum Euler: For violation of the act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. That at least involved a fair court trial and determination *of guilt before the minister acts, and to that [DOT]extent releases the minister, it seems to me,
from unfair pressure at least at the inception, because first there must be a conviction. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for North Simcoe would go a long way to meet the situation, and is not unreasonable.


William Daum Euler: I do not see any particular objection to that. Without casting any reflection upon any of the brewers or distillers, I think possibly in most cases that would give the minister power to suspend or cancel the license.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At least it would give them warning that that power was there for use in the future.


William Daum Euler: I think the committee should realize that the criticism of the leader of the opposition is directed just as much against the bill as it was originally introduced as it is against the amendment before us because under the bill as originally introduced the department or the minister had the power to refuse to renew the license at the end of the year, on March 31st. The hon. leader of the opposition has stated that that is an extreme power to put into the hands of the minister, and that it might be used for political reasons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said, because of the pressure of political friends.


William Daum Euler: I do not like to admit that such a thing could possibly happen. I hope it would not happen under present conditions at least. If any have tried to exercise that pressure in the past, it has never been successful. As I say, in the past the minister has had the power absolutely to refuse to renew a license at the end of the year on March 31st, and if that were done the business of that particular distiller or brewer would be wiped out. But that has never been done. In addition to that, I think most men even in public life have some sense of fairness and justice, and would not deliberately wipe out a heavy investment even of a distiller or brewer without very good reasons. We have power now to withhold the license, and it is only consistent with that power that we should have power also to cancel or suspend the license. I might explain that it was merely a coincidence that at the time of the withholding of a license of a certain brewery in the city of Toronto the books of which were not produced, its license had expired, and we did not renew it until they had paid their taxes; they did not produce their books. But if the order for the production of those books had been made a few days later, the license would have been issued in the ordinary course on the first of April, and we would not have had the
Excise Act Amendment

power to cancel or suspend it. If it was right that the minister should have the power to withhold the license at the expiration of the year, I think it is right that he should have the power to suspend or even cancel the license in case the holder abuses his privileges or his rights. I hope the leader of the opposition will not press that point too strongly. I have no particular objection to the insertion of his amendment, but frankly I do not believe it is necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am going to speak very frankly to my hon. friend. It is true that the licenses have not been cancelled, it is true that the discretion has been exercised favour ably; but it will be recalled that during the course of the investigation the auditors reported contributions to political parties by these same gentlemen. Now, just put the two things together. That is my point.


William Daum Euler: But it never resulted in the withholding of licenses.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; it resulted in something else. That is the point exactly.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend said he was going to be frank; I wish he would be a little more frank.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The evidence before the committee did not give the details. It was pressed in certain quarters as to what were the amounts, and what they were paid for. It will be recalled that the royal commission also made certain investigations. Now, the public observing this power, and observing that licenses are always renewed, regardless of the antecedent conduct, connect the two things. That is the position. This is to make it clear that in future, misconduct followed by conviction will involve the loss of the license.


William Daum Euler: Would the hon. member say that loss would automatically follow after conviction?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, because there might be a technical breach of the law. My hon. friend referred to such a case. I simply suggest this as being worthy of careful consideration.


William Daum Euler: I might draw to the attention of the committee that this is based directly upon the royal commission's recommendation. They did not add any proviso that there should first be a conviction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know that; I was looking at the recommendations to-day. Commission or no commission, the fact is that we had those things brought to our attention, and

they caused a great furore throughout the Dominion. Now every step you take that enables the public to look upon business transactions as being above suspicion is in the interest both of the public and of good government. The removal of that power under those circumstances would be something very much to be desired.


William Daum Euler: As I said before, I am not greatly prejudiced against the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman, but I do think it might occasionally delay and tie the hands of the department if it were absolutely necessary first to secure a conviction in the courts. Or this might happen: a distiller or brewer might violate the law and leave the country. You could not proceed against him, you could not cancel his license, his business would still go on, and yet it might be highly desirable that his license should be suspended. Again I wish to urge upon the committee, with due regard to what my hon. friend says, that, in a practical way, I do not believe there is any very great danger of working injustice to any brewer or distiller if this is allowed to go through as it stands.


William Alves Boys: The minister admits there
must be misconduct. Then how is the misconduct to be established? Surely the man charged should be given an opportunity of defending himself in the courts either by way of prosecution or appeal. No doubt it is a tremendous power; "the minister may for any reason he deems sufficient;" it does not even say there must be misconduct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest that the clause be allowed to stand to give the minister an opportunity to consider it further. Certainly in view of what transpired in the committee regarding the action not only of the minister but of other members of the government of the day, and of members of parliament being placed in a difficult position by their constituents-all these matters were before the committee-this is an undesirable power. It is the power of punishment without conviction; it is the exercise of the functions of a court without trial, and it affords an opportunity for pressure to be brought to bear of a kind certainly not in the public interest in connection with these matters.


William Daum Euler: I appreciate what my hon.
friend has said; but after all the committee should realize this also, that never yet has anything which he fears and dreads taken place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it has.



192S

[Stage Direction]
Excise Act Amendment
William Daum Euler: Never. I am taking the
word of the commissioner of excise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he does not know
what we are talking about. The most flagrant violations of the act on the part of some distillers were proven before that committee. But was the licence ever suspended or cancelled? Never. "What did the evidence show? Journeys to Ottawa; representations; the licence renewed.


William Daum Euler: But I understand my hon.
friend to say that he does not desire to make it mandatory upon the minister to cancel the licence if there is a violation of the act proven in the courts. I must confess that I cannot appreciate the point which my hon. friend is trying to make.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think my hon. friend
appreciates it all right.


William Daum Euler: A distiller may violate the
act half a dozen times and be convicted in the courts, but even then, as I understand his suggestion, the minister may not cancel or suspend the licence; the distiller can still continue his nefarious practice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But no minister would
hesitate to cancel the licence under those circumstances. That is the point exactly.


William Daum Euler: I am not so sure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend would
not anyway.


William Daum Euler: No matter what has taken
place in the past, whether in the shape of political contributions or anything else-and I have not anything to say about that phase because I know nothing with regard to it-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Continue in your innocence !


William Daum Euler: -in no instance-and I am taking the word of the Commissioner of Excise-has the licence ever been withheld, no matter what party was in power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is my whole point.


William Daum Euler: Suppose the suggestion of
my hon. friend is adopted, if I chose, my political friends could come to me, having been convicted of violating the law once, twice or three or four times; their licences ought to be cancelled; but I do not cancel them, I still have power to decline to do so. If the hon. gentleman suggested that once a conviction has been registered against a distiller, the minister must cancel the licence, then I think there would be some teeth in the suggestion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is never usual to do
that in this form of statute. But this is also true, that where you have a provision with respect to a conviction, no minister dare to disregard enlightened public opinion by continuing a licence under those circumstances. It is merely the effect of public opinion upon a condition that is then known. The evidence before the committee abundantly established it. The law was set at naught, laughed at. What about the licence? The licence was all right. If there was a conviction, the effect of public opinion is all powerful with respect to the minister. We had a striking illustration of that recently in some discussions on questions of privilege that took place in this house.


Robert James Manion: It would be a dangerous
rule that upon one conviction, of any character, the license should be cancelled. A man might be convicted of a very minor offence, or the conviction might be altogether unwarranted. I have in mind the case of a brewer convicted by a magistrate whose judgment was, in my opinion, unsound. He was convicted because of some act on the part of his agent, although I do not think he was personally responsible. I submit this suggestion to the minister.


William Daum Euler: A conviction might easily
be registered once or twice, or four or five or six times, as has been the case. A good many brewers in this and other provinces have violated the provincial liquor laws as many as six times, and I venture to say-I am not referring to the government of any particular party-that there would not be very grave doubt what public opinion might be as to whether these licenses should be cancelled. I would observe this further: I believe that there is a sense of justice in most public men-I believe it characterizes those in responsible positions in charge of departments, whether they belong to one party or the other-which would restrain them from doing such a thing as my hon. friend suggests. My hon. friend has spoken about public opinion. W7ould a minister, for political reasons or for no adequate reason at all, dare to cancel a license, even if he did not have that sense of justice to which I have alluded? I cannot agree with my hon. friend that a power like this would be abused. After all, I have a good deal of faith in the sense of justice of most men; and there is the further fact that such power has never been abused in the past.


William Alves Boys: In the Customs Act you have very much the same thing. Any man who offends under that act is given an opportunity of being heard by the minister and there is
Excise Act Amendment

an appeal from the minister to the Exchequer court. But there is nothing here that indicates that the offender is to have a hearing. I do not say that the present minister would not give him a hearing; but we are discussing the act as it stands, and under that act the minister is not obliged to give him a hearing or to assign any reason. He can act upon any reason, good, bad or indifferent. There should be something in the act affording the offender an opportunity of being heard. If the minister does not like the thought of prosecution and wants to assume jurisdiction himself, let there be some provision to ensure that the offender shall be heard, just as a man is heard under the provisions of the Customs Act. Under that act he is not only heard by the minister, who gives a decision, but there is an appeal from the minister. Why not have such a provision in this act?


Mr. KENNEDY:: What does the minister think the words "public interest" mean in this connection? Would the paying of campaign funds to either of the parties be one of the offences?


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that my hon.
friend expects an answer to that.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Why not?


William Daum Euler: I am free to say I do not
think I know so much about campaign funds as my hon. friend appears to do. Certainly it would have no weight with me at all. But "in the public interest" would mean in the interest of the revenue, and I think the Department of National Revenue, when it found any brewer or distiller defrauding the revenue, should have the power to suspend the license immediately without waiting to go to the courts. I repeat, I do not think that any minister, I care not to what party he might belong, would exercise the power unjustly.


William Alves Boys: You must have proof that he is defrauding.


William Daum Euler: Public opinion would drive him from office if he committed so palpable an injustice.


William Alves Boys: But you must have proof.


William Daum Euler: And no minister would refuse a hearing.


William Alves Boys: But do you not think the act should give that right?


William Daum Euler: It would be tying the hands of the minister unduly.


William Alves Boys: You might as well say the same of the Customs Act.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What was the amount in dispute in the case referred to to-night where the license was cancelled?


William Daum Euler: We got $320,000 I think, and perhaps we might not have received it had not the moment been opportune, because it was just then a question whether or not the license would be renewed. Had the occasion been a week or two later we should not have been able to exercise the power we did.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Were the arrears in that case the accumulation of several years or of one year?


William Daum Euler: Two or three years.


James Dew Chaplin: That was the sales tax?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: That was only the sales and gallonage tax?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Security may be by bond of liquor commissions.
William Daum Euler: This is one of the new clauses added to the original bill. I move that:
3. Subsection one of section fifty-seven of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following proviso:
Provided that if the applicant for a license is any board, commission or other government agency which by the law of any province of Canada is vested with the right of selling or authorizing the sale of intoxicating liquor, the security hereby required may be by bond of such board, commission, or other government agency without sureties.
This is advanced at the request of one of the provincial governments who felt that they were put to unnecessary expense in obtaining the bond of any ordinary guarantee company. We thought we Should be safe in accepting the bond of the commission itself. I might ask the opinion of my hon. friend from Fort William as to whether I am on safe ground in saying that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Recovery of penalties.
William Daum Euler: This is also a new section. It is rather lengthy, but I may explain that it extends the jurisdiction of magistrates to impose imprisonment not only for six months but for a year. We ordinarily choose to proceed by what the lawyers term summary

C.N.R. Act Amendment
action. The judges have already the power to impose this punishment, but we should like to make it certain that the magistrate shali have the same power. It follows the law in the Customs Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Bottling spirits in bond.
William Daum Euler: This merely gives to the
liquor commissions in the provinces the right to bottle in bond just as is given the distillers.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section Q-Duties of excise on imitation
beer.
William Daum Euler: This section has been reconsidered and I now move that section 3 of bill No. 54 as introduced, now section 6 of the reprint, be struck out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why?


William Daum Euler: It is struck out for this
reason: it imposes upon the manufacturers of beer who do not make their beer out of barley malt a higher tax than is imposed upon those who make their beer out of rice, say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You are going to leave
the old section 198 as it is?


William Daum Euler: Yes, and those who desire to make malt out of rice can do so on the same basis as those who make malt out of barley.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if the minister
would leave the bill in committee until the first of the week?


William Daum Euler: Is there some special reason?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is an hon. member on this side who is very familiar with it, and he will not be here until Monday.


William Daum Euler: I am quite content, although the sections are so non-content ious that I should like to get it out of the way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe the hon. gentleman has something to say with regard to section 2.


William Daum Euler: Very well, I will move that
the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 194, to amend the Canadian National Railway Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Application of Railway Act to Canadian Government Railways.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain the scope of this proposed legislation?


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the old section,
which will be seen in the explanatory note, the Canadian Government Railways were under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners with respect to their operation but not with respect to construction and maintenance. The object of the amendment is to put the Canadian Government Railways under the Board of Railway Commissioners as all other railways are under their control, especially with regard to the construction and maintenance of the lines. It is thought that there is now no reason for what might be called special privilege for the government railways, and when I speak of government railways I am distinguishing between them and the Canadian National Railways generally. It is understood that the Canadian National Railways generally are already under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners. This section deals with the old Canadian Government Railways, the Intercolonial Railway and the National Transcontinental Railway, and seeks to bring them more completely *under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners than is now the case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What necessity has arisen to demand this legislation?


Charles Avery Dunning: The necessity arises
through the demands of people along the lines affected for improvements of one kind or another for which, in any other part of the country, they would secure an order from the Board of Railway Commissioners. With respect to these particular lines they find it necessary to come to the minister exactly as they did when the minister had direct control over the Intercolonial Railway and the National Transcontinental Railway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely this does not apply to the Intercolonial Railway?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Do I understand that the minister wants to be protected from the people of the maritime provinces?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I have no desire to be protected from the people of any part of Canada, but I do desire to give the people



C.N.R. Act Amendment
of every part of this country the same right to appear before the Board of Railway Commissioners and appeal for anything they think should be done which comes within the scope of the Railway Act. Really this simply creates a standard practice on our Canadian railways, and I think the house will agree that it is desirable that all our system should be operated in a standard manner.


Thomas Cantley: We in the maritime provinces regard the Intercolonial Railway as something quite different from the other railways of this country. It is part of an agreement which was made at confederation, and there is a feeling abroad to some extent at least that we have certain obligations toward the Canadian National Railways, or in other words that we are not entitled to the benefits of competition. I should like the house and the minister to understand that the Intercolonial Railway was built for the people of the maritime provinces; it was one of the conditions of confederation, that the railway be built to serve us.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps if I were to say to my hon. friend that this amendment is not desired by the Canadian National Railways, who believe themselves to be subject to much less expense under the present system than they will be if under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, he will not regard it as something which is not in the interests of the people of the maritime provinces. The Canadian National Railways do not desire this amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If they do not want it and it is going to cost more money, why have
it?


Charles Avery Dunning: We are doing this in the interests of a standard practice, and I will point out an instance to my hon. friend. In connection with the matter of fencing, he well knows through his connection with railways what a problem this has been throughout the country. The Board of Railway Commissioners have gradually developed a standard practice in regard to ordering the railway companies to provide fences. AH down through the maritime provinces that problem still exists, and under this amendment the Board of Railway Commissioners will have power to order the company to build the fences. I submit that there is no reason why the people of that part of Canada should not have the same right to apply to the Board of Railway Commissioners for an order against the railway company, just as the people in any other part of Canada do. It is also desirable that the same regulations with re-

gard to clearances, for example, should be operative on all the railways of Canada. It is unfortunate, perhaps, but in some of the communities served by the Intercolonial Railway, due largely to the period in our history when the railway was built, the clearances are not as complete and free as they have become since on the railways generally under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. I think everyone will agree that it is desirable to have standard clearances throughout Canada, and under this amendment the Board of Railway Commissioners will have power to see that the clearances along the Intercolonial railway are standardized. The National Transcontinental, of course, was built at a later period and consequently has greater clearances. I give these merely as instances. My friend the leader of the opposition is correct in saying it may cost the Canadian National more money to comply with orders which the Board of Railway Commissioners may make; but inasmuch as similar orders are already being made throughout Canada, I see no reason why the people of the maritime provinces should not have the protection of the same orders and standard devices which prevail elsewhere throughout Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand that standard orders as to clearances and so on are in force already throughout Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not quite correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not recently been over the road as frequently as I used to be, but from 1912 on the clearances were standard, and everything else was done under the same rules and regulations as though it were under the Board of Railway Commissioners. At one time I advocated in the house the bringing of the Intercolonial under the Board of Railway Commissioners, and I believed it was right. Subsequently I changed my mind, because I realized that the Intercolonial was different from any other railway in Canada; that it owed its being to the provisions of the pact by which its construction was provided for. I cannot understand what i3 behind this. If it is going to cost more money and nobody is asking for it, why should we do it?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is correct except in this respect: as applying to construction and maintenance, these railways are not and never have been under the Board of Railway Commissioners. Difficulties arise every few months, I may say, particularly in respect to labour unions, on matters of maintenance. That is another point which I did not mention before. Standard methods and practice are of importance to labour and labour

C.N.R. Act Amendment
unions. At present the government railways are under the Board of Railway Commissioners with respect to management and operation. and with respect to maintenance so far as the safety and protection of railway employees and passengers upon the railway are affected; but always there are questions of interpretation, as to whether or not the particular matter of maintenance under discussion is one which affects the safety of passengers and employees. By this amendment we eliminate that question of interpretation altogether and make the Board of Railway Commissioners the judges of what is needed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In other words you substitute some other engineer for the railway's engineer.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend is right, we might as well eliminate all the expenses of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact, they do very little. The Canadian Pacific Railway maintains a higher standard than is required; then there is the rock ballast of the National railway line also to Chicago. What I cannot understand is why this should be done, having in mind what the minister has said.


Charles Avery Dunning: I thought it was so selfapparent that it would require no explanation. If other members of the committee share my hon. friend's view, and if there is no demand for a standard of maintenance, I should like to know of it. I thought this was something so much in the public interest that I was taking a forward step in bringing about the same conditions in the maritime provinces as exist elsewhere in this regard. If it is desired to let railways decide their own standards of maintenance and construction, let parliament say so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not say that; the
hon. genlleman cannot get away with that sort of thing. When he talks about the standard of maintenance he knows very well he is talking piffle. The standard of maintenance between Toronto and Montreal is different altogether from that which prevails in other parts of Canada, and the standard is one which the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific do not respect, because their standard is much better. In this country, under any system of government, the Canadian National Railway is bound to provide for the Intercolonial such a standard of efficiency as the traffic demands. I admit I am taking up too much time in talking about it, but what I am anxious to know is who is wanting it. The minister says the railway does not want it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I must object to my hon. friend's word when he says I am talking "piffle" in advocating the standardization of practice and equipment. There is a minimum standard set up, as he well knows, by the railway commission. Will he argue for a moment that the setting up of that minimum of standard by the Board of Railway Commissioners has not tended throughout the years to improve the general standard of construction and maintenance throughout Canada? Of course he will not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would say at once, no, it has not. The standard which now prevails on both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific is higher than that laid down by the Board of Railway Commissioners, as to rail, fastenings, roadbed, class and kind of ballast, and structures and approaches.


Charles Avery Dunning: But not on the Intercolonial in all cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will tell you where you will find the minimum-on some branch lines in western Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: On some of the branch
lines on the Intercolonial. If the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) were here to-night, he would tell my hon. friend all the refusals, from his point of view, for instance,-and there are others,-of the Canadian National to do wliat the Board of Railway Commissioners would order them to do were they under the jurisdiction of the board, in the matter of fences, for instance. I have mentioned the representation of the unions with regard to the matter of standards of maintenance on the Intercolonial lines. I believe I am correct in saying that that particular matter has been adjusted, for the reason that I took it up with the railway; but I cannot see any reason why, with respect to this particular part of the Canadian National system, the management should be able to say: We do not have to take any notice of the Board of Railway Commissioners, whereas with respect to the rest of the same system they are compelled to do so. I should like to hear an expression of opinion from the rest of the committee, because if this is not a proper step to take, I should like to know it.


Thomas Cantley: We have a general opinion in the maritime provinces that we have suffered in recent years because the road has been taken over and operated as it has, and naturally or unnaturally we are a little suspicious of any additional changes which will further put the railway under the control
199S
C.N.R. Act Amendment

of any other department, whether it be the Board of Railway Commissioners or any other. We would prefer to have the Intercolonial railway as we had it before unholy hands were laid on it ten or fifteen years ago, or say before 1912. The explanation, so far as I can see, appears all right. I do not know that the proposed change is going to interfere very much, but I am not sure that I see all the way through it, and I would prefer to leave the situation as it was.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will the minister explain the reference to the Expropriation Act in the last few lines of the bill?


Charles Avery Dunning: The difference between the expropriation procedure under the Railway Act and under the Government Railways Act I think I can put briefly in this way-and some of the legal members may help me out if I get off the track a little in my terminology. If the government railways undertake to expropriate property they may surrender that property again to the former owner and are liable only for any damages which may have accrued during the period of occupancy of the government railways. If expropriation proceedings are taken under the terms of the general Railway Act, the expropriation once made confirms the ownership of the property in the railway. They must pay for the property and then of course they have the right to sell it, but they cannot hand it back in the same manner as the crown can do under the ordinary crown expropriation procedure which applies to the Canadian Government Railways Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill No. 198, to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon. Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Vessels found hovering in territorial waters may be boarded and brought into port.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Subclause (2) reads:
Any vessel in territorial waters of Canada, shall bring to when required so to do in the king's name.
Is "bring to" the proper term?


William Daum Euler: I am told so.
.'Mr. Oantley.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have always heard that "heave to" is the proper term. It is the term used in admiralty cases.


William Daum Euler: The matter was discussed in the office the other day and I was assured by the chief official there that "bring to" was the proper term.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the English statutes, in the English cases and under the admiralty jurisdiction the term used is that the ship is ordered to "heave to". I have never seen the term "bring to". It may be technically correct.


William Daum Euler: I do not think there is any
doubt as to the meaning.


Richard Bedford Bennett: According to the clause I do not think "bring to" means anything. The subclause reads:
Any vessel in territorial waters of Canada, shall bring to when required so to do in the king's name by any officer or upon signal made by any government vessel or cruiser by hoisting the pennant and ensign approved and appointed for the purpose by order of the governor in council.
Of course, what it is intended to do is clear. The vessel, if it is a sailing vessel, must come up in the wind and thereby lose headway. If it is a steamer, this means that she must stop. I think it is desirable to use some term that will give rise to no uncertainty.


William Daum Euler: If it were a steamer, "heave to" would not be as appropriate as "bring to."


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the word "stop" is
right.


William Duff: "Heave to" is the proper term.


William Daum Euler: The matter was discussed
in the department and the officials there seemed to know a good deal about it. I am quite willing to accept the opinion of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member for
Antigonish-Guysborough will follow me, I think the term "heave to" is proper with respect to sailing ships.


William Duff: Quite right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But with respect to a
steamer I think the idea should be made perfectly clear. Motor boats or vessels using secondary power are supposed on demand to shut off their steam or other motive power and come to a standstill.


William Daum Euler: Why not use a plain English
word and say "stop?"

Customs Act Amendment


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what I
was going to say. In the case of a steamer it should stop; in the case of a sailing vessel it should heave to.


William Daum Euler: You want the vessel to stop
in either case. Why not use the word "stop" in both cases.


William Duff: You cannot stop a vessel
which has sails.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Why not say "heave to, bring to, or stop?"


William Daum Euler: I think the clause is all
right the way it is.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will the minister explain what is meant by territorial waters?


William Daum Euler: I made that explanation as
well as I could on Tuesday. It is explained
on page 2 of the bill. Subclause (7) reads:
Tei i itorial waters of Canada shall mean the waters forming part of the territory of the Dominion of Canada and the waters adjacent to the Dominion within three miles thereof.


Thomas Cantley: I appealed to the minister before in regard to this whole question. So long as the customs and excise duties are as high as they are to-day you cannot stop smuggling in the maritime provinces. For instance, Nova Scotia has two thousand miles of coast line. If the minister had a hundred protective vessels and a thousand coastguards on the coast of the maritime provinces he could not stop the smuggling of liquor. But the Minister of Customs can stop it overnight by reducing the duty to what it was ten years ago, S2.40. If he will turn up the speech that the Hon. Mr. Fielding made the last time he changed the duty, he will find there a wealth of information based on experience. While I am not able to quote verbatim what Mr. Fielding said at the time, in effect, it was this: He increased the duty from $1.80 to $2.40, and he said that he was convinced that he had put the duty as high as, and he rather thought higher than, was in the country's interest, and he was absolutely sure that he had reached the limit. He had had some considerable experience. He knew the conditions, and continuing he said he might be asked why, if he viewed the matter that way, why he was raising the duty, and he said that he was making the change at the solicitation of his temperance friends who thought that an increased duty would be conducive towards greater sobriety in the country. I submit that it has not had that effect, that on the contrary it has had the opposite effect, and I tell the minister, in all seriousness, that he will never be able to stop this smuggling with the duty
remaining as high as it is to-day, because human nature is the same everywhere, whether it be in the maritime provinces or on the great lakes. While $10 a gallon is imposed on spirits coming into this country and while the customs duty on a case of whiskey costing say S14 is 821 or more, which in the case of West India rum means a duty of 1,000 per cent of the value, smuggling cannot be stopped. You can buy rum at Demerara of first class' quality for one dollar a gallon or less. That is the situation to-day, and the minister might as well face it. I understood from the minister last year and the year before that the duty would be reduced simply for the reasons I am outlining now, and I would like to know why it has not been done.


William Daum Euler: Does the hon. gentleman say that I made the statement in thp house that the duty would be reduced?


Thomas Cantley: The minister in charge at the time.


William Daum Euler: I was in charge last year.


Thomas Cantley: Well then, I think the conversation was with you.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Subsection 7 of section 1 says:
(7) For the purposes of this section and section two hundred and seven of this act, ''territorial waters of Canada", shall mean the waters forming part of the territory of the Dominion of Canada and the waters adjacent to the Dominion within three marine miles thereof, in the case of any vessel, and within twelve marine miles thereof, in the case of any vessel registered in Canada.
Does this mean we are going to have two rum rows, one three miles out and the other twelve miles out? If so, how on earth are you going to enforce the law? What is the advantage of that subsection?


William Daum Euler: As the law now stands, vessels registered in Canada can hover around the three mile limit awaiting an opportunity to discharge their cargoes into smaller boats. If we can make them stay twelve miles out from our coast, we have a little better opportunity of watching them and seizing their cargoes.


Mr. HEAPS:: Would not this result in more Canadian vessels coming under foreign registry?


William Daum Euler: I do not think so.


Mr. ERNST:: I doubt if subsection 7 will
have any real effect. I am still of the opinion I expressed the other day, that the jurisdiction of Canada, even over its own nationals, is
Customs Act Amendment

territorial. It is an accepted fact that only sovereign states have jurisdiction over their own nationals extraterritorially, and ships would come within the same category once they get beyond the borders of the country. I am firmly of the opinion that that portion of the act which permits the seizure of a vessel of Canadian registry outside the three mile limit, as it is called, will be held ultra vires by the courts. I do not think that even since the last imperial conference we can be classed as a sovereign country. Certainly there is nothing which would induce the courts to change the opinion they have formed, and they have definitely held that the jurisdiction of non-sovereign states is purely territorial. Great Britain has jurisdiction over its own nationals, or at least can punish them for offences committed outside of Great Britain on the high seas, but once our ships leave the three mile limit they come under British mercantile law. My opinion is that subsection 7 is not going to accomplish anything, but if it does, all it will do will be to make ships of Canadian registry register in the United States or at St. Pierre. If the_minister were at all conversant with the conditions he would surely realize from the outset that the clause is futile.


William Daum Euler: I spoke on this the other
night. As I said, I am not a constitutional lawyer or any other kind of lawyer, and I am not in a position to express any legal opinion. But I should think it at least regrettable if the Dominion government has not control over its own vessels.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: It is time it had, but it has not.


William Daum Euler: The Minister of Justice will probably like to make some comments upon this, and I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps he would look
into the expression "bring to" at the same time.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned,
without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 13, 1928