1928-04-16

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

Mr. BEAUBIEN:: 1.	How many automobiles, operating under their own power, were carried on the car ferry Prince Edward Island during the calendar year 1927?
2.	How many automobile passengers were carried during the calendar years 1917 to 1927, inclusive?
3.	What were the rates for automobiles during the years 1917 to 1927, inclusive?
4.	What is the estimated cost of loading and carrying an automobile?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	5,701.
2.	No record.
3.	Between October 15, 1917, and March 14, 1918, inclusive, 24 cents per 100 pounds, with a minimum of 5,000 pounds. March 15, 1918, to April 11, 1918, inclusive, 27i cents per 100 pounds, with a minimum of 5,000 pounds. August 12, 1918, to August 16, 1918, inclusive, 34J cents per 100 pounds, with a minimum of 5,000 pounds. August 17, 1918, to September 12, 1920, inclusive, $6 per car each way. September 13, 1920, to September 30, 1920, inclusive, $8.50 per car each way. October 1, 1920, to September 15, 1923, inclusive, $6 per car each way. June 16, 1923, to date passenger automobiles $4 each way. Trucks and sight-seeing automoblies $6 each way.
4.	Not ascertainable, as it would depend on the number of automobiles to each flat car, a varying factor, and the number of flat cars handled on individual trips.
Questions


PICTOU WHARFAGE FEES
Mr. BEAUBIEN:: X. What are the amounts of side and top wharfage fees paid by vessels using the freight shed wharf at Pictou during the calendar years 1923 to 1927, inclusive?	_
2.	What are the names of the vessels which paid such fees and the amounts paid by each vessel?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1. $4,392.62.
Kinburn	.. ..$ 119	71D. D. McKenzie.. ..	.... 12	00R. W. Hendry	.... 286	10Magdalen	.... 96	82Stanley	.. .. 2	00Merker	.... 2	20Harland	.... 9	00Chiquimula	.... 143	50Aranmore	.. .. 15	70Seafoam	.. .. 4	00Spark Plug	.... 1	20Jessie May	.. .. 2	00Lovat	.. .. 1,040	27Hochelaga	.... 2,057	27Papyrus	.... 14	00Dom. Coaster	50Chicago Tribune....	.... 582	35Cochalot	.. .. 4	00$ 4,392	62


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS EARNINGS
Mr. BRADY:: 1.	What were the gross and net earnings over the Canadian National Railways from Jasper to Prince Rupert and from Jasper to Vancouver during each of the following years, 1925, 1926 and 1927?
2.	What was the amount of money spent by the Canadian National Railways in the maintenance of each of these roads during the year 1927?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Railway accounting methods do not permit of this information being obtained.
2.	See answer to question No. 1.


OTTAWA GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS-LIGHT AND POWER
Mr. HEAPS:: How much does the government pay for electric light and power per annum to:	(a)
Ottawa Electric Company; and (b) Ottawa Hydro-Electric Commission?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Total amount paid in 1927-28: (a) $86,524.31; (b) $38,964.86.


FOREIGN LOANS
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	What sums were loaned by Canada to foreign countries?
2.	What interest has been paid on such loans?
3.	Has any part of the principal been repaid?
4.	What security does Canada now hold for these loans?
5.	What means are proposed to be taken to collect ?


Mr. ROBB:: 1.
Italy	 Belgium	 France		 Greece		 Roumania.. ..		$ 6,003,301 20 	 6,291,125 64 	 5,730,000 00 	 7,520,473 17 	 20,449,083 94
	$45,993,983 95
Italy	 Belgium		 France	 Greece	 Roumania		. .. $ 832,132 74 	 2,553,520 19 	 1,607,123 57 	 2,549,771 01 	 5,273,290 00
	$12,815,837 51
Italy	 Belgium	 France	 Greece			$ 6,003,301 20 .... 6,291,125 64 	 5,730,000 00 	 720,000 00
	$18,744,426 84
4.	Bonds of the debtor countries, secured by specific charges on certain revenues of these countries.
5.	As payments of interest and principal are being made as they fall due, this question does not arise.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. ADSHEAD:: For a copy of the agreements entered into by the government with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways for the bringing in of immigrants from the British Isles or from southeastern Europe.


POSTMASTER AT WABAMUN
Mr. LUCAS (for Mr. Kennedy):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents between the Post Office

Unopposed Motions jor Papers
department or the Postmaster General, and the Civil Service Commission, or between these or other parties relating to the position of postmaster in the village of Wabamnn during the years 1927 and 1928.



ALIEN LABOUR ACT

Mr. GARLAND (Carleton, for Mr. Church):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, orders in council, and other correspondence relating to the enforcement of the Alien Labour Act as set out in the Revised Statutes of Canada; and
Also for a copy of all correspondence and other documents protesting against the non-enforcement of the said Act.



ORIENTAL CRAIN COMPANY

William Foster Garland: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, reports and other documents passing between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and any other department of the government, or any other person or persons, or the Vancouver harbour commission, with reference to the claim of the Oriental Grain Company against the Vancouver harbour commission, and between the Vancouver harbour commission and the Oriental Grain Company and any other person or persons.



RADIO-CANCELLATION OF LICENSES

Mr. WOODSWORTH (for Mr. Heaps):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, and correspondence, pertaining to the cancellation of the radio licenses held by the International Bible Students Association.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister); With respect to this particular motion, I might say the government have no objection to bringing down the correspondence if the hon. member still feels it desirable that this should be done. However, there is a large amount of correspondence on this subject, a great deal of which is the outcome of a suggestion which appeared in the press that as many individuals as possible should write to the government protesting against the cancellation of the licenses. A good many of the letters [DOT] obviously have been solicited. I would suggest that the government lay these communications on the table of the house, and then if the hon. member or any other hon. member thinks he would like them copied, well and good. The expense of copying these papers is very considerable, and has to be borne by the department. I simply make this suggestion in order to save unnecessary expenditure.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think it
was the intention of my colleague to put the government to any unwarranted expense or trouble, but the Minister of Marine and Fisheries stated that because of certain
protests made by outsiders these licenses had been cancelled. I believe my hon. friend simply wishes those letters which led to the cancellation of the licenses.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: There can be no exception taken to the order passing in that form, namely to cover only such letters as were the occasion for the cancellation of the licenses.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Carried on that understanding.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Foster Garland: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, and all other documents for and against a license to CKCX radio station at Toronto.


Hewitt Bostock: I suppose the same understanding will prevail in this instance?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not so sure that
that understanding would cover what the hon. member (Mr. Church) has in mind. I would suggest that this motion stand until he is present.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.



PURCHASE OF ALBERTA RAILWAYS

William Foster Garland: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, reports and other documents passing between the Department of Railways and Canals and the Alberta Government, and the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, with reference to the purchase of the railways of Alberta, by the Canadian National Railways, or by the Canadian Pacific Railway, or by the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railways jointly.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I notice that the
mover of this resolution is not in the house and I would ask that it stand. I do not want to set it over to the debatable motions, but it appears to duplicate an order which has already been made.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.



UNITED STATES COAL IN WINNIPEG

William Foster Garland: For a copy of the report made by the investigators to the Minister of Customs, with regard to the alleged dumping of American coal into the .Winnipeg market.
International Peace


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):: In the absence of the member
who is making the motion, I would ask that the motion be allowed to stand.



INTERNATIONAL PEACE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Bealey Adshead: Press reports state that Great Britain, Germany and Japan have been invited to join with the United States and France in a world wide treaty aimed at the prevention of war. I ask the Prime Minister if Canada has received such an invitation, and if so, what policy the government intends to pursue in connection therewith?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to make further inquiries before answering my hon. friend's question. My present impression is that no special communication has been received by the government on this subject.


Mr. STEVENS:: Refer it to the Department of Peace.



DUMPING DUTY ON IMPORTED EGGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. HARRY J. BARBER (Fraser Valley): In view of the number of inquiries that I have received I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Revenue. The question is:	Has the dumping
duty as applied to imported eggs since February, 1927 been cancelled by order in council? If so, why has this action been taken?
William Daum Euler: I replied to a similar question on Friday. All orders permitting the minister to fix valuation have been cancelled.



CANADA'S WAR MEMORIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon.   S@: I wish to to ask the government a question regarding a matter which I consider important. Canada has a wonderful collection of war memorials. These memorials consist of photographs, etchings, drawings, war relics, and paintings by many prominent artists. These were gathered together by a branch of the Canadian overseas organization which I think was called the Canadian war records. The officer in charge of this 'branch was Sir Max Aitken, now Lord Beaverbrook, who although living in London is a good Canadian and is interested in everything that concerns 
his native country. May I say that in doing this work Lord Beaverbrook displayed his usual, well known energy and initiative with the result, and I believe I am well within the mark in saying this, that no country possesses a greater or more important collection of war memorials than does Canada. This work was all done without much cost to Canada but I believe at some expense to Lord Beaverbrook personally. I am told that nearly all these war memorials are kept in the basement of one of our public buildings in Ottawa, and if they are allowed to remain there I feel sure they will eventually deteriorate. Now, Mr. Speaker, this collection is a very important one. It belongs to the people of Canada and in my opinion should be properly housed and cared for by the government. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister if he will not see that proper steps are taken to bring this about.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The house is
indebted to my hon. friend for bringing to its attention the importance of the collection of war memorials to which he has just referred. At the time the collection was made there were so many matters receiving attention that I doubt if the citizens of Canada generally, or even the members of this house, have any appreciation of the extent of the collection that was made by the war memorials committee, which as I understand, was a branch of the war records office. The personnel of the committee included Lord Beaverbrook, as my hon. friend has just said, Lord Rothermere, the late Sir Edmund Walker, the late Sir Bertram Lima and Lady Perley. The committee succeeded in collecting or obtaining a great many extremely valuable works of art descriptive of all phases of the war-paintings of actual battle scenes, portraits of generals and those who had won the Victoria cross. The collection includes also important pieces of sculpture, and as my hon. friend has said many valuable etchings and lithographs. Some works of the old masters likewise form part of the collection, notably paintings by Romney, Lawrence and Reynolds. Among these paintings is one of the death of Wolfe by Benjamin West which was presented, I believe, by His Grace the Duke of Westminster. As my hon. friend has said, the collection has been gathered together practically without any cost to the people of Canada, and was very largely in the nature of a labour of love on the part of Lord Beaverbrook. I should say, having regard to the distinguished reputation of many of the artists who were retained for the purpose of painting:

Canada's War memorials
the various pictures and portraits, that the collection might be valued at anything over $1,000,000. The total number of artists engaged for the purpose-several of whom were British and several Canadian-was over 100. As my hon. friend has said, the collection, after it was turned over to the Canadian government, was temporarily housed in one of the public buildings of this city. It is now for the most part in the national museum, more, however, for Storage purposes, than for the purpose of exhibition. Some of the paintings in the collection are on the walls of the senate, a few of them are at the Dominion archives, one or two of them are in the departmental buildings, but the greater part of the collection is in storage at the national museum. I can assure my hon. friend that great care has been taken of the collection at the museum but unfortunately it is not as yet available to the general public. The government has had under consideration the possibility of finding some means of making the collection available to the public, ibut ea'ch consideration of the matter brings us back to the point of seeking to discover means whereby a suitable building can be obtained for the purpose. Undoubtedly, if the collection is to be properly exhibited, it should be a part of a national art gallery, and as matters now stand it would appear to mean asking parliament to make an appropriation for an art gallery. Up to the present time we have felt that there were other demands more imperative than the demand for a building for the purpose of housing these particular works of art. I think, however, we must not lose sight of the fact that the collection is a national possession, a very valuable possession, and one which as speedily as possible should be property housed. I may say to my hon. friend that in some countries public-spirited citizens have supplemented the donations of others by presenting buildings to the nation. If anyone in Canada or elsewhere should think of presenting the Dominion with a national art gallery, the government would cordially co-operate in providing a site and in facilitating its erection, but at the present time we do not feel t'hat we are in a position to ask parliament to vote the necessary appropriation for that purpose. The government has in mind a suitable site for such a building, and in connection with any public buildings that may be erected, or other public improvements care will be taken that what may eventually prove to be the most suitable location for a national art gallery is not lost sight of. Perhaps I should say to my hon. friend, as I happen to know the fact, that, in connection with this art collection, there
were sent not only the paintings and other works of art but also plans of a building specialty designed by Mr. E. A. Rickards, the architect of the Central Hall, Westminster. The plans were transmitted with a view or providing the appropriate kind of accommodation for the collection in the event of the country finding it possible to undertake this work.
I would just wish to add this further word to what I have said. I feel that parliament has perhaps been remiss in not having expressed long before this the appreciation that should have been expressed of the work that was done by Lord Beaverbrook in assembling this great collection and virtually presenting it to the Dominion. Perhaps the words of my hon. friend and the response that I have endeavoured to make may serve as some expression of appreciation from this parliament.



HOME BANK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):: Has the Minister of Finance yet received a report from the exchequer court in regard to the Home Bank, and can the depositors expect any relief?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I have not yet received the report.



FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. MacNUTT (Colchester):: In view of the reported sale of the Russell House block to the government, has a transfer yet been made, and if so have the insurance policies covering this block been also transferred to the government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is evidently a departmental matter and some inquiry will have to be made before a reply can be given to my hon. friend.



CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue) moved the third reading of Bill No. 198, to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 12 consideration in committee of Bill No. 11, to amend the Seeds Act-Mr. Motherwell-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Treaty with Spain
The CHAIRMAN:: When this bill was last before the committee all clauses had been adopted with the exception of clause 10.
On section 10-False advertising.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I move to amend clause 10 by the insertion of the words "at a stated price" immediately following the word "sale" in the twenty-eighth line.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 12 consideration in committee of Bill No. 54, to amend the Excise Act.-Mr. Euler-Mr. Johnston.
William Daum Euler: When the bill was in committee last week we had passed1 all the clauses. The bill was left in committee on the suggestion of the leader of the opposition.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



TREATY WITH SPAIN

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of 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.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Treaties sanctioned.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I think the minister ought to give us a full explanation regarding the purpose of this treaty, and particularly how it is that only now we are taking up a treaty that was made in October, 1922. If this is such a valuable treaty for Canada, I would like to know why something was not done about it before.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is quite right as to the date. Perhaps I might give a history of the negotiations.
On the 31st of October, 1922, the British government signed a treaty of commerce and navigation with Spain, a clause of which provided that the terms could be extended to any of the British dominions at the Dominion's option. On the 27th of June, 1924, Great Britain and Spain entered into an agreement concerning the treatment of companies. On April 5, 1927, the previous agree-

ments were revised and as the objectionable features of the old agreements have been removed Canada is now prepared to accept the treaty. On the 10th of April, 1925, Canada entered into an agreement with Spain whereby Canada granted the intermediate tariff in' exchange for the second column of the Spanish tariff. A clause of this agreement reads:
The modus vivendi will come into force on April 20, 1925, and will cease to be in effect three months after its denunciation by either of the contracting parties. In view of the provisional character of this arrangement the governments of both of the contracting parties agree to commence without undue delay the necessary negotiations for the conclusion of a more general and definite convention for the regulation of the commercial relations between Canada and Spain.
The company agreement is of value to several Canadian companies, including some of the banks. The Spanish tax on capital and reserve is now 1 per cent. Under the agreement that tax will be reduced to one-quarter of one per cent.


Mr. BENNETT:: the important sections, so far as we are concerned, are the articles dealing with the application of the treaty to the Dominion. It was specially provided that the treaty should not apply to the dominions unless they gave notice. Has that notice been given?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. As I intimated a moment ago, we did reach an agreement with Spain in 1925 regarding an exchange of tariffs. Now we are coming to an agreement with them in regard to how it will affect companies. In the meantime they are treating our companies as if they were under the agreement, with the understanding that we are to bring in a bill to carry out the agreement.
Perhaps the house will be interested in knowing just what the tariff concessions are. The tariff of Spain consists of (a) First tariff; (b) Second tariff, and (c) Conventional tariff on some goods. The first tariff is usually three times as high as the second tariff, while such conventional rates as exist are the lowest in force.
Based on an exchange of notes between the United Kingdom and Spain in 1894, Canada and Spain for several years granted each other most-favoured-nation treatment in tariff matters. The relations between the two countries came up for review in consequence of a new AnglonSpanish commercial treaty signed October 31, 1922, and which contained provisions for adherence by British dominions and colonies. This treaty, though not precisely so in form, practically gave to the United Kingdom full most-favoured-nation treatment in Spain. It contained British

Treaty with Spain
guarantees of either exempting certain Spanish products from duty or, with regard to some goods, maintaining as low duties as were in force at the signing of the treaty. The same obligations will be imposed on Canada if she accepts the treaty. Although not becoming a party to the British treaty, Canada did not immediately withdraw most-favourednation treatment from Spain. That is the agreement that has existed since 1894.
The attitude of Spain was to grant us her second tariff, but not conventional rates in return for most-favoured-na.tion treatment in the British dominions. On September 14, 1923, Canada discontinued most-favourednation treatment of Spanish goods, the occasion being the bringing into force of the present Framco-Canadian convention of commerce. Beginning in January, 1924, the Spanish first tariff was applied to Canadian goods.
The negotiations for a trade agreement between Canada and Spain terminated in an exchange of notes on April 10, 1925, at Madrid, between the Spanish authorities and the British ambassador. A modus vivendi was thus established which went into force ten days after the date of signing, which provided for exchanging the Spanish second tariff for the Canadian intermediate tariff, the arrangement to terminate on three months' notice. The governments agreed to begin without undue delay negotiations for a more general and definite convention. The Spanish second tariff is the lowest in force on most items, but Canada is deprived of 6uch convention rates as exist. According to an examination of treaties made recently there were Spanish conventional rates lower than the second tariff on commodities of considerable interest to Canada, including fish, lumber, wood pulp, rubber tires, electric apparatus and machinery. The treaty situation is, of course, subject to change from time to time.
A Spanish decree of July 20, 1927, provided for revising the Spanish customs tariff and supplanting the present triple tariff with two columns, general and conventional. It was expected that early in 1928 the system would be reconstructed along these lines, and no doubt with important effects on Spanish treaty arrangements.


George Halsey Perley: I understood the minister to say that so far as duties were concerned, the arrangement was governed by a convention made between Canada and Spain in 1925.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: These treaties
between Great Britain and Spain which the government is now proposing that Canada shall become a party to have to do with commerce and navigation. Do these overlap at all, or does the convention made between Canada and Spain deal with entirely different matters from those that are dealt with in the treaties with Great Britain?


James Alexander Robb: We are adhering to the
British trade treaty so that we get the lowest rates for our nationals doing business in Spain.


George Halsey Perley: Quite so; but if Canada agrees to become a party to the British treaty with Spain, will that not supersede the convention made between Canada and Spain in 1925?


James Alexander Robb: In 1925 we agreed to start
negotiations for a treaty; this is the consummation of that agreement.


George Halsey Perley: But we never
made a treaty?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder, Mr Chairman, if the attention of the Prime Minister has been directed to this bill. The other day I had occasion to draw attention to the fact that some of these conventions which were submitted for our approval had the effect of placing obligations upon the provinces, and that under our constitution exclusive power to deal with certain matters was vested in the legislatures of the provinces and not in the federal parliament. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister referred me to the section of the British North America Act dealing with this matter. I was perfectly aware of the section, but I do not apprehend that it could ever be taken as enabling us to amend our constitution by the aid of a convention made between Great Britain and a foreign state and approved by us. I do not think that even the credulity of the Prime Minister could be imposed upon to that extent, although the other day he said that he did not happen to be a lawyer.
This bill contains three sections: the first is merely the title; the second sanctions three treaties, one a treaty of commerce and navigation, the other an agreement between the United Kingdom and Spain, and the third a convention between the same powers; the third section provides that the act shall come into force on proclamation. There is, of course, a distinction in international law between a treaty, an agreement and a convention. The first schedule sets out the treaty of commerce and navigation between the
Treaty with Spain

United Kingdom and Spain exchanged at Madrid on April 23, 1924. May I direct attention to article 3?
The subjects of each of the contracting parties in the territories of the other shall be at full liberty to acquire and possess every description of property, movable and immovable, which the laws of the other contracting party permit or shall permit, the subjects or citizens of any other foreign country to acquire and possess. They may dispose of the same by sale, exchange, gift, marriage, testament, or in any other manner, or acquire the same by inheritance under the same conditions which are or shall be established with regard to subjects of the other contracting party. They shall not be subjected in any of the cases mentioned to any taxes, imposts or charges of whatever denomination other or higher than those which are or shall be applicable to subjects of the other contracting party.
It happens that succession duties are wholly within the purview of the provincial legislatures, and that they have enacted laws dealing with such duties. The method devised for the purpose of collecting taxation in that form differs in the several provinces, and in some instances differs with respect to the residence of the persons affected. This article purports to put the residents of Spain in the same position and upon the same basis as the residents of any other foreign state, and I think it might be important to consider whether we are not taking an obligation with regard to the provinces that was never contemplated in connection with a treaty, because not only does that article deal with this matter, but there are other articles that deal with military obligations, which clearly are within the power of this parliament. At the top of page four the continuation of article 4 provides that:
They-
The subjects of each of the contracting parties within the territories of the other.
-shall similarly be exempted from all judicial, administrative and municipal functions whatever, other than those imposed by laws relating to juries, as well as from all contributions, whether pecuniary or in kind, imposed as an equivalent for personal service, and finally from any military exaction or requisition.
Between the United Kingdom and Spain there would be no difficulty, but when you come to deal with a country such as Canada that is a federal union, you cannot cover "judicial, administrative and municipal functions;" these are solely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. It shows the difficulties that arise in connection with the mere sanctioning by this parliament of a treaty made between the United Kingdom and Spain, and thus imposing upon us all the obligations, duties and responsibilities under the treaty so negotiated. Section 92 of the British North

America Act distinctly says that the provincial legislatures shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect to judicial, administrative and municipal matters. Section 132, dealing with treaties being binding alike upon the Dominion and the provinces did not and could not contemplate the possibility of a treaty negotiated between Great Britain and Spain, and sanctioned by this parliament, imposing upon the provinces a restriction of their legislative powers as defined by the British North America Act. I think the Prime Minister will agree with me that this must be so, otherwise we should be placed in a most difficult position. If the articles that I have read impose those restrictions upon the provincial legislatures, the truth is that the British North America Act has, pro tanto, been amended; and it cannot possibly be contended that that was in the mind of the parliament at Westminster when it gave us our constitution.
Now I come to the agreement which is printed at page 12 of the bill, regulating:
the treatment to be accorded in the territories of each of the high contracting parties to the companies registered in the territories of the other, have for this purpose named as their pi enipotentiaries.
With respect to federal companies, the right hon. Prime Minister will at once agree with me that our sanctioning of this agreement would carry with it all the power that might be necessary. But to say that companies having provincial objects, and wholly within the powers of the provincial legislatures, should, be affected by legislation of this kind, would seem to me to be something that was not intended by the British North America Act, and it might get us into this difficulty: some of the provinces might accord more favourable terms to, say, a United States company than to a Spanish company, and the Dominion would be confronted with the complaint that we had not performed our obligations under the treaty; but there is no power in this Dominion to enforce any such view on the provinces with respect to an agreement of this nature. It will be observed that some of these sections touch upon the very difficult and dangerous subject of provincial taxation, over which clearly this parliament has no jurisdiction, when you come to deal with the right of the province to impose taxation on any company that may be registered within its boundaries for the purpose of transacting business. The convention was not signed until April 5, 1927, and accompanying it is a letter from the British ambassador as well as one from the Spanish ambassador.
I do not desire to do more than merely point out the difficulties as I see them, be-

Treaty with Spain
cause I do not think that they are limited to this particular case. I had occasion the other afternoon, when we were discussing the sanitary conventions-they were not treaties- which were negotiated through the League of Nations, to look into the question generally, and I must say I do not think it was ever intended, or that it will be held by the courts, to be within the power of a treaty, a convention or an agreement-and there is a clear distinction in law between the three things- negotiated between Spain and Great Britain, and given sanction by a legislative act on our part, to affect the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces as defined by section 92 of the British North America Act. And yet that is inevitable in this instance if we declare this to be a part of the law of Canada, and do not provide any limitations, or, as the Americans say, reservations, with respect to not affecting companies or businesses or the legislative power and jurisdiction of the several legislatures. I certainly have some difficulty in my own mind regarding it, and I direct the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the matter, for I think it is worthy of more than passing notice, having regard to what would be the effect upon some of the businesses that are directly mentioned in (a) the treaty, (b) the convention, and (c) the agreement itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The section
of the British North America Act, to which my hon. friend made special reference, is 132:
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.
As I suggested the other day, there may be room for debate on the significance of the word "empire" as respects its application to any one part of the empire, but I should be inclined to think, looking at the clause as it reads, that it was clearly intended to give the federal government full power and authority to make any treaty coming within the scope of its jurisdiction which it might wish to enter into with another country-a power sufficiently comprehensive to cover just such a situation as my hon. friend has in mind where there might be a possibility of conflict with the provinces. However, that is a matter of interpretation which, as the hon. member has said, it would be well to have carefully considered, and I shall bring it to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) with a view to ascertaining whether in his opinion it has any special bearing upon this particular case.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister to article 10, in which we in this parliament propose to protect the Spanish wine dealer as against anything that the provincial legislature may do, while we are not attempting to protect the Canadian wine dealer from what the same legislature may do in this regard.


James Alexander Robb: I do not know that my hon.
friend has made himself quite clear; I am not sure that I understand just what objection he is taking to article 10.


James Dew Chaplin: My understanding of the
matter is this: If the provincial authorities in this country were to put a local tax on Spanish wines or French wines, then we undertake to see that these wines shall be placed in no worse position than our own wines. I want to point out that the local authorities now tax Canadian wines. You propose to see that they shall not tax foreign wines, but you are not taking any notice of the fact that they are taxing the Canadian product.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has a wrong
interpretation of the matter. The imported product will pay the same tax as the native.


James Dew Chaplin: Not at all; I am quite
sure of that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point made by my
hon. friend from Lincoln has not, I think, been apprehended by the minister. Article 10 in the second paragraph reads:
The produce or manufacture of either of the contracting parties imported into the territories of the other, and intended for warehousing or transit, shall not be subject to any internal tax.
There is already an internal tax in Ontario on its own wine, and my hon. friend is pointing out that Spanish wine paying the customs and excise duties will be free from any internal tax in that province. I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to this fact:	Section 132 of the British North
America Act must be read with sections 91 and 92, and the effect of the proper interpretation of the three sections is this, that any treaty negotiated by the Dominion shall have force and effect upon Canada only within the ambit of thd powers conferred upon this parliament by section 91; and to the extent that we have powers, under the constitution, affecting the provinces, the provinces are thereby bound. There are cases without number which I might mention. But surely it never could be contended that a treaty -I will not discuss either agreements or conventions inasmuch as "treaty" is used in section 132 of the British North America Act
Treaty with Spain

-negotiated between a foreign state and Great Britain, to which we give our approval, could deprive the legislature of any province of its plenary powers. Such a contention is certainly at variance with the statement of the law made by Lord Lorebum in the Privy Council. It would simply imply that the plenipotentiaries of Canada and of some other country might sign a treaty which, without reference to a province, could deprive that province of its legislative power with respect to every subject matter that might be dealt with in that treaty. It is perfectly clear that this is not the law; it is not at any rate the law heretofore understood by jurists of repute. No jurist of repute has ever suggested for a moment that a treaty could encroach upon that ground. The provinces could be affected only in so far as this parliament might act within the limit of its powers over the provinces, -but not within the constitutional jurisdiction and plenary powers of the provinces. Surely no treaty can take away from any provincial body its legislative power; it can affect only those powers which the Dominion may exercise in the province. That is to say, this parliament might denude itself of every power which it has a right to exercise in every one of the nine provinces, and the provinces would thereby be bound. But the legislative jurisdiction of the legislatures, conferred on them by the British North America Act, cannot be limited, restrained, restricted or destroyed by any treaty made at Madrid to which we give sanction. Surely it is unnecessary to point that out. Under the rules of interpretation the sections of the British North America Act must be read together, and the sections conferring exclusive powers upon the Dominion and the provinces respectively must be read with section 132. Any treaty that may be negotiated between Great Britain and any foreign state, and to which we may become a party, will bind the provinces to the extent to which the parliament of Canada may have jurisdiction over those provinces This parliament has widle jurisdiction over the provinces, ibut within the purview of the powers conferred by the constitution upon provincial legislatures, nothing short of the legislative power of the Imperial parliament can deprive the legislature of its constitution. The effect is that the constitution of the province might be wiped out; one must always carry these matters to a logical conclusion, and that is what this means. It had not occurred to me the other day until it was read, but I remember very well my early teachings in connection with matters of this kind, and they are 
very simple. This parliament is the entity which speaks for Canada; under the federal system and under the powers conferred upon parliament by section 132, this is the national entity. In that case it was not contemplated that our parliament should negotiate a treaty; it was intended only to deal with a treaty negotiated with respect to the British Empire of which we are a part, and that treaty has power, force and application binding the provinces to the extent to which the parliament of Canada can exercise power over them. It cannot be suggested, however, that you can take away the legislative power of the free legislatures of the nine provinces by a treaty negotiated in Madrid, to whi-Ch we give our approval.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has raised a very large question, and I hesitate even to attempt to make a contribution to it by way of debate. It does seem to me, however, that some power in the state must have the authority to make treaties, and that authority to whoever it belongs must be plenary. Situations may arise where it would be quite impossible for the federal government to negotiate a treaty with another nation, which it was in the interests of the Dominion to conclude, without to some extent overriding some of the alleged exclusive powers of the provinces. In such a case it could hardly be assumed that, if it were in the national interest to have such a treaty made, this could not be done because some provision therein appeared to override some particular jurisdiction of a province. I just raise that point as the other side of the question, and I think my hon. friend will see clearly that in giving to the parliament of this country the power to make treaties under the British North America Act', in the terms of the section which I have read, it must have been intended that all the powers which were needed for that purpose were being given, even though they did appear in some particulars to come into conflict with certain rights reserved to the provinces. In other words in treaty-making the national interest must be paramount when brought into apparent conflict with the interest of any province.
With respect to this particular treaty, a clause is contained therein which provides for its termination by either party upon the giving of three months' notice, and perhaps I could put at rest any concern which my hon. friend may have as to our intentions by saying that if it did appear that a serious conflict was about to arise between the provinces and the Dominion with regard to any of the

Treaty with Spain
sections to which we are now referring, rather than have such a conflict, the treaty itself could be abrogated as far as we are concerned.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps the hon. member for Lincoln has misunderstood article 10 by reading only that part of it which appears on page 6. If he follows that article on page 7 he will find the following words:
The produce or manufacture of either of the contracting parties imported into the territories of the other, and intended for warehousing or transit, shall not be subjected to any internal duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not desire to argue this question before the committee, but I wish to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to section 132 of the British North America Act, which is as follows:
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.
That is, they shall have all powers necessary or proper to perform the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof. Certainly these obligations must be read subject to the constitutional grant of powers by the British North America Act to the several provinces. This question really raises the whole issue of sovereign power, and the right of this Dominion to negotiate any treaty. There is no grant of power by section 132 to negotiate a treaty; far from it. That section contemplates that the treaty shall be negotiated by someone else; it says, "between the empire." In this particular treaty there is a reservation providing that the treaty shall not apply to the Dominion, to India or to Australia unless their parliaments, in terms, accept, adopt or sanction the treaty. We sanction the treaty; by so doing we make ourselves a party to every term of it, and my point is that the language is not apt to make such a treaty binding upon the various component parts of this confederation which have their grant of plenary powers from the parliament at Westminster. Section 92 of the British North America Act says". . . .may exclusively make laws. . . .", but section 91 grants to this parliament the right to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada as a whole. It is further provided that where there is no exclusive grant of powers, if there is any conflict between the federal and provincial power the federal power shall prevail. As the Privy Council has so often said, however, this is not so as against the enumerated classes of subjects in section 92, over which the legislatures have exclusive jurisdiction.
Possibly this is a difficult matter to argue in committee, and I merely direct attention to it because it does occur to me that as the matter stands it is of far-reaching consequence and it was never intended that the mere approval or sanction by Canada of a treaty negotiated between two outstanding portions of the empire or between two foreign nations to which the empire was a party should have the effect of repealing, pro tanto, the power of the legislatures of the provinces which is said to be exclusive. I quite agree with the Prime Minister that there must be a national entity, and that national entity is Canada. Canada is composed of several provinces; but the national entity has power to make laws for the national well being. These laws thus made for the national well being, however, must not conflict with the exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon the provinces by the constitution with respect to those numerated classes of subjects in section 92 of the act, and some of the articles of the treaty deal in terms with matters solely within the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial legislatures, being designated and named classes of subjects over which the legislature alone has jurisdiction-not jurisdiction concurrently with this parliament but exclusive jurisdiction in the terms of the constitution itself. I merely submit the matter to the committee because it was new to me when I first read this treaty, and I felt that it was of considerable importance and at least worthy of the attention of the committee and possibly of the law officers of the crown, as well as the attention of those responsible for our commitments with respect to foreign treaties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is just one point with regard to what my hon. friend has said. I agree with him that in negotiating any treaty the federal government should have the utmost regard for all matters reserved to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, but I think my hon. friend will agree that as to the Dominion and the empire as a whole, at the time the British North America Act was drafted the position with respect to treaty-making powers was not as clear at it is to-day. It is now conceded with respect to matters of primary or exclusive concern to the Dominion that we have the full right to negotiate, sign and ratify a treaty which formerly might have been held to belong to the British Empire as a whole. The powers of this parliament with regard to a treaty such as we are now discussing are complete in all particulars, and are not affected by the wording of the section as it appears.
Treaty with Spain


Mr. CANNON:: I have listened very attentively to the argument put forward by the leader of the opposition. The hon. gentleman has stressed one point-that it would seem a rather extraordinary thing that the federal government would be able to impose obligations on the provinces in connection with matters and subjects which are enumerated in the British North America Act as being within the exclusive jurisdiction of those provinces. That is the argument which my hon. friend put before the committee. But when we come to examine the relative authority of both the federal parliament and1 the provincial legislatures throughout the Dominion we have to make a distinction between the authority of the Dominion government acting in internal matters, and the authority of that government in matters which are outside of Canada and are international in character. It is no new principle to-day to say that one authority could impose obligations on a provincial or secondary power. For instance, up to recent years the Imperial government could impose obligations in international matters on the Dominion by legislation passed in the Imperial house in relation to questions which were enumerated as being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament. Why could it be so? It could be so because the British government at that time was the authority which could deal in these matters with foreign powers. Now Canada has altered her position. To-day if we wish to enter into agreements, or if we wish to sign any treaties with foreign countries, we have an authority in Canada that is able to do so and that authority is the federal parliament. Section 132 of the British North America Act covers this matter, but as the leader of the opposition has rightly said, when the British North America Act was enacted in 1867 the relation, as between this Dominion and the British parliament in connection with international matters was not that which exists to-day. In 1867 it was said that when the British government entered into a treaty with some country which affected Canada, the authority in Canada which would provide that the obligations under the treaty would be lived up to would be the Dominion parliament. Now the situation is somewhat changed, and no treaty is to be regarded as binding on Canada unless that treaty has been signed or ratified by this country itself. But there is no doubt in my mind that whenever, in any treaty, there is a stipulation which affects a province, that province is bound by any act of this federal parliament, otherwise it would be absolutely impracticable for Canada to deal with foreign countries.

In conclusion I wish to call your attention to a similar situation which exists in the United States. The states in the American union have much greater and much wider powers than the provinces in Canada, because if in Canada the residuary power lies within federal jurisdiction, in the neighbouring union the residuary power lies within the jurisdiction of the states. To put my argument in another form:	When the United States of
America came into existence the different states retained their authority except and only to the limit of the authority which they conceded to the federal government. But here in Canada all authority was given to the central government except and in so far only as authority to deal with local matters was given to the provinces. So that even though the individual states of the union have a much greater authority than our individual provinces, the American government enters frequently into treaties with foreign powers. Every provision of those treaties is lived up to and the central government at Washington sees to it that treaties are properly observed. The doctrine of exclusive legislation by the provinces may apply when it is a question of internal administration in Canada, but when it comes to international matters the one central authority is empowered to deal with these matters and it can do so under the three existing provisions of the British North America Act:	first, by
exercising the authority which is given to us to pass any law which is necessary for the peace, order and good government of Canada; secondly, under the authority which we have by reason of our possessing the residuary powers; thirdly, from the expressed authority which is given to us by section 132 of the British North America Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know that any useful purpose is served by taking up the time of the committee with respect to this matter, but when the observation was made that the provinces are a secondary power a total disregard of the jurisprudence of the Privy Council was indicated. The Privy Council has said that the legislatures of the provinces have as plenary powers within the ambit and scope of their activities as the parliament of Canada has within its jurisdiction or as the Imperial parliament in the plenitude of its powers could bestow upon them. Those are the words of the Privy Council and are quite as important as the words to which we have just listened. With respect to the residuary power being vested in the Dominion, it is quite true that the residuary power rests with the Dominion as indeed the Privy Council has said, but that

Treaty with Spain
does not enable the parliament to take from the provinces the powers conferred upon the legislatures by section 92 of the British North America Act. As far as section 132 of the British North America Act is concerned it has no bearing upon the subject at all for the reason I have indicated which goes to the root of the whole question. Is Canada a sovereign state? Has Canada any treaty-making powers at all apart from those which belong to us as a part of the empire? In section 92 these words are to be found:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,-
Then follow sixteen enumerated powers. Those powers are exclusive and there is no right on the part of this parliament-the courts have held all such legislation ultra vires -to interfere with these enumerated subjects. The exercise by the legislature of their exclusive powers with respect to these subjects is subject to the exercise of its ancillary power by the parliament of Canada. For instance legislating on banks and banking, we provide that warehouse receipts shall have a certain validity as against a registered chattel mortgage ; and it was held by the Privy Council that that power was a power ancillary to the exercise of the exclusive power of parliament with respect to banks and banking. Therefore it must be deemed to orevrride the power of provincial legislatures with respect to property and civil rights so far as registration as a chattel mortgage is concerned, although at the last revision of the Bank Act we made certain amendments in that regard. There is no question of that sort involved in this. The sole question is whether or not a treaty negotiated between a foreign state and Great Britain and now sanctioned ' by this parliament can be said to carry with it by implication the power to overrule the powers of the provincial legislatures with respect to companies created within their own border, it does apply to federal companies,
I agree-but with respect to internal taxation imposed Iby the provinces, and with respect to dealing with land registration it cannot be so. The Privy Council held that where you have a federal enterprise created by a federal authority, it must comply with the registration laws of the various provinces with respect to real estate. That was held to be part of the law of the constitution. Under those circumstances I am free to say that while I have not seen the point discussed, it is certainly quite clear to me that, if that be the law of this Dominion, then our constitution must be different from that contained in the British 56103-131
North America Act. Our statutory constitution is what governs not only with respect to our relations between the federal and the provincial authorities, but it is the authority that is responsible for our being an entity at all. The entity called Canada came into being by an imperial statute called the British North America Act. It did not come into being by an agreement such as they had in the United States. The British North America Act defined the terms under which this entity called Canada shall exercise its legislative powers. It does not contemplate, as I have said, our making a treaty. Section 132 has no reference to the treaty-making powers which are exercised by Canada. It says that the Canadian parliament shall have power to deal with a treaty negotiated with respect to the British Empire. This is not a treaty with respect to the British Empire. The British government has not negotiated the treaty on behalf of Canada and it has been very careful not to do so. It left Canada to say what it will do. When Canada sanctions this treaty by the action of parliament, parliament can bind the provinces only to the extent to which the Dominion can reach its arms into the provinces. It can do so with respect to many things but it cannot do so with respect to many matters that are mentioned in the treaty. If a provincial legislature, the day after to-morrow, after the treaty is ratified, sees fit to pass a statute at variance with that treaty, parliament might disallow the legislation. We have that power-and it has not been exercised for many years-but apart from that power we cannot do anything.
The application of the American constitution is covered by the provisions of the constitution itself. The senate of the United States which comprises two representatives from each state, has power to give its approval to treaties. The senate of the United States was originally composed of men elected by the state legislatures, subsequently, in most of them by the direct vote of the electors themselves. There is a section of the United States constitution dealing specifically with that situation. No one for a moment questions that the national power in the United States is the federal authority called the United States of America, but there is no section such as section 132 which we have and which, instead of advancing the position taken by the government, actually has the opposite effect because it contemplates only a treaty negotiated for the British Empire of which Canada is a part and not a separate treaty negotiated by a portion of the empire or a treaty negotiated by that portion of the

Treaty with Spain

empire that does not include Canada and subsequently sanctioned by Canada. I suppose no purpose is served beyond merely stating the situation as it occurs to me and citing the decisions that have been made with respect to it. We cannot settle it here, but I think we should take cognizance of the circumstances to which I allude.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend has quoted the decisions of the Privy Council in support of his contention; but in order to show that the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces is not a territory so highly protected against the federal jurisdiction that we can never enter into it, I would quote to my hon. friend the very recent decision given in re the Royal Bank of Canada by the Privy Council, where the question arose whether the federal parliament had the right to put aside the laws of registration which prevailed in Quebec with respect to properties. If there is one subject-matter which is deemed to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, it is property and civil - rights; but in that case the decision rendered by the Privy Council within the last few months is that when we are dealing with bankruptcy we have a perfect right to legislate and, exercising what my hon. friend1 has designated, and rightly so, an ancillary power, we -can do away with provincial legislation even covering such matters as property and civil rights. This being the case-and this decision is very recent-if we have the right as a central and national parliament and government to deal with outside and foreign governments in international matters, we surely have the right, in order to exercise that authority, to exercise an ancillary authority in these highly important matters. Again I say I do not think it would be seriously contested that any authority other than parliament or the Dominion government has the right to deal in international matters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hesitate to trouble the
committee, but in subsection 21 of section 91 it will be found that it is the exclusive power of parliament to deal with bankruptcy and insolvency. The Privy Council held, following the case of the Union bank and Tennant, which was thirty years earlier, that where parliament exercises one of its exclusive powers it has the right to exercise every power that is ancillary to giving effect to that power. That means that we could interfere with property and civil rights in the provinces with respect to the registration of chattel mortgages in the Tennant case, and the same was held with respect to bankruptcy and insolvency. But the test which the Lord 
Chancellor laid down in the earlier case was this: Is the legislation in its character legislation dealing with bankruptcy and insolvency or property and civil rights? It was held that it was dealing with banks and banking in one instance and with insolvency and bankruptcy in the other, and the other was only incidental to the exercise of that power.
When you begin to apply that doctrine to an international arrangement with respect to a treaty, it is unnecessary to say that it has no parallel and no analogy, for the simple reason that in the one instance you are interpreting a statute of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and in the other you are endeavouring to apply a principle that applies only to a sovereign state. That is the whole point that is at issue in this case. No one for a moment suggests that any power other than the entity called Canada can deal with international problems. A province is not Canada. The name of the province is Ontario or Quebec or Nova Scotia or New Brunswick as the case may be; but the federal entity which comprises the territory of those provinces and which has exclusive power conferred upon it by section 91 is the Dominion of Canada, and it alone has power to deal with international problems. No one has questioned or will question that. The question is whether or not this Dominion, created by an imperial statute, has power, having regard to the exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon the provinces, to sanction a treaty made between Great Britain and a foreign state, which treaty in its terms does not apply to this country except as sanctioned by parliament, and thereby deprive the legislatures of their constitutional powers which are exclusive with respect to many matters that are mentioned in that treaty. That is the problem to which I direct attention, that a.nd none other. I am not expressing beyond the casual arguments that occur to me any considered and careful opinion, because I have not had the time to look up the authorities, and I am speaking solely from memory with respect to them, but with respect to the last authority I have very peculiar knowledge, and if it follows the Tennant and the Union bank principle, that any community which is not a sovereign state may negotiate a treaty the effect of which is to deprive one of the component provinces which has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matters therein mentioned of the powers' conferred upon it, that is a problem not yet settled, and I submit it to thegcommittee for the purpose of engaging the attention of the law officers of the crown.


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

Convention with Czechoslovakia

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 202, respecting a certain trade convention between His Majesty and the President of the Czechoslovak republic.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
James Alexander Robb: I might explain to the committee that Czechoslovakia had in 1921 a population of 13,613,000. It is one of the most self-supporting countries of Europe, being rich in coal and other minerals, and well forested and well developed agriculturally. The republic contains over seventy-five per cent of the manufacturing industries of the former Austria-Hungary empire. The republic is an extensive importer of bread grains, edible fats, coffee, tea and other luxury foodstuffs, agricultural implements, automobiles, and tires.
In December, 1926, a temporary agreement wa3 made between Canada and Czechoslovakia whereby, on the main items of export from Canada, most favoured nation treatment was given, we in exchange granting Czechoslovakia the benefits of the intermediate tariff. This agreement was made for a term of fifteen months with the understanding that a further discussion looking to a permanent treaty would take place in the interval. These negotiations have now been completed, and the agreement now submitted calls for the mutual exchange of mostfavoured-nation treatment.
The principal imports from Czechoslovakia are-I will give round figures only:
Glass and glassware	$403,000
Tableware of china	 313,000
Jewellry	 121,000
Cotton manufactures	 79,000
Worsted, serges, etc	 74,000
Hops	 63,000
Flax, hemp and jutes	 52,000
Other wool, and manufactures
thereof	 51,000


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the total?


James Alexander Robb: The total imports for 1926
amounted to $1,272,000, and for 1927 to $1,726,000.


James Dew Chaplin: That is for the fiscal
year?


James Alexander Robb: I imagine so. The records of
both countries are incomplete due to the fact that Czechoslovakia is an inland country and the larger part of her imports pass through 56103-1314
the free port of Hamburg. For that reason the major part of our exports to that country appear in the Germany statement. Flour is our chief item of export. The Canadian trade commissioner at Hamburg, Mr. Wil-gress, in a report to his department, states:
Last year more Canadian flour was sold in Czechoslovakia that in'any other country except the United Kingdom. This market is therefore of great importance to the Canadian flourmilling industry.
A few weeks after the signing of the present convention, a representative of the republic in Montreal, Mr. Kveton, in an interview stated:
From the total imports of 2,531,287 barrels of wheat flour in the calendar year 1926, according to the Czechoslovakia statistical returns, 1,021,248 barrels, valued at 8,699,340, originated in North America. The Canadian ratio, 70 per cent, would be 714,873 barrels, worth $6,089,538, at the Czechoslovakia frontier. These figures include only imports designated in the returns as coming from Canada, Hamburg and the United^ States, without even taking into consideration that probably a part of the imports credited to Germany and to the port of Trieste, 15,757 barrels is of North American origin.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What was the price of
this flour per barrel of 196 pounds?


James Alexander Robb: I gave the customs export
price; that would be the f.o.b. price, probably.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Per barrel?


James Alexander Robb: I think so.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Per barrel?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was in bags, was it
not?


James Alexander Robb: I do not know whether it was in bags or wood. The estimated figure at the Canadian port is $6.50 per barrel.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the minister intend
to go through this treaty clause by clause?


James Alexander Robb: Whatever the house desires.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Otherwise I should like
to ask one or two questions.


James Dew Chaplin: Before the minister leaves the subject that we have been considering, will he tell us what are the other exports?


James Alexander Robb: The memorandum which I
have applied to exports direct from our own ports:
Rubber tires, $122,428.
Canned lobster, $10,825.
Rags, $22,688.
Wood, unmanufactured, $2,351.
I cannot think what that is.
Farm implements and machinery, $2,892.
Adding and calculating machines, $21,763.
Automobiles and parts, $337.

Convention with Czechoslovakia
There must be an error there.
Settlers' effects, $300.
All other articles, $3,993.
As I have pointed out before, these figures cannot be correct, because much of this trade has been distributed through the free port of Hamburg. The conditions of the treaty are that the trade shall go through that port.


James Dew Chaplin: At the end of the year
will the minister be able to determine what business we are doing with Czechoslovakia?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. Under the new statistical arrangement we hope to be able to determine what trade is going through there.


Mr. CLARK:: Is it not a fact that last
year there was almost a complete failure of wheat shipments from Odessa to Czechoslovakia and these other countries?


James Alexander Robb: I cannot answer my hon.
friend. I know that our Canadian millers who have representatives over there have urged the government very strongly to negotiate this treaty, and have found fault with us because we were making haste rather slowly.


John Arthur Clark: I understand that. But can the minister give us the comparative shipments of wheat and flour to Czechoslovakia covering a period of two or three years?


James Alexander Robb: I cannot give such figures.


John Arthur Clark: I think it is really worth
looking into. My understanding is that last year there was an almost complete failure of shipments from Odessa, and that Canada consequently sent a much greater quantity of wheat and flour to these countries.


James Alexander Robb: Of course, that applies to our trade with all the world. Everyone knows that the wheat coming out of Russia has been comparatively limited within recent years. No one can tell when Russia will again be a factor in the export market.


John Arthur Clark: I am trying to get at the
reason for the treaty that relates chiefly to wheat and wheat products. Because of that very fact Russia will be in a position to compete with Canada in that particular market on a much more favourable basis.


Mr. KELLNER:: What are the duties
Czechoslavokia is now charging on Canadian wheat, and what will be the duties if this agreement is made effective?


James Alexander Robb: The duties under the general tariff are based on the kronen, which equals 2.96 cents-not quite three cents. These are the figures:

Commodity-General tariff-Treaty rate-
Wheat; 60 kronen; 30 kronen.
Wheat flour; 120 kronen; 70 kronen.
Apples; 200 kronen; 80 kronen.
Grass seeds; 300 kronen; 180 kronen.
Fish and seal blubber; 15-144; free.
Vegetable tallow; 15 kronen; free.
Fish, other than herrings, 270 kronen; free; Fish, other than herrings, smoked, 270 kronen; 180 kronen.
Canned fish; 1,200 kronen; 360-600 kronen.


James Dew Chaplin: Is the Czechoslovakian a fixed tariff, or is it on a minimum scale and subject to change like the French tariff?


James Alexander Robb: We get their minimum and we give them ours.


James Dew Chaplin: But we do not change our tariff. If their tariff is similar to the French tariff they will have a big advantage over us.


James Alexander Robb: My protectionist friends will be glad to have the admission that ours is a stationary tariff. I recollect that not long ago my hon. friend argued that we had reduced our tariff.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister cannot get away with that. He knows that on a large line of commodities under the French treaty our rates are fixed and must continue so as long as the French treaty remains on our statute books. This is a repetition of the French treaty as far as goods from Czechoslovakia to this country are concerned.


James Alexander Robb: 
James Dew Chaplin: We like to hear that, and it is evidently due to the quality of the goods they are getting and has nothing to do with what the government has done.


James Alexander Robb: I am willing to give credit
to the quality of the goods.


James Dew Chaplin: That is only a little red
herring drawn across the trail so far as the question I asked is concerned.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The question asked by
my hon. friend (Mr. Chaplin'1 is a pertinent one which should receive some consideration. This country entered into a trade agreement with France, giving France a fixed tariff. The items were enumerated and the duties fixed, and in return France gave us a sort of omnibus right to certain rates of duty which may be, and which in fact have been, changed very frequently. Now this treaty with Czechoslovakia by its general terms gives to that country the same specific duties that France gets on these articles enumerated in the French treaty; and after all, the articles of export from France are very similar in type to articles which we may expect to import from Czechoslovakia. In return we simply get the general clause extending what is known as most favoured nation treatment. It is the usual clause. That is the point raised by my hon. friend from Lincoln. The minister very adroitly quotes an expression of opinion regarding the importation of flour-an opinion from the American Department of Trade and Commerce. Well, I think it is a very fitting occasion upon which to compliment the Canadian millers upon their enterprise and their trade ability. But that is no answer to the point raised. It seems to me an opportune moment for the committee to consider whether or not the terms of the French treaty have been to the advantage of Canada and whether the extension of those terms is entirely in Canada's interest, or at any rate in the interest of this country to the same degree as it is advantageous to those with whom we are trading. I submit we ought to have an expression from the minister, a justification, if I may say so, of the French treaty which is now applicable to this treaty.


James Alexander Robb: I have no great quarrel with
my hon. friend's statement regarding parts of the French treaty, but I am not now discussing the French treaty. We are discussing this treaty which has been made with Czechoslovakia under which Canada gives to that country her most-favoured nation clause, receiving the same in return.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Including the French
treaty-that is the point.


James Alexander Robb: There is nothing to prevent
this parliament from increasing the rates against France, with the exception of a very few items.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely!


James Alexander Robb: If the people of Canada determine upon such a policy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then you would have
to abrogate the treaty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is not correct; you cannot change the items without abrogating the treaty, giving notice to that effect. I would point out that the minister has imported the French treaty into this one. That is the point. The minister says he does not want to discuss the French treaty, but he must do so if he is to give a fair indication of the application of this treaty. That is what we complain of. Our hands are tied; we are bound to certain terms with Czechoslovakia until we denounce the French treaty. I say, we find ourselves in a humiliating position as a result of the French treaty, which was one of the minister's pet babies.


James Alexander Robb: Oh, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, yes.


James Alexander Robb: I will not take any credit for the French treaty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: W7ell, the minister adopted the babjr with a good deal of pride.


James Alexander Robb: I will admit adoption.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister thought at first it would be a lusty child and would reflect credit upon him, but in recent years he has been inclined to repudiate it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is somewhat anaemic.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, it has become a little anaemic. The point is that the French treaty has been imported into this one; it is embodied in this treaty. Someone asks me to read the section involved. It is article 4:
It is understood that in all matters governing the import, export and transit of merchandise Czechoslovakia grants to Canada and Canada grants to Czechoslovakia the treatment of the most favoured nation.
That clause, the minister says, includes a few articles; as a matter of fact it is a very

Convention with Czechoslovakia
long and important list of articles incorporated in the French treaty. Perhaps the minister will tell me whether it includes the West India agreement?


James Alexander Robb: That is British.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not included?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The question is asked- why?


James Alexander Robb: It is a British country; you will notice the words " any foreign country ".


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not in this particular
article. There is another article referring to foreign countries, but the article I have just read is clear: we simply grant the mostfavoured-nation treatment. Does that include the West Indies?


James Alexander Robb: See article one of the schedule.


Henry Herbert Stevens: True, article one provides that " articles the produce or manufacture of Canada imported into Czechoslovakia " and vice versa shall not be subjected to other or higher duties or charges than those paid on like articles the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country. That is clear. But I have called the attention of the minister to article 4, which I have fully quoted, and I want to know whether the treatment we accord to the West Indies applies in this case.


James Alexander Robb: That is the language in all
treaties. It might have been made clearer had it specifically mentioned foreign countries, but the intention is fully understood. They quite understand it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But in the practical application of it, according to my understanding of the matter, Czechoslovakia will claim to come under the treatment extended to the West Indies, say, or to Australia or to South Africa.


James Alexander Robb: No; it is exactly the same as in the agreements with Italy and Belgium. They have never made such a claim and we would not admit it. They quite understand it. They understand it in all these negotiations.


Henry Herbert Stevens: So long as we understand it clearly-


James Alexander Robb: It is clearly understood.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I come back to this question: The French treaty will be applicable to this treaty with Czechoslovakia?
TMr. Stevens.]


James Alexander Robb: It will, in respect of a limited number of articles. Perhaps I might just as well put those articles on record now:
Canned meats, canned poultry and game; extracts of meats and fluid beef, not medicated, and soups of all kinds: 20 per cent.
Trees: apple, cherry, peach, pear, plum, and .quince of all kinds and small peach trees known as June buds: each, 2 cents. Grape vines, gooseberry, raspberry, currant and rose bushes, fruit plants, n.o.p.; trees, plants and shrubs commonly known as nursery stock, n.o.p.: 15 per cent.
Vegetables, _ tomatoes excepted, including baked beans, in cans, or other air-tight packages, n.o.p., the weight of the cans or other packages to be included in the weight for duty; per pound, 1 cent.
Fruits in air-tight cans, or other air-tight packages, n.o.p., the weight of the cans or other packages to be included in the weight for duty; per pound, 2 cents.
Anchovies, sardines, sprats and other fish, packed in oil or otherwise, in tin boxes, the weight of the tin box to be included in the weight for duty:
(a)	When weighing over 20 ounces and not over 36 ounces each, per box, 4 cents.
(b)	When weighing over 12 ounces and not over 20 ounces each, per box, 3 cents.
(c)	When weighing over 8 ounces and not over 12 ounces each, per box, 2J cents.
(d)	When weighing 8 ounces each or less, per box, 2 cents.
Alcoholic perfumes and perfumed spirits, bay rum, cologne and lavender waters, hair, tooth and skin washes, and other toilet preparations containing spirits of any kind:
(a)	When in bottles or flasks containing not more than 4 ounces each; 75 per cent.
Medicinal or medicated wines, including vermouth and ginger wine, containing not more than 40 per cent of proof spirit; 70 per cent.
Wines of the fresh grape of all kinds, not sparkling, imported in barrels or in bottles:
(a)	Containing 20 per cent or less proof spirit; per gallon, 15 cents.
(b)	Containing more than 20 per cent and not more than 23 per cent proof spirit; per gallon, 20 cents.
(c)	Containing more than 20 per cent and not more than 26 per cent of proof spirit; per gallon, 25 per cent.
(d)	Containing more than 26 per cent proof spirit until strength reaches 40 per cent of proof spirit; per gallon, 55 cents.
And in addition thereto for each degree of strength in excess of 26 per cent of proof spirit until the strength reaches 40 per cent of proof spirit; 3 cents.
Provided that 6 quart bottles, or 12 pint bottles, shall be held to contain a gallon for duty purposes under this item.
Books: Novels or works of fiction, or literature of a similar character, unbound or paper bound or in sheets, but not to include Christmas annuals, or publications, commonly known as juvenile and toy books; 15 per cent.
Advertising and printed matter: Advertising pamphlets, advertising show cards, illustrated advertising periodicals, price books, catalogues and price lists; advertising almanacs and calendars, patent medicine or other advertising circulars. fly sheets, or pamphlets; advertising ehromos. chromotypes, oleographs, or like work produced by any process other than handpainting or drawing, and having any advertisement

Convention with Czechoslovakia
or advertising matter printed, lithographed or stamped thereon, or attached thereto, including advertising hills, folders and posters, or other similar artistic work, lithographed, printed or stamped on paper or cardboard for business or advertisement purposes, n.o.p.; per pound, 121 cents.
Printed music, bound or in sheets, and music for mechanical piano players; 5 per cent.
All medicinal, chemical and pharmaceutical preparations, compounded of more than one substance, including patent and proprietary preparations, tinctures, pills, powders, troches, lozenges, syrups, cordials, bitters, anodynes, tonics, plasters, liniments, salves, ointments, pastes, drops, waters, essences and oils, n.o.p.:
(a)	When dry, 22| per cent.
(b)	Liquid, when containing not more than 21 per cent of proof spirit, 30 per cent.
Provided that drugs, pill-mass and preparations, not including pills or medicinal plasters, recognized by the British or the United States pharmacopoeia, or the French Codex as officinal, shall not be held to be covered by this item.
Perfumery, including toilet preparations, nonalcoholic, namely:-hair oils, tooth and other powders and washes, pomatums, pastes and all other perfumed preparations, n.o.p., used for the hair, mouth or skin; 25 per cent.
Olive oil, n.o.p.; 15 per cent.
Essential oils, n.o.p.:; including bay oil, otto of limes and peppermint oil; 5 per cent.
Tableware of china, porcelain, white granite ' or ironstone; 20 per cent.
Locomotives and motor cars, for railways and tramways and automobiles and motor vehicles of all kinds: 25 per cent.
White and cream coloured lace and embrod-eries. of cotton or linen; 15 per cent.
Knitted undershirts, knitted drawers and knitted goods, n.o.p.; 25 per cent.
Church vestments of any material; 15 per cent.
Embroideries, n.o.p.; lace, n.o.p.; braids, n.o.p.; tapes of cotton or linen not over one and one-quarter inches in. width, not including measuring tape lines; fringes, n.o.p.; cords; elastic, round or flat; garter elastic; tassels; handkerchiefs of all kinds; lace collars and all manufactures of lace; nets and nettings of cotton, linen, silk and other material, n.o.p.; shams and curtains, when made up, trimmed or untrimmed; 27i per cent.
Velvets, velveteens, silk velvets and plush not over twenty four inches in width; 20 per cent.
Silk fabrics not over twenty-six inches in width: 20 per cent.
Ribbons of all kinds and materials; 25 per cent.
Manufactures of silk or of which silk is the component part of chief value, n.o.p.; 30 per cent.
Fur skins, wholly or partially dressed, n.o.p.; 12J per cent.
Rubber cement and all manufactures of india-rubber and gutta percha, n.o.p.; 20 per cent.
Gloves and mitts, of all kinds; 25 per cent.
Feathers and manufactures of feathers, n.o.p.; artificial feathers, fruits; grains, leaves and flowers suitable for ornamenting hats; 22J per cent.
Cinematograph or moving picture films, positives, one and one-eighth of an inch in width and over, per linear foot; 1| cent.
That covers the list of fixed items.


James Dew Chaplin: I think there are two
more lists which I would like read.


James Alexander Robb: Those are not fixed; we can change them at any time.


James Dew Chaplin: Under those other lists
France is receiving a further discount over and above the special rate. They receive that discount on canned goods, and those lists have not been read.


James Alexander Robb: I quoted those.


James Dew Chaplin: I did not hear anything
about canned tomatoes.


James Alexander Robb: Tomatoes are excepted. I read the item, and I recall that tomatoes are excepted.


James Dew Chaplin: There is a line of goods on which France gets a special discount of 10 per cent or 15 per cent below the regular duty.


James Alexander Robb: That may be, but there is
nothing to prevent parliament from changing those rates if the people of Canada determine that they wish to do so.


James Dew Chaplin: And on the other hand
there is nothing to prevent this parliament from wiping out the whole French treaty. I assume that Czechoslovakia will receive the same advantages on these special lines of goods as France receives, and those goods should be enumerated now.


James Alexander Robb: Not necessarily.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am afraid the minister
does not get our point.


James Alexander Robb: So long as we admit that we
give Czechoslovakia whatever we give France, why encumber the act with a list of these items?


James Dew Chaplin: On that basis the minister need not have read this list at all.


James Alexander Robb: I read those items particularly to show the duty. There are people throughout this country who will argue that that is not a low rate of duty.


James Dew Chaplin: It is not a low rate of
duty on liquor; quite the opposite. On the other hand, however, the rate of duty on goods coming to this country from France is lower in some instances than the duty on the same goods entering France, in some cases to the extent of 10 per cent. Take automobiles, for example; when that treaty was made our duty on automobiles was 35 per cent, but this treaty only calls for a duty of 25 per cent on automobiles coming from France. That is an illustration, and the same thing applies to canned vegetables.

Convention with Czechoslovakia


James Alexander Robb: Last summer I discussed with the Minister of Trade for France the desire of Canada to revise the French treaty.


James Dew Chaplin: I am glad of that.


James Alexander Robb: I pointed out to him as
emphatically as I could that on three different occasions since this treaty was made France has increased her tariffs against our products.


Richard Bedford Bennett: She has done so on one
further occasion since this house met.


James Alexander Robb: At that time they were negotiating an agreement with Germany and the French minister said they did not care to enter into a discussion with Canada until the negotiations were completed. The agreement with Germany was completed and my hon. friends will recall the United States raised some objection to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


James Alexander Robb: Our representative in Paris,
Mr. Roy, reached an understanding with France that whatever concessions France gave to the United States, in order to meet the objections of the latter country to the treaty with Germany, would be accorded also to Canada, and they made some reductions at that time. Now Mr. Roy is awaiting a favourable opportunity to take the matter up with France. That opportunity does not exist at the present time because for the last few months France has been busy getting ready for a general election, but we propose to take up with the French government during this summer the question of the revision of the treaty.


James Dew Chaplin: In our agreement with
France there is a clause to the effect that any concession granted to the United States shall be applicable to Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister has
misapprehended part of the criticism. The point is this: We negotiated a treaty with Australia. We have no treaty with New Zealand but by virtue of the terms of the treaty between Australia and Canada, New Zealand was able to take advantage of its provisions through an order in council. In the case of the French treaty we have the same situation. In that treaty there are some items which are covered by specific duties and we may not increase those duties without abrogating the treaty, whereas France has three times increased her duties, and once since this house met an increase of duties became applicable against Canada. On the other hand we are unable to increase any of our duties without abrogating the treaty. The

same sort of thing has happened in the case of Australia. Australia has changed her duties since we negotiated a treaty with her, but we are unable to change our duties without abrogating the treaty.


James Alexander Robb: We could change ours.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only by abrogating the
treaty.


James Alexander Robb: Not necessarily.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be the effect of it.


James Dew Chaplin: You could not take the
duty off raisins.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not without abrogating
the treaty; I think the minister will remember that not long since we brought to his attention the fact that if, for instance, this parliament sought to change the duty on raisins-


James Dew Chaplin: Or the duty on butter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -or the duty on butter or eggs, it could only 'be done by abrogating the treaty; whereas for some strange reason Australia has constantly been dealing with its [DOT] treaty without regard to us or the effects upon our trade relations. The favoured nation clause has sometimes had very far reaching consequences, and the effect is to make the question of the negotiations of new treaties very difficult. You give certain nations mostfavoured-nation treatment and under a treaty such as this Great Britain is treated as a foreign country. I ask the minister if Great Britain is not treated as a foreign country.


James Alexander Robb: British.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister says " British." but there is nothing in the treaty which so indicates. One of the difficulties I had was in relation to the first paragraph, which refers to foreign countries. Then in the fourth paragraph you say that Czechoslovakia shall enjoy most-favoured-nation treatment. That is a short way of putting it. With respect to this treaty as far as Czechoslovakia is concerned is not Australia to be a foreign country?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why?
Mr.' ROBB: Because Australia is a British country and is recognized as such.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there is nothing in
the terms of the treaty that defines it as such. My hon. friend beside me (Mr. Stevens) makes it perfectly clear that there are two parties to this contract-Czechoslovakia and Canada. So far as Canada is concerned it is

Convention with Czechoslovakia
a foreign country to Czechoslovakia and Czechoslovakia is a foreign country to us. Australia is a foreign country to Czechoslovakia and we have said that we will give the mosGfavoured-nation treatment to Czechoslovakia that we give to any other country. Therefore if we give to Australia, or even to Great Britain, a preference over other communities, Czechoslovakia has a right to ask for it. There does not seem to be any answer to that. They are both regarded as foreign countries, and there is nothing in the treaty which makes it clear it shall bind only those countries that are not portions of the British Empire. There is no good arguing that the question of foreign countries has nothing to do with it at all. Having covenanted under an agreement or treaty to give most-favoured treatment to Czechoslovakia, have we not thereby bound ourselves to give to that country the game treatment that we give to any other country, that country being, so far as Czechoslovakia is concerned, a foreign country. Is not that the difficulty?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is a good
lawyer and I am not going to be drawn into a discussion of legal technicalties. But if my hon. friend is right, every country with which we have entered into treaties since the British preference was granted in 1897 could have claimed the benefit of that preference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Alexander Robb: Yes. If my hon. friend's
argument is right, Great Britain is a foreign country just as much as Australia and those other countries could have come in and claimed the benefits of the preference. But no country has ever sought to set up such a claim. The same language which appears in this case with respect to most favoured nation treatment appears also in our agreement with Italy, with Belguim and with the Netherlands. These countries quite understand the situation. I think I have made myself clear on that point. Now as to the agreement with Australia and New Zealand the facts are these, and my hon. friend will admit that it takes two to make a bargain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sometime three.


James Alexander Robb: We urged certain points very
strongly upon Australia. That was done not only by the government that made the treaty in 1922 but by mostly every other government which has held office ever since the time of Sir John A. Macdonald. It was urged by Sir Mackenzie Bowell, who made a special trip down there, and it was urged by Sir George Foster and others in an attempt to
negotiate an agreement with Australia. We always put up to Australia the broad principle of preference for preference. We would give her our full British preference, if she would give it to us, but Australia was not willing to make that sort of arrangement. We gave them the concession that now exists on dairy products. That is what my hon. friend is particularly referring to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned raisins.


James Alexander Robb: Of course the raisins do not
come in. Just about that time the people of New Zealand were complaining bitterly that they would have to cancel their trade agreement with Canada because we had the big end of the bargain. They said: We are buying everything from you and selling you nothing. We thought it only fair that the sister dominion of New Zealand should have the same advantage as Australia, and we gave that voluntarily by order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Can it be abrogated by
order in council?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: [DOT] With respect to New Zealand only?


James Alexander Robb: We can cancel the agreement with Australia if we so desire, but I submit this to my hon. friend, and I should like to have their judgment on it-whether they think it is wise to cancel the agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One is an order in
council.


James Alexander Robb: Our imports and exports in
regard to New Zealand are as follows:
^ ear	Imports	Exports1922	
$1,783,500	$ 4.131,1311927	
4,576,842	13,538,513


Richard Bedford Bennett: About the same ratio
in the two years.


James Alexander Robb: In regard to Australia the
figures are as follows:
Year	Imports	Exports1922	
$1,079,324	$10,687,4841927	
6,296,197	18,965,881
I should like to be advised by my hon. friends if they think it is a good idea to cancel a bargain of that kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is one
of the cleverest persons in this house in dodging away from a point at issue. We are not discussing whether the Australian treaty is good or bad.


James Alexander Robb: I did not raise the question
of the Australian treaty.

Convention with Czechoslovakia


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know, but we are asking simply this: Does Czechoslovakia, under this treaty now before the committee, secure the privileges that Australia enjoys under her agreement with us?


James Alexander Robb: Absolutely no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very good. I will leave
the Australian treaty alone, but the minister will admit that Czechoslovakia will enjoy the full privileges that Trance enjoys under her treaty with Canada.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, while it is in force.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Turthermore, we cannot
change the French treaty except by agreement with them or by abrogating the treaty; the rates are fixed definitely.


James Alexander Robb: On certain limited articles.


Henry Herbert Stevens: On a list of articles part
of which was read.


James Alexander Robb: All of which was read.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. The minister will
pardon me. He read a list, but there are two other schedules providing for certain discounts, the details of which I certainly cannot carry in mind, and which provide for very favoured treatment with France.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, but we can change them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but the point I am
making is that that applies to Czechoslovakia. Am I right in that?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Again I come to the argument that in this treaty with Czechoslovakia we are giving a great deal more than on the surface we appear to be giving, and I state to the minister-and I think I carry with me the judgment of a good many members of the house-that the treaty with France in the form in which we entered into it was an improvident treaty so far as Canada was concerned: that the benefits from it have not accrued to Canada in the same degree as they have to France. Therefore I argue that this treaty with Czechoslovakia is not a wise one because it carries into effect the same objectionable features that apply to the French treaty. By the way the minister bitterly criticised us, and especially the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), who analysed the French treaty very effectively, when we drew his attention at the time of the ratification of that treaty in this house to the possible or likely effect. Now we have an admission from the minister that he has asked the French government to agree to a
fMr. Robb.]
modification of that treaty. That is obviously an admission that the hon. member for Lincoln and others of us who took the same view were correct in 1922 when we criticized and warned the minister and the government against entering into the treaty in its then form. So we say to him now that it would have been better to make some reservation in this treaty as regards that list in the French treaty until we had cleaned the situation up. If we do not, while I am not in a position to go into technicalities, I call his attention to the fact that in the French treaty we admit silks under a very wide, sweeping clause, at a low rate of duty. We have recently spent a great deal of time reforming or remodelling our silk schedule in the Canadian tariff, but the silk schedule of the Canadian tariff will not apply to Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia will come under the French treaty special silk description, just read by the minister, in terms something like this: silk, not wider than twenty-six inches, fabrics of all kinds, so much. That is a sweeping, general description that will take in almost any class of silk. Canada with its young industry of artificial silk, for instance, which is competing with genuine silk fabrics, will find that such imports will seriously affect Canadian manufacturers, and it is not fair to this young and growing industry that it should be subjected to still further competition of this kind. If the treaty was made specific in its terms so that the people of Canada would know what was being done, the thing would not be so bad, but there is nothing specified except these omnibus clauses. That is why we have some apprehension as to the likely effect of this treaty, just as we had in 1922 when we warned the minister in regard to the French treaty, which he now admits he is endeavouring to modify after some five years of experience.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister a few minutes ago told us, in respect to the special discounts of the tariff items that had been given to France, that we could change the duties. Does the minister now tell us that he can cancel those special discounts of 10 per cent and 15 per cent that he allowed France over and above the regular tariff?


James Alexander Robb: No. I say that we can
change the duty.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister means that
he can go back and change the original duty but he cannot change the individual items of 10 per cent and 15 per cent discount that he allowed France. Certainly he cannot. Therefore, owing to the fact that we have giver

Convention with Czechoslovakia
France that extra list of goods on which they can get this special tariff, Czechoslovakia will have the same privilege and those items should also be read. The minister further says that he'is not quite satisfied with the French treaty; he has said that in just so many words, and ho has asked the French government to make certain changes. Why? Because France deliberately raised the minimum tariff two or three times after the treaty was made whereas we were bound in regard to many lines to keep our tariff stationary. The result has been, as we all know, that hundreds of lines of goods that we formerly sold France are wiped off the schedule to-day, and we are now down to bare raw material and a few manufacturing goods, notably rubber and some agricultural implements with which we can supply France. Apart from that, there is nothing but raw materials that we are supplying to France, and I think the minister will agree with me. That is one reason why I would like to see the French treaty readjusted. The Minister of Finance has already put on the statute book treaties with other nations which are based upon the French treaty, and this is another of them. Now I ask him what chance on earth has he of being able to readjust the treaty with France when five or six other treaties are based on the French treaty? The thing looks to me to be ridiculous, and the more treaties you base upon the French treaty, the harder it will be to get the French treaty readjusted.


James Alexander Robb: Surely my hon. friend is not
arguing that we should not put this treaty through. Czechoslovakia is buying a little more from Canada than we are buying from them, and why not give a good customer of this country the advantages of this agreement? That seems to me common sense.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is only begging the
question. Our argument is that under the French treaty, Canada is not getting a square deal, to use plain, every-day language. The minister admits that. France has four times amended her tariff, but our tariff is fixed by the agreement, and it cannot be changed except by abrogation or with the permission of France. That is the position in a nutshell. We are now walking blindfold into a similiar position with Czechoslovakia. I am not going to criticize the Czechoslovakia government for a moment. They will probably treat us fairly, but they can, if they wish, do as they like with their tariff, and we shall be bound to Czechoslovakia to the extent of the French treaty without the possibility of amendment, unless we amend our treaty with another country. The thing is absurd.
What we complain of, and what we complained of in 1922, when the French treaty was up for ratification, is that it was improvident unfair to Canadian trade and Canadian in dustries-obviously unfair. We warned the government then, but they insisted on putting the treaty through. They realize now that they made a mistake then, but they cannot amend that treaty without breaking up the whole trade agreement with France. With that experience before us, we are here being asked to go with our hands tied into an agreement with another country. So far as I am concerned-I am speaking for myself because I have not consulted my colleagues on this particular point-I would abrogate the French treaty to-morrow unless we could get an amendment to it that will be wholly satisfactory. I would not rest under what the minister cited as quite an accomplishment for Mr. Roy, that we shall receive whatever privileges are granted to the United States. I want to see Canada stand on its own pins in dealing with France, and to get a square deal, because we are entitled to it, instead of depending upon the United States, which by the weight of its influence may get certain advantages, which then we may get. I do not care a snap of my finger what they give to the United States, and I say that at the earliest possible date we should either abrogate this French treaty or have it re-adjusted so that it is made fair to Canadian trade.
I want to deal with the clause in the French treaty which the minister has not seen fit to include in his recital. The point which my hon. friend from Lincoln made, and made effectively, and in a manner I think that merits the consideration of this committee, is that other considerations besides these specific duties have been given to the French nation which now will accrue to Czechoslovakia, and which are a disadvantage to Canadian trade. I think there is not a member of the government but would admit, if he were frank with this committee, that we ought to change or abrogate the French treaty -perhaps not abrogate; they might hesitate to do that because they do not wish to have an open commercial breach with France. Neither do I, but they would change the treaty if they had the power to do so, but they cannot change it without the consent of France. Under the French treaty, schedule. E provides for intermediate tariff rates less a discount of 10 per cent of the amount of duty on certain articles entering Canada, mentioned in article 10; and schedule F provides for intermediate tariff rates less a discount of 15 per cent on the amount of duty

Convention with Czechoslovakia
on certain articles entering Canada, mentioned in article 11. All other articles from France enter Canada at intermediate tariff rates. The point we are making is that apart from the schedule of fixed rates, there is a large number of other items coming in at intermediate tariff rates and on which a discount of 10 and 15 per cent is given, and these rates we are now proposing to give to Czechoslovalda. I venture to say that outside perhaps of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance, and a few others who have given a close study to this subject, there is not a member of this house who understands the extent of the application of this treaty which we are being asked to pass to-day, and what I submit we ought to do is to take up our own tariff schedules item by item, and see just what the effect of this treaty will be.
I again draw the attention of the government to this fact. We had two schedules before on silk alone, and we spent hours and hours in this committee, and the tariff board, we were informed, also spent days and possibly weeks remodelling the silk schedules of the Canadian tariff for the purpose, 1 presume, of intelligent administration of that particular schedule. But this treaty wipes all that work out of existence; the silk schedule is wiped out so far as Czechoslovakia is concerned, and the treaty simply says that Czechoslovakia will export her silk to Canada under the French treaty rates, and the French treaty says simply "fabrics from silk up to 26 inches, so much."-just one sweeping item covering a dozen technical expressions that we have recently laboured over. Either this work that we have recently done is a joke, or else we should bring Czechoslovakia under the terms of that new schedule.
What I suggest to the minister is this, that in this treaty and in the case of every other treaty, we should exempt the specific French schedules. Let their goods come in under the most favoured nation clause, yes, where there is general treatment of those countries under our tariff laws; where we have the lowest tariff or the intermediate tariff or any other tariff, let us give it to these people, but when you include as you are doing here, the French specific schedules, I am opposed to that absolutely.


Mr. KAISER:: The expression is frequently used in this bill, "any other foreign country.." While we readily understand that Australia, New Zealand and the West Indies are not foreign countries, this might not be the view of the statesmen of Czechoslavokia. What objection would there be to changing the words to "any other than a British country?"


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will observe that this agreement has been signed and submitted to the Czechoslovakian parliament; consequently we cannot change one word. But my hon. friend is in error in believing that the statesmen of other countries place upon the most favoured nation clause the interpretation which he has just given. It has been made perfectly clear to their representatives, and there is no misapprehension on their part as to what is meant. As to the argument of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre with respect to the lower rates of duty accorded to Czechoslovakia by virtue of the French agreement, I have not any quarrel with his argument. All he has done recently has been to tell the people of Canada who sometimes complain that this government have not reduced duties to the extent expected-and I am talking more particularly of the people who support this government- that by our trade agreements with other countries we have materially reduced the customs duties on goods coming into this country. I am not backing away from that point. We have materially reduced the duties. When our friends quote the general tariff as the measure of protection, they are all wrong. The duties on most of the items imported are based on the British preference or on the trade agreements which we have made with other countries, and we have exposed our own industries-I admit it frankly-to keen competition with other countries throughout the world. That is the policy of the government and the policy of the Canadian people as determined at the polls. Just as soon as they decide for a higher tariff they will elect my hon. friends opposite to office.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Again the minister has wandered off into a side issue. He has not attempted to answer our contention that we are introducing into this treaty the full force and effect of the French treaty, which, according to his own statement, the government is desirous of amending.


James Alexander Robb: Revising.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now I say to him, exclude the French treaty from this agreement. Then we will have something.


Mr. MALCOLM:: My hon. friend from
Vancouver Centre is altogether wrong in his interpretation of what the Minister of Finance pointed out. My colleague is not complaining of the preferential rates of duty given under the French treaty; he is complaining of the treatment France is according to our exports. There is no doubt that under the French treaty ninety-two articles get 10 per cent under the intermediate tariff, fifteen get 15

Convention with Czechoslovakia
per cent, and thirty-one have a fixed rate of duty. That is admitted. Those same rates of duty will apply to Czechoslovakia under the terms of this convention. But my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) is mistaken when he says that every other trade treaty we may enter into will be dependent on the terms of the French treaty. The fact remains, however, that if by rearrangement with France those terms are removed from the French treaty, then also they are automatically removed from all our other trade treaties.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the meantime they remain.


James Malcolm: Yes, until some rearrangement is made with France.


James Dew Chaplin: I never made any such
statement as the minister attributes to me. I said then, and I repeat it now, that while you retain the French agreement as you have it to-day, what is the use bringing the other countries under the French arrangement? You are only making things worse by negotiating similar arrangements. If we make such a rearrangement with France as the minister suggests, the other countries with which we have trade agreements will accuse us of bad faith. Would it not be better to tell them now that we intend to change the French treaty, if that is the government's intention? We have heard it mooted around the house for some time, but you have not the nerve to do what you want to do. That is where the trouble is.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Extension of advantage to the Czechoslovak republic.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This deals with the most
favourable terms granted to any foreign power, and is recited in the schedule containing the treaty. Why is it inserted in the bill?


James Alexander Robb: It is the language drafted by the law officers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it in the Italian treaty? I do not think it is in the other bills.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, in the convention with
Italy the same language occurs.
Section 4 agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On the schedule.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were the plenipotentiaries appointed by His Majesty or by the Governor General?
Mr. MACKENZIE	KING:	By His
Majesty on the recommendation of the Canadian government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In article 5 of the agreement set out in the schedule I find the following words:
To enjoy the benefit of the tariff advantages provided for in the foregoing articles, without prejudice to the stipulations of article 4,
and so on. That is a broad general article to which I and others have referred several times. Why are those words inserted there?


James Alexander Robb: It might change the conditions under which goods go through another country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The clause provides that Czechoslovakia may have a port in a foreign country recognized if she has no port of her own. I understand that. But leaving that out of the question, why are the words " without prejudice to the stipulations of article 4 " inserted in this particular article? My own opinion is that they could be left out without affecting the meaning of the clause, and their very presence indicates that there is something sacred about article 4, which is the article upon which we have based some of our criticism.


James Alexander Robb: They insist that they desire
that concession. It was considered by the Justice department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has not apprehended the point. " Without prejudice to the stipulations of article 4 " would seem to render nugatory the other provisions of the treaty. Article 4 provides for the mostfavoured-nation treatment between two countries and article 5 provides the conditions to be observed if the benefits of the agreement are to be enjoyed. To enjoy those benefits it is provided that the goods shall go from a port of Czechoslovakia into a sea or river port of Canada. Incidentally, I wonder why " lake port " was left out? Is there any reason for its omission? But the point my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) raises is this: the words " without prejudice to the stipulations of article 4 " render the whole thing of no value at all. Of what value is it? I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce sees the point I am making. If article 4 provides, as it does, for the most-favoured-nation clause to be extended mutually, what is the necessity for these particular words I have quoted? Article 5 says that the goods shall go in such and such a way, and if they do not follow this course then the benefits to be derived from article 4 are not to be enjoyed. The minister has not explained the reason for the use of

Convention with. Czechoslovakia
the words I have quoted. That is the first point. And the second point to be explained is the reason for the omission of lake ports.


James Alexander Robb: That is in order that the
goods shall not come in by way of the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they could not come direct from the United States by way of a lake port. They could come to Toronto by a lake port; they could come to Ogdensburg. Montreal is probably a river port, but the ports beyond that are lake ports.


James Alexander Robb: It is the same as in the French treaty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But two wrongs have
never yet made a right. We have been trying this afternoon to convince the minister of that.


Mr. BOYS:: I have been puzzling my brain to see what the effect of the words " without prejudice " and so on would be, but for the life of me I cannot. Will the minister explain the difference between the clause as it now stands and-


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Marcil):: I shall have to call it six o'clock.


James Alexander Robb: I will consult the Justice department on the matter. In the meantime I will move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



ELECTRICITY INSPECTION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 36, to amend and revise the Electricity Inspection Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
James Malcolm: I think I should give
a word of explanation now. When this bill was first drafted by the officers of the department, no thought was given to the fact that the national research council should set the standards of measurement for electricity and that the department should solely administer the act. That point was rightly raised in the house by the leader of the opposition, and immediately I called the officers of the
tMr. Bennett.]
department together as well as representatives of the Hydro Electric Commission, the chairman of the national research council and the officers of several of the power companies. The result was that these amendments which have been distributed were drafted to cover all the contentious points, and I think they will make the bill' satisfactory to all the electrical interests in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Interpretation.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to ask the
minister whether or not with respect to many of these matters it might be possible to make the designation "in respect to", because there are certain things which are universal, and when I say that I mean they have been adopted generally in Europe and in America. The introduction of the national research council as the determining body would involve the necessity of repealing legislation in the event of that council being changed or passing out of existence, so it struck me that with respect to several of these matters we might use a term which has a world wide meaning through long usage and universal practice.


James Malcolm: In reply to my hon.
friend I would say that this very point was discussed by the committee which revised the legislation, and I think there was unanimity of opinion in the matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: To what committee does the minister refer?


James Malcolm: The committee of which I spoke, consisting of Mr. Dobson, of the Hydro Electric, Mr. Davies of the Southern Canada Power Company, Mr. Holder of the Shawinigan Company, who is also chairman of the Canadian Electrical Association, and Mr. Turley of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, together with the officers of the department and Dr. Tory of the national research council.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is just the interpretation clause, but I would like to ask about the first subsection:
(a) "Broken seal" means a seal which has been rendered ineffective.
Is that the seal on the meter?


James Malcolm: It is intended to cover
meter seals which do not seal. There were some seals which were not broken but which were not effective, and under this subsection if they are not effective they are deemed to be broken seals.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Electricity Inspection Act
On section 3-Unit of supply.
James Malcolm: I move that section 3
as it appears in the bill be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:
The commercial .unit of electrical supply shall be the kilowatt hour or such units based upon the units of electrical measure established by the Electrical Units Act as are determined by the national research council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it necessary to add
the last five words?


James Malcolm: Yes, I think so. That was one of the contentious clauses, and after a great deal of consultation this was finally passed and accepted by all the interests concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I still think it would be
better to stop with the words "Electrical Units Act". It is the old story; here is a body looking for something to do. I am sorry to put it that way, but the national research council should have nothing more to say about this work than a child on the street, and I am sure the minister will say that is so as a commercial proposition. He has provided that the unit shall be that established by the Electrical Units Act, and while that act may be settled in terms by the national research council there is no need to say they are the people who shall do it. I commend that point to the attention of the minister.


Mr. COOTE:: I wonder if we could not
persuade hon. members to speak a little louder, in order that we may hear them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is only a question of
time until my hon. friend will move further up on this side of the house anyway.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Malcolm: As hon. members will
see by looking at the printed amendments, I move that the last sentence of section 6 be added as subsection (2) of section 3. This is as follows:
The certificate or statement of accuracy of the department of any electricity measuring instrument shall take precedence over any other certificate.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5, subsection 1-Director.
James Malcolm: I beg to move the
following amendment:
After the word "supervision" line 4, substitute for all the words thereafter in the subsection the following:

"of all the work necessary to give effect to the provisions of this act and any regulations established thereunder in connection with the measurement of electricity for sale throughout Canada."


Henry Herbert Stevens: This act is highly technical, and it is very difficult for any of us to give intelligent criticism or consideration of it; we must trust very largely to the minister and to the committee which he says went over these proposed changes. I think it would be desirable if the minister would give the committee a brief summary of the reasons for this clause. Frankly I confess I have not had time to study it.


James Malcolm: This clause will now
read:
There may be appointed for the purpose of this act a director, together with such assistants as may be deemed necessary by the head of the department. Such director shall have the direction and general supervision of all the work necessary to give effect to the provisions of this act and any regulations established thereunder in connection with the measurement of electricity for sale throughout Canada.
That gives to the director full authority for the administration of the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This means a new job,
I suppose.


James Malcolm: No, no.


William Alves Boys: Reference is made to the head of the department. Is that the minister?


James Malcolm: No, the director.


Mr. KENNEDY:: As far as I can see this motion strikes out the old part of the act which calls for the appointment of officers that have passed the qualifying technical examination to be held under the direction of the Civil Service Commission.


James Malcolm: No. Subsection 2 is
not deleted. It stands as it is.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Validity of certificate.
James Malcolm: I move that section 6
be deleted.


George Gibson Coote: Where is the deletion?


James Malcolm: It is now embodied in
section 3 by the amendment of subsection 2 of section 3.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just what is the significance of this sentence:
The certificate or statement of accuracy of the department of any electricity measuring instrument shall take precedence over any other certificate.
What is the object of that?


James Malcolm: The department will
then have definite authority for creating a
Electricity Inspection Act

standard by which electricity shall be measured, and it shall take precedence over any over device which may be introduced.


James Dew Chaplin: The purpose of this bill
is to regulate to a certain extent the sale of electricity. Is there any provision in it which declares, for instance, what peak shall be used?


James Malcolm: No.


James Dew Chaplin: You do not say anything about that.


James Malcolm: No.


James Dew Chaplin: Why? If you are going to regulate the sale of electricity do you not need to provide whether the sale is to be on a minute peak or a twenty-minute peak?


James Malcolm: No, that is outside the jurisdiction of this act entirely. This act only relates to inspection of meters and the measurement of elecricity. We are setting a standard for the measurement of electricity. This does not affect the regulation of the sale in any way, only the measurement of the electricity when sold. That is the purpose of the act.


Mr. MANION:: Are there any provincial acts dealing with the questions dealt with under this act?


James Malcolm: This is a matter of federal jurisdiction and always has been. It applies to measurement throughout the whole Dominion.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I would refer the minister to the last four words "over any other certificate". What does that refer to?


James Malcolm: Some power company
might question the unit we use to measure electricity. For instance the Montreal Light, Heat & Power Company might have a unit for testing their own meters. The departmental inspectors must have some authority over all other devices that may be introduced. In case of controversy the devices accepted by the department must be considered as superior to all other devices.


Arthur Edward Ross: The only objection is that one of these companies may have an up-to-date instrument.


William Alves Boys: Does this mean that the government standard will have precedence in the courts, or where?


James Malcolm: Anywhere.


William Alves Boys: This would practically set at naught every possible means of getting evidence contrary to the dictum of the departmental official.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend will
realize that this is the principle which has always been followed. The decision of the department must govern in deciding whether or not measures are honest.


William Alves Boys: But this is going a long way. You could not even show whether the government standard was wrong, and it may be wrong. I am not saying that the officers of the department are inefficient at all or that the instruments are not up-to-date; but to pass a section of this kind without any possibility of relief is certainly going a very long way.


James Malcolm: I think my hon. friend understands that there must be a primary standard of measurement, just as there is a standard of length, and the standard that is set up by the department for the inspection of instruments must be accepted as the standard for Canada and must take precedence.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 8: Inspection standards.
James Malcolm: I beg to move that the following be added:
Such standards shall conform to primary standards which shall be determined by the national research council under the authority of the Research Council Act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What about section 7?


John Frederick Johnston: Section 7 was deleted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It takes a motion to delete.


John Frederick Johnston: I put the motion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not hear it. We were on section 6. I was going to ask the minister what was the object in deleting section 7.


James Malcolm: Section 7 gave to the
minister authority to set the standards of regulation. That is deleted from the act, and the setting of standards is left to the national research council.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the motion to delete section 7 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 8.
The CHAIRMAN*: The minister moves that the following sentence be added:
Such standards shall conform to primary standards which shall be determined by the national research council under the authority of the Research Council Act.

Electricity Inspection Act
James Malcolm: I may explain to the
committee that the Research Council Act gives the council authority to set standards for measurement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The research council consists in part of laymen and in part of trained scientists. Such a bureau of standards would not be regarded as of much value in the United States, and certainly would not in Europe. I have a very warm friend who is a member of the research council.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that the bureau
of standards, which is now under our national research council-


James Malcolm: It is not set up yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it determines
standards. There are on that body some gentlemen who are delightful persons and excellent business men, but I should not set them up as being able to determine what our standards of measurement for electricity should be. I fear the minister has once more permitted the ideas of a few people to overrule his better judgment. We should determine in this statute what a kilowatt is; we have it defined in the Electrical Units Act, and we should not say that the Electrical Units Act is going to be determined by one or two men.


James Malcolm: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what it says. It
says that the national research council is going to do this. That is my difficulty, and it runs through the whole bill. Is it not the old, old story? There is a gentleman, nameless now and forever more, who fancies himself as being an authority; he is to be made the head of a particular branch of something and every bit of legislation is to be submitted to him. He fills his name in somewhere-I do not mean as Jim Jones or John Smith, but he fills it in in such a way as to make some work for himself. I am borne out by my own observation and experience as to where these things lead. The minister, a commercial man of great repute, knows that if you employ a person or give him a title in your business he starts in for the first six months to make himself a job. He adds to the work which he has to do, and he defines it. It becomes a constant effort on his part to draw to himself this jurisdiction. I think this is all wrong.


James Malcolm: I can reply to my hon.
friend in this way. I think he is making a mistake in assuming that the national research council are trying to take to themselves authority which they do not possess. It is because I intend to set up under the national research council a bureau of standards to determine electrical units that this clause is inserted in the act. At the moment the bureau of standards is not in existence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


James Malcolm: The legislation could be worded:
It shall be determined by the bureau of standards under the national research council.
There is no particular objection to that. But the bureau of standards is to be set up almost immediately, so that we shall have Canadian standards and not be dependent upon laboratories in Chicago. By this legislation I am taking away from the department and from the authority of the minister the power of determining standards and putting it under the national research council, so that the body which they create, namely, the bureau of standards, may determine the standards for the Dominion of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My point is that we
should set up the bureau of standards.


James Malcolm: Possibly we may do
that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There seems to be an
anomaly in this legislation. I am endeavouring to read the amendments together with the effect of the deletions from the bill and so on. Clause 7 which deals with standards is deleted, I understand?	_


James Malcolm: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And a substitute clause is suggested for clause 8?


James Malcolm: There is an addition to clause 8. One must read the two together.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Clause 8 reads:
Such standards shall conform to primary standards-


James Malcolm: "Which shall be determined."


Henry Herbert Stevens: What are described as
"such standards" are those referred to in the deleted clause 7?


James Malcolm: Exactly.

Electricity Inspection Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, clause 7 having been deleted, where are the standards to which ''such standards" refer? That is my difficulty. By deleting the clause you eliminate these standards.


James Malcolm: Clause 7 deals with
primary standard. Clause 8 covers the standards by which the officials work. Clause 8 as amended reads:
All instruments and measuring apparatus required for electricity inspection shall be supplied by the department: they shall be designated inspection standards and shall bear the imprint or nameplate of the department. Such standards shall conform to primary standards which shall be determined by the National Research Council under the authority of the Research Council Act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In my opinion it does not read well even at that.


James Malcolm: I think it reads very
well.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In clause 8 you are referring not to standards but to instruments.


James Malcolm: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But the clause referring to standards is clause 7 which is being deleted-


James Malcolm: Quite so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It may be right, but I cannot see it.


Arthur Edward Ross: What will be the routine in regard to inspection?


James Malcolm: Just the same as it is now. Our regular officers will do their inspection work as they are doing to-day.


George Gibson Coote: Are other weights and
measures to be placed under the research council. [DOT]


James Malcolm: Is the hon. member referring to the Inspection of Weights and Measures Act?


George Gibson Coote: All our weights and measures. I am endeavouring to find out why this is being placed under the research council unless other weights and measures are also placed under them.


James Malcolm: I think my hon. friend and every other hon. gentleman present realise that weights and measures are time-known standards and the standards which we use for weights and measures are in the department and are not subject to controversy or question. The measurement and inspection of electricity
TMr. Malcolm.]
are subject to a good deal of alteration from time to time and the standards may change. Therefore that is being left to the new bureau of standards which, is being created under the national research council.


George Gibson Coote: It seems to me that the
logical thing would be for the department to maintain this power of fixing standards and to let them have the advice of the national research council or the bureau of standards. Why this should be turned over to the research council is more than I can understand.


James Malcolm: I endeavoured to explain the matter to my hon. friend, but I may not have made myself entirely clear. We are proposing to set up in the Dominion of Canada a bureau of standards which will be the creature of the national research council. The bureau of standards for the Dominion of Canada will be acceptable to all provincial governments, all power companies, all hydro-electric municipally-owned corporations, and it will be able to confer and consult and endeavour to make a standard for Canadian and British equipment for ourselves, so that the Dominion will not be dependent upon standards set by some foreign laboratory. That is the very purpose of a bureau of standards in the Dominion. As the situation stands to-day, if electrical equipment is imported from another country for use in Canada, it first must pass the fire underwriters' laboratories in Chicago or it cannot be used in building construction. That is a situation which I do not think is desirable in regard to equipment of Canadian manufacture or equipment imported from countries other than the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is an underwriters' requirement.


James Malcolm: Yes. If a fuse plug
or switch or anything required for use in Canada is purchased in Great Britain or on the continent or made in Canada, the underwriters demand that it be passed by a Chicago laboratory. We shall not have that condition of things when we have this bureau of standards, because the underwriters will have to accept their standards.


George Gibson Coote: All I say is that the bureau
should be subject to some governmental authority and the department might very well have the advice of the bureau in fixing these standards. The minister is going to create this bureau and give them an absolutely free hand to do what they like with regard to the measurement of electricity. There is no governmental control whatever.

Electricity Inspection Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: Clause 8 in my estimation will not accomplish what the minister has in mind. I am quite in favour of the idea of setting up a national standard in Canada, but I cannot see how under section 8 even the national research council is empowered to set up these standards. That, I think, should be done under an act which will set up and define the powers of a bureau of standards. All that this section does is to refer to certain instruments and measuring apparatus, and it concludes with the words, "Such standards shall conform to primary standards which shall be determined."


James Malcolm: That section is taken
from the authority which the national research council now has under the National Research Council Act. I will pass over to my hon. friend a copy of the act.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is the minister assured that the underwriters' association will be forced to accept the standards that are set up?


James Malcolm: My hon. friend realizes, of course, that there will have to be empowering legislation by the provinces, but when we have a Dominion bureau of standards set up, I think the provinces will want to accept its standards. I do not mind telling my hon. friend that at the Dominion-provincial conference, the provincial premiers were in favour of the creation of a bureau of standards. They suggested that it would be a very desirable body to establish in Canada, so I think all the provincial governments will avail themselves of the services of the Dominion bureau of standards.


Arthur Edward Ross: It will be almost useless unless the bureau includes electricity and gas, and have the standards of both electricity and gas measured by the one inspector instead of having one inspector for gas and another for electricity.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will this bureau have to do with anything else besides electricity?


James Malcolm: I am not in a position to go into full detail on that question, but the bureau of standards will, I believe, cover practically every standard of measurement. To go into the full scope of the bureau of standards at Washington, for instance, would take some time, and I am not conversant enough with it to explain it in full detail, but it does cover a very wide range of standards in other things than electricity.


Mr. CANTLEY:: What is the necessity for amending the act at this time? Why not wait until you get your bureau of standards in existence and working?
56103-132J


James Malcolm: Amendment of the act has been urged now for two or three years. The act has been under discussion for three sessions, but action has been deferred until we felt we were within reasonable approach of having everything arranged agreeably to the various interests concerned.


Thomas Cantley: Why not hold it back
another year until you have your bureau of standards established, and we can then deal with the matter intelligently?


Mr. DUNNING:: The minister has asked me to read the explanation on the opposite page defining the powers of the research council, as it is in fine print, although I do not know that my eyes are any better than his. These are the powers of the research council:
To undertake in such way as may be deemed advisable.
(iv) the investigation and determination of standards and methods of measurements, including length, volume, weight, mass, capacity, time, heat, light, electricity, magnetism and other forms of energy; and the determination of physical constants and the fundamental properties of matter.
Mr. STEVENS That seems broad enough.


Charles Avery Dunning: It seems so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Verification.
James Malcolm: I move to strike out
the words "and sealed or stamped" in lines 4 and 5.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 11-Approval of type.
James Malcolm: I beg to move to substitute the words "national research council" for the word "minister" in line 3.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Surely the minister must have some responsibility in the matter. He cannot put all the responsibility on the council. They report to him, but surely he must be responsible to parliament.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a purely scientific
matter that is dealt with here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not purely scientific, if I may say so without being arbitrarily contradictory. Suppose your bureau of standards sets up the metric system in this country; are we bound by it? Think what power you are giving to a body of men who are not responsible to parliament. The point of the hon. member for East Calgary is that this government must assume the respon-
Electricity Inspection Act

sibility. According to what has been said by the minister, the bureau might, without any more ado, set up the metric system in Canada, using hectometers, decameters, kilometers, centimeters and various other units of measurement under the metric system. Is it intended to give that power to this body of men? Surely not. I think the minister will agree that that is too dangerous a power to entrust to a body not responsible to parliament. Perhaps they will introduce the soviet form of measurement, which consists in measuring my necessities by another man's opportunities. The Minister of Railways has just read, in fine print, that this body is able to deal with large questions. While the Minister of Trade and Commerce is able to see only out of the small end of the telescope, the Minister of Railways, being able to see out of the large, is able to determine their powers with very much more astuteness than his colleague. I think the point made by the hon. member for East Calgary is a sound one, and that you should not entrust to a body not responsible to parliament the power to change our whole system of measurements.


James Malcolm: The weights and
measures of the things he refers to are now statutory under the Weights and Measures Act, and the council could not change them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But seeing through the
large end of the telescope, the Minister of Railways said that they had power to do these things.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: If this bill gives power to any outside body to change the standards in this country, I suggest to the minister that he proceed very carefully. It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the leader of the opposition, but I do not think it is good practice to set up some body and then say that they may do what they will. It does seem to me that it would be better for us first to decide what we want, and then we could have the advice of the council, but let the final determination of the matter be with parliament. I should like the minister to consider that phase of the question.


Robert James Manion: I must disagree with my fellow members on this matter, for I think we should take this from the authority and responsibility of the government. The more affairs we take from the authority and responsibility of this government the better it will be for the country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I take second place to no one in this house in advocacy of the inauguration at the earliest possible date of a
tMr. Bennett.]
bureau of standards. I have had the idea under consideration for a good many years, I have consistently supported it, and will welcome the establishment of such a bureau. But I think we are going too far in handing over to the research council power to change our system of measurement.


James Malcolm: We cannot do that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am under the impression that that would be the effect of this clause. In any case I submit that it will not lessen the influence and authority of the research council if the final determination is still left with the minister. The council will in a sense work under the control of the department only to the extent of its final determination with respect to any given problem. I ask the minister to give this further consideration.


James Malcolm: This is only bringing the act into line with the powers now possessed by the national research council, as the committee will see by referring to the second page of the proposed amendments, clause (v) of section 10:
The standardization and certification of the scientific and technical apparatus and instruments for the government service and for use in the industries of Canada, and the determination of the standards of quality of the materials used in the construction of public works and of the supplies used in the various branches of the government service.
And clause (iv) preceding provides for the investigation and determination of standards, and so on. But all the standards as to weights and measures are now determined by parliament under the Weights and Measures Act.


George Gibson Coote: Why depart from that principle in connection with electricity? We can use the bureau of standards to advise the government as to the proper standards under the act for measuring electricity, but surely the minister responsible to this parliament should have the final determination. I do not think we should set up any bureau to absolutely fix these standards; but this appears to be the intention of the bill.


James Malcolm: It is not a case of setting up standards for weights and measures, but of standardizing scientific apparatus to measure electricity. The creation of this apparatus has to be under some central authority. In the United States it is under the bureau of standards. We propose that it shall be under our bureau of standards, which is part of the national research council, which, in turn, is subject to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There is no more likelihood of the council attempting to change any stan-

Electricity Inspection Act
dard of measurement than of parliament seeking to alter the existing system. It should be realized that meters which are permitted to enter Canada from various foreign countries must be inspected to see that they conform with our standards. The minister's approval would be purely nominal; naturally he would approve of the standard set by his own inspectors. Therefore the approval of these meters might just as well be vested in the national research council as in the minister.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But I do not think that the entire responsibility should be placed on the bureau, of standards; it should be absolutely subject to the approval of the minister.


James Malcolm: The bureau of standards is under the minister's department, and he must take full responsibility for its work.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 12.-Sealing of meters.
John Frederick Johnston: Section 12 is to be inserted as subsection (2) of section 10.


James Malcolm: Without change.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the previous clause you are making the apparatus subject to the approval of the national research council; in this section we have these words:
-with the exception of such meters as may be approved by the minister for use unsealed.
Why the inconsistency?


James Malcolm: I must confess that the explanation given to me by the officer of the department is not entirely satisfactory. He says there are certain types of meters which cannot be sealed, forming an exception that the minister should deal with.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That would never do.


James Malcolm: I have no objection whatever to make it coincide with the other section, and will move an amendment accordingly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the minister would be well advised. For instance, section 11 reads:
No meter shall be admitted to verification in Canada until the type of meter to which it belongs has received the approval of the national research council.
Having passed that section, we are assuming that it is necessary for the welfare of this
country that the national research council shall approve of such meters. But in the very next section we undo the whole business by allowing the minister or his inspector to admit certain meters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is not this the explanation? The officers of the department realize that that form of meter-a gas meter-should be in the hands of the minister, and that the electricity meter should be in the hands of the research council.


James Malcolm: I move that the word
"minister" in section 12-which now becomes subsection (2) of section 10-be struck out and the words, "national research council" substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 13.-Re-verification of meters.
James Malcolm: No change.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It looks to me as if this clause is open to the same criticism as the last:
Within six years or such periods as the governor m council may determine from each verification and sealing
And so on. Is that the same principle with which we have dealt in the other two clauses, on which we place this determining power with the research council?


James Malcolm: The power companies
and those selling electricity wanted to fix a ten-year period and we insisted in our negotiations on a period of six years. They felt that they could do better with the governor in council, in their representations for a longer period, than they could if they went to the research council. We have left it with the governor in council to make any change.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A frank explanation.


James Malcolm: That is the real story.
The power companies wanted a longer term, but we insisted on five years, plus the twelve months' leeway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had occasion once to
have meters investigated, and certainly the life of the modern meter is not six years. Under the statute as it stands the period is fixed at six years.


James Malcolm: Not necessarily.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, practically.


James Malcolm: If there is no complaint.
Electricity Inspection Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the difficulty is in
the small consumer being able to make complaints effectively. This matter is one that affects every householder in every city in Canada; that must not be forgotten. This is probably the most far-reaching piece of legislation we have dealt with in this house, for it touches every house in which gas is consumed and electricity used for any purpose, and it also affects every factory in which electrical power is employed. That being so, the power companies will steadily contend that the life of a meter is quite considerable, although in actual practice this has not been found to be the case. No doubt the minister has had occasion to ascertain this as well as any other person. Let me ask him this: Is it just right to say that the governor in council shall have power to extend the lives of these meters?


James Malcolm: We will not extend the inspection period; it is the other way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or shall he have power
to shorten them? Should it not be left to some scientific body that has the facilities to make the necessary investigations to decide the question? Should it not read, "Upon the report of the research council?" Otherwise it leaves it open to the very objection which my hon. friend urges, that they can do better with the governor in council than they can in negotiations with the research council. That, I thought, was the frankest explanation ever given by any minister. It means that the political power is stronger than the scientific, [DOT]which unfortunately we have all found to be the case. Is it not desirable in some way to protect the existing standards? As an hon. member was referring to the sections and the minister was making his explanation, I recalled to my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens)-not as part of the discussion-the fact that after all the Chicago standards are probably the best electrical standards in the world.


James Malcolm: And probably will be
adopted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the United States
110,000,000 people are using electricity to an extent never known before, and there is no reason why we should not adopt those standards. Why should our people be put to the trouble and expense that might be involved in view of this declaration that only these certificates are to be valid? All these Chicago meters will be affected unless we protect them by some legislation; otherwise we shall not have protected the people. My hon. friend from Saskatoon will agree with me in this

respect. We must not overlook the amount of money put up by people in securing these meters in the first instance, because they must make a deposit; and that, coupled with the effect which these certificates will have in evidence, suggests that the matter may become of considerable importance as the legislation now reads.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend is under a false impression as regards what I said. The inspection of meters is entirely under the department while the setting of standards is left with the research council. No one knows better whether meters are up to standard, than do our own inspectors, who frequently report to the department administering the act. The power companies felt that the bureau of standards might demand an inspection which was not justified and which the experience of our own inspectors did not warrant. We contended that a six-year period was long enough, strict as we are regarding the type of meter that may be used in Canada for the protection of the purchaser; and the experience of the department has shown that this period is fair. The power companies, as I say, wanted a longer period and they felt that probably if the matter went to the research council that body might arbitrarily demand a shorter period while, if it were left to the department, the finding of the inspectors who have supervision of meters from day to day would be safest in their own interest as well as in the interest of the department. Being purely a matter of administration, it is just as well left with the department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is to my mind a distinct menace in this clause. I think we ought to fix in the act a standard period, whether it be six years or ten years. We should fix it definitely.


James Malcolm: We have it fixed at six years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Those who drafted the bill have left it to the governor in council to decide, let us say in the case of the HydroElectric of Ontario, that their meters may be inspected within a period of ten years.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend is mistaken.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I hope I am.


James Malcolm: The clause provides for inspection within six years or within such period as the governor in council may determine. We might find that the meters have to be inspected oftener. We wanted to change

Electricity Inspection Act
the period to five years, to-day it is five years plus twelve months leeway, which makes it practically six years. We do not intend to make it longer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If that is the object then let us state it definitely. In cases where in its opinion, on the advice of the chief inspector, it is thought desirable that meters should be inspected within a shorter period, let us enact that the governor in council may have power so to order. But as the clause now reads the governor in council may extend the period as it sees fit in respect of any company. That may not be the intention, but that is the power which we are conferring.


James Malcolm: Within six years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: "Or such periods as the governor in council may determine": that to my mind is where the faulty drafting of the clause comes in. I have no objection to the minister's interpretation, but I object to the way the clause is drafted.


James Malcolm: I think my hon. friend is mistaken; the bill is fairly clear.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I suggest the words "or such shorter period". That being evidently the intention, why not so state?


George Gibson Coote: The point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is well taken. The governor in council could make it longer than six years, if the clause were enacted as it stands.


James Malcolm: The government has that power, but at the present time we will not increase the period. The inspector's report that, the existing equipment for measurement of electricity being as it is, a six-year period is long enough, and at the moment we refuse to make it longer. I am not saying that in ten years' time, or later, equipment may not be produced and put into general use justifying, say, seven years. At the moment, however, the six-year period is the standard which, on the advice of our own inspectors, we consider satisfactory. We are therefore leaving it with the governor in council, as time goes on, either to extend or to shorten the period. At the present time, however, it certainly will not be extended.


Peter McGibbon: Is the minister convinced that six years is not too long?


James Malcolm: Our inspectors recommend that as the correct period, and it has been in force for some years.


Peter McGibbon: Has it not been the experience of every person who has had anything to do with these matters that that is too long?


James Malcolm: I think not.


James Arthurs: I think the minister would be well advised to make six years the extreme limit, and to put the word "lesser" before the word "periods" in the first line. It is easy to change the act if you get better meters than you have at present, and in the meantime the consumer has to pay.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not very long ago I sent a letter to the minister which I received from a gentleman whom I do not know personally, but who wrote to me very pointedly with regard to this very question. He found that his consumption of electricity, according to his meter, had doubled or trebled, and he insisted that he was not using any more power. As a matter of fact he felt that he was using less electricity, because as his bill mounted he became more careful in his use of electrical energy. I have forgotten the figures, but his bill had doubled or trebled within a few years, and he complained that the meter had not been and was not being properly inspected. I do not know whether he was right or wrong, but that illustrates this point. Obviously it is the duty of parliament and of the government to keep a very strict control over the inspection of meters, and I submit to the minister that it would be advisable to fix in this statute a maximum period. The six years is a minimum period, as the minister has admitted.


James Malcolm: There is no minimum; you can ask for inspection by the inspectors of the Dominion government a month after the installation of the meter, if it is not satisfactory. This is the longest period for which meters may remain without inspection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But the governor in council may say that it shall be longer.


James Malcolm: That does not remove the right of an individual to apply for inspection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is true, but there must be nearly a million meters in use in Canada to-day, and most people are not competent to judge whether their meter is accurate or inaccurate. Consequently there are very few applications for inspection; the people trust the department, and it is the duty of the department to look after these meters. My point is that this six year period should be the fixed statutory maximum; if it is not long enough make it longer, but give the
Electricity Inspection Act

governor in council power to call for a shorter period if it is considered desirable. I agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Parry Sound, that the phrase should be "such lesser period" in the first line.


Mr. BRADY:: I would like to ask the minister whether it is compulsory to use watt hour meters exclusively in Canada, or whether ampere hour meters are permitted, as is the case in Great Britain, Germany and other countries?


James Malcolm: The use of ampere hour meters is permitted, and they are being used very generally through the west to-day.


Peter McGibbon: I would like to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Parry Sound, because we must go on the hypothesis that in most cases the user of electricity has no idea whether his meter is correct or incorrect. He depends on the inspector to give him a correct reading, and I think six years is too long a period to let a meter go without inspection.


James Arthurs: In order to bring up the
matter for discussion I would move that the word "lesser" be inserted before the word "periods" in the first line of section 13 of the act. I believe this is the intention of the minister; I think he will agree that six years is the longest period for which a meter is reliable, and this amendment will give the governor in council power to extend that period indefinitely if it is found desirable to do so. We are only seeking to make six years the maximum period which will prevail.


James Malcolm: 
James Arthurs: At that rate it would take about twelve years to inspect all the meters in use in Canada at present.


James Malcolm: Oh, no.


Peter McGibbon: May I ask if those figures include the meters which have been tested individually in the municipalities by the local inspectors, who have found them to be defective?


James Malcolm: Those are the meters
which were inspected by the government.


Peter McGibbon: Then I would draw attention to the fact that there are a good many meters in every municipality, in Ontario at least, which are taken out and tested by the local engineer and which are found to be defective but which are not inspected by the government men.


George Gibson Coote: I wonder if the minister
would tell us how often scales must be inspected?


James Malcolm: I will be glad to discuss that question when we consider the estimates having to do with the Weights and Measures Act.


George Gibson Coote: I was just asking for information; I thought it might help us now if we had a fixed period within which scales must be inspected.


James Malcolm: Scales are not sealed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 14.

Certificates.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This section says "in accordance with regulations made by the minister." Is that what is intended?


James Malcolm: Yes. That is a departmental matter, having to do with adminis- [DOT] tration.	-


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15.-Right to break seal.
James Malcolm: As an amendment to
this section I move that the words "except as may be provided for by regulation of the department" be added to the last sentence.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 16 to 22 inclusive agreed to.
On section 23-Test of voltage and frequency.
Mr. CHURCH:: I should like to ask the
minister what the word "contractor" means in this section? It is set out in the interpretation act that it includes a municipal or government corporation like the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario which is generat-

Electricity Inspection Act
ing electricity and distributing it to the public at cost. The department is deriving a quarter of a million dollars a year from the operation of this act. The hydro is actually placed in the same position, although it is selling electricity at cost, as a private company which is selling electricity to the public and making a profit of it. There should be a distinction between a public and a private utility. The hydro should be exempt from charges under this act. My opinion is that this parliament has no control over the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission, as it is a provincial government property and undertaking and work. There have been some decisions to support my view on this point, with respect to taxation of a provincial government work or undertaking. Is this act intra vires as applied to the hydro? I was told in 1923 that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act was intra vires and had to go to the Privy Council to upset it. The sections of this bill to which I take particular objection are sections 23 and 24, as to who a contractor is and to whom this act applies.
I have no objection to the application of the provisions of these sections to privately-owned companies, but it is a different matter when it comes to public utilities owned by the provinces and municipalities, and operating at cost. The bulk of the revenue received under this act-about sixty per cent of it- comes from the province of Ontario, and it is an imposition to take nearly $10,000 a year out of the publicly-owned system of Toronto for meter tests alone. Any meters used for electrical purposes should be manufactured in Canada and foreign companies forced to establish branches here. If the minister wants to accomplish a useful work let him insist that the American and German owners of meters and other electrical devices establish branch factories in Canada. That policy will result in providing more work in this country, and will supplement what the Hydro-Electric has been doing along this line in Ontario. The hydroelectric of Ontario has done much for that province through its developments at Niagara and in the northern parts of the province, and this government must be hard pressed for revenue when it taxes the hydro-electric such large sums for meter testing. Besides, the hydro was taxed m customs duties nearly two millions during the war while construction was proceeding in connection with Niagara hydro development, and that amount should now be refunded. Surely some distinction should be made between a publicly-owned utility which develops electricity and
sells it at cost and a privately-owned company operated for profit. Representations along this line have been made for years, but without result, as to reducing hydro meter testing to a nominal sum. I have no doubt what the issue would be if the matter were taken to the courts as I have indicated. In my opinion it would be declared that the federal parliament has no power to tax a publicly-owned undertaking such as the hydro-electric of Ontario, which is the property of the province and municipalities. I have no doubt the minister contends that he is giving this service at cost, but he is including in the expenditure for this particular inspection a lot of things that should not appear there, such as salaries, fuel, furniture, and the like, of the head office at Ottawa. I think the government might be better employed than by invading the sphere of activity of provincial property such as the hydro-electric of Ontario and imposing such a heavy burden on the public who get the benefit of power at cost as against private companies that pay dividends and issue millions of common stock of no par value.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend seems
to be labouring under a false impression with regard to this. The clause would certainly have to include everyone selling electric current, whether it be the Hydro-Electric of Ontario, the light, heat and power company of Montreal, or the muncipality of Ottawa. You cannot differentiate between the contractor who is selling electric current as a publicly-owned utility and the one who is selling it as a privately-owned utility.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are protecting the
consumer.


James Malcolm: As the leader of the
opposition says, we ate protecting the consumer and many Ontario hydro-electric municipalities want this inspection of their meters. The cost of inspection is very low and the hydro-electric engineer, I may tell my hon. friend, was here and assisted in drafting the legislation so that my hon. friend's point is not at all well taken.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 24-Inspection fees.
William Alves Boys: Will the minister give the
committee some idea of the fees being paid? Is there a distinction between the fee charged for an inspection which the department requires to be made within six years and the fee for what is called a disputed meter test made pursuant to clause 20? If so, what is
Electricity Inspection Act

the charge under clause 20? Because the person who turns out to be wrong as to the operation of the meter is the one who has to bear the expense of the inspection?


James Malcolm: I might give my hon. friend the list of meters inspected under the various classes. The fee for inspection of class 1 meter, which is most generally in use, is sixty cents.


William Alves Boys: That is the ordinary household meter?


James Malcolm: Yes. That works out
at about one-half of a cent a month on a six-year period. For class 2 meter, a higher voltage meter, of which 49,000 were inspected, the fee is seventy dive cents; for class 3 meter, of which 3,400 were inspected, the fee is $1.50, and for class 4 meter, which is a very large meter for a high-powered station, and of which only thirty-three were inspected, the fee is $5.


William Alves Boys: The minister has not directed himself to the other branch of my question.


James Malcolm: There is no difference
in the charge whether the inspection is asked for or not.


William Alves Boys: In other words, if a purchaser desires a meter tested for his own protection and asks for a test, those are the fees he has to pay.


James Malcolm: If the meter is correct.
Mr. BO\S:	If that is the case, I think
that fee is very moderate. If the meter is not correct, the fee would be the same?


James Malcolm: If the meter is not
correct the contractor pays the fee.


William Alves Boys: Yes, but what does he pay?


James Malcolm: Sixty cents.


William Alves Boys: In other words, the expense
of the inspector in going from the nearest point at which he resides to the place of residence of the user of the meter or anything of that kind is not added?


James Malcolm: No.


William Alves Boys: There is no question that under that an ordinary householder for sixty cents can satisfy himself as to the accuracy of his meter?


James Malcolm: Yes.


William Alves Boys: That would seem to be a
moderate charge.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 25 to 30 agreed to.

On section 31-For installing unverified
meters.
James Malcolm: I move to strike out the word " or " between the words " stamp " and
issues " and substitute therefor the word " and " in paragraph Gc) of sedtion 31, so that it will read:
Not being an inspector, seals or stamps and issues a certificate.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 32 and 33 agreed to.
On section 34-Procedure.
William Alves Boys: I am by no means sure that this is quite as complete as it should be. I observe that there are two forums under which a prosecution may take place. One is before any justice of the peace where the penalty does not exceed twenty-five dollars, and the other is before any two justices of the peace where the penalty exceeds twenty-five dollars. There are in some municipalities, in Ontario at all events, police magistrates who I am by no means certain are justices of the peace.
I think their commissions are given to them as police magistrates. If I am right in that- and I think I am-you would not have any opportunity of proceeding before the only tribunal now in existence in practically all the towns of Ontario and possibly other provinces. In my own town you never see a justice of the peace presiding now; he is a thing of the past. There are police magistrates appointed for various districts of the county and they sit as such. If in their appointment they are not described as justices of the peace they would not have jurisdiction to proceed under this clause. I suggest that a provision be inserted in the clause that police magistrates as well as these officers have jurisdiction; and the police magistrates would have to have jurisdiction as regards penalties under twenty-five dollars as well as over twenty-five dollars.
MJr. ELLIOTT: There can be no question that a police magistrate should have the same power that a justice of the peace has. Speaking from memory and offhand I think there is in the criminal code a clause which gives to every police magistrate the same power as that of two justices of the peace. It would seem advisable to permit him to exercise that jurisdiction in this particular case unless it be covered by the general clause in the code, and I think it is covered.

St. Lawrence Waterway


William Alves Boys: There is not the slightest doubt about what the minister says regarding the criminal code, but the jurisdiction given under this legislation is being given apart entirely from the criminal code. The fact that a police magistrate has certain powers under the criminal code does not give him those powers under this legislation. I am just mentioning the fact: I think the objection is worthy of consideration, and the minister should look into it.


James Malcolm: I have no particular
knowledge with which I could dispute the question raised by my hon. friend any more than that the bill was before the law officers of the crown and I would have expected that the point he raises would be covered. If he thinks there is a doubt and desires to move an amendment in the committee to cover the point, I have no objection.


William Alves Boys: I am certainly willing to move
it, but the difficulty is that it may be rather difficult to frame an amendment which will meet the application of the clause as at present drafted. Paragraph (a) provides for penalties under twenty-five dollars and paragraph (b) for penalties over twenty-five dollars. In my view a police magistrate should have jurisdiction in either case. The only way I see to deal with the matter would be to start off by giving a police magistrate jurisdiction to hear all complaints under this legislation, and then to give special jurisdiction to one justice of the peace in the one case and to two justices of the peace in the other. Unless the minister is particularly anxious to dispose of the matter to-night, he might ask those in charge of it in his department to draft a suitable clause. I make the suggestion for what it is worth.


John Campbell Elliott: Would it meet the views
of my hon. friend if paragraph (b) were made to read:
Before any two justices of the peace or a police magistrate, if the penalty exceeds twenty-five dollars.
That is provided that the point is not already covered.


William Alves Boys: I do not think my hon. friend is going far enough. Suppose you have a case in a town where there is a police magistrate, and it is under $25; he would not have jurisdiction.


James Malcolm: We might insert in paragraphs (a) and (b) the words "or a police magistrate."


William Alves Boys: All right, if you want to cover
it that way.


John Campbell Elliott: After the words "justice
of the peace."


William Alves Boys: Or stipendiary magistrate.
There are cases where there are stipendiary magistrates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the section should stand for redrafting. If the Minister of Public Works will look at the old section 40, he will observe that if the penalty does not exceed $20, it is before any justice of the peace, and if the penalty exceeds $20, before any two justices of the peace. We would now add, "or any magistrate exercising the powers of two justices of the peace." There is a special provision in the code with respect to stipendiary magistrates, to which the Minister of Public Works referred, and that is what he has in mind, I take it, when he speaks of the stipendiary exercising the powers of two justices of the peace. I think the section should stand and be redrafted, for the terms in which it now reads might divest the stipendiary entirely of his jurisdiction because he might not happen to be a justice of the peace."


James Malcolm: We will let the section
stand for redrafting.
Section stands.
Section 35 agreed to.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hewitt Bostock: What is the next order
of business?


James Malcolm: Supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has to be a motion to go into supply to-day, and we have an amendment to move to the motion. It is probably undesirable to start that at this time of the evening, if there is any other business we can proceed with.



ADJOURNMENT-ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MALCOLM moved the adjournment of the house.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the motion is
formally put, Mr. Speaker, might I point out that we were to get the correspondence to-day with respect to the St. Lawrence waterway? I do not want to complain of the Prime Minister in his absence, but unfortunately one of my colleagues informs me that the press has the correspondence, and none of us has seen it or heard of it. Surely parliament must not be treated in this way.
Si. Lawrence Waterway


John Campbell Elliott: Was not the statement
that it would be handed to the press?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was promised to us,
too, and one of my colleagues tells me that the press had it this morning.


James Malcolm: The clerk has just handed me a letter from Doctor Skelton saying that he has sent to the distribution office 950 copies of the report in English and 400 in French. The letter, I see, does not refer to the correspondence. I think the clerk has handed me something different from what the leader of the opposition had in mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker will recall the circumstances. We were.to have the correspondence and the report laid on the table before the house rose this evening. I expected that to be done just before six o'clock, or at all events on the house meeting again at eight. That has not been done, and one of my colleagues informs me that the press has had the correspondence and this report since early to-day, vet none of the members of the house has received it, and no copy has been laid on the table. I think the House of Commons should not be treated in this way, and I protest against it. I do so very reluctantly, with the Prime Minister not here, because I know that neither my friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce nor the Minister of Public Works is responsible for this particular matter, and I suppose the Prime Minister may have intended to come in later in the evening.


James Malcolm: He did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will this correspondence be laid on the table tonight? Otherwise the press will have it to-morrow, and this house, the people's representatives, will know nothing about it.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend is aware that the Prime Minister intended to lay the correspondence on the table to-night before the house adjourned. We were ready to go into supply on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I am prepared to do so yet if hon. gentlemen opposite are agreeable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Peter McGibbon: This is only one more instance of the contempt with which this government treats parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the Minister of Trade and Commerce wishes to waive his motion for adjournment-


James Malcolm: And then go into supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, and then make your motion to go into supply; that is as far as you will get.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Malcolm moves, seconded by Mr. Elliott, that the house do now adjourn. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried, on division.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.40 p.m.
Tuesday, April 17, 1928