1931-07-07

[Stage Direction]
*
fc* *
	
	
	
	
	
	1
[Stage Direction]


House of Commons Befmtes
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 7, 1931.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 114 for the relief of Robert Ruff Martin.-Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 115 for the relief of Norah Kathleen Nevins Scott.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 116 for the relief of Albert Thompson Johnston.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 117 for the relief of Isabel Catherine Rohrer White.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: As a matter of privilege, I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question. I have received a letter from Manitoba from a former member of the house. The letter reads:
There is a report circulating here, and in your constituency, that you contracted for all the available ocean space for cattle, and that the government had to bargain with you.
Will you kindly let me know the facts, and oblige.
I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture if that is so, and whether I ever had anything to do with any contract for ocean space in any shape or form.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: So far as I am aware, the hon.
member for Marquette has had nothing to do with the allotment of space.



EMBARGO ON RUSSIAN GOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Before the orders of the day are
proceeded with, I promised the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) to lay on the table such documents as were in the possession of the department relating to the labour legislation of the Soviet Socialist Republic and other matters in connection 22110-220
with the embargo. There is a circular letter, one copy only of which is included among the papers, there being several hundred received by the department in printed form, protesting against the embargo. There were also similar letters in favour of it. That, I am advised, is all that is available.



ILLEGAL ENTRY OF JAPANESE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a question in regard to an investigation taking place in British Columbia. I have here an article which states:
Illegal entry of hundreds of Japanese to British Columbia, forging and altering of passports, and questionable deals in fishing licences may be exposed by an investigation being conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Has the Minister of Justice directed that inquiry to be held?


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: No investigation is going on at the instance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Some investigation is taking place, I understand, at the instance of the Department of Immigration, and the police force, which is in the locality has offered its services to assist. That is all.



INCOME TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I asked my right hon. friend yesterday whether he would consider giving to the house a statement which would make more intelligible the exact effect of the proposed increases and decreases in the income tax.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not had an opportunity to get it in the meantime.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my right hon. friend endeavour to let us have it as soon as possible?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will.

Tariff Board



DUTY ON MAGAZINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: May I ask the Prime Minister when we can expect to have laid on the table the briefs and representations made by the publishers to the government on tariff matters.
Right	Hon.	R.	B.	BENNETT	(Prime
Minister): There were two briefs, one last fall and one this year. Part of the submission was confidential-the question of cost- as I advised the hon. gentleman. The rest of it, I fancy, can be brought down at any time. I had forgotten entirely about it.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	R.	B.	BENNETT	(Prime
Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 109, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, July 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. 47, to provide for the appointment of a tariff board.-Mr. Bennett-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 3.-Constitution of board.
Mr. RINFRET:: Mr. Chairman,. when this section was being discussed last night, along with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Han-bury), I was endeavouring to demonstrate a few points in connection with the attitudes taken in this matter by the government and by the opposition. I wish to refer again to the very remarkable and convincing presentation of the case made last night by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). The hon. member showed very conclusively that in a matter of this kind it cannot be merely the question of recording facts in a mathematical fashion and he gave a number of examples taken from the work of the tariff commission in the United States. That body is composed of six members, three Republicans and three Democrats and the hon. member showed conclusively that on many occasions these commissioners differed as to the appreciation of the facts submitted to them. Following that remarkable speech by my colleague, and the examples he gave to the committee, I urge that it cannot be argued
fMr. Bennett.]
with any degree of conviction that the tariff board, now suggested to be set up by the Prime Minister will be merely a fact recording body. They will give more importance to some facts than to others; they will group those facts in accordance with their own conception of what the tariff policy should be, and in that grouping they will arrive at a conclusion which will naturally follow the working of their minds in the matter of-tariff evidence. I do not think that there can be the least doubt about that. The Prime Minister says that you can have mathematical precision in the finding of facts, but I think he is contradicted by the very board to which he has drawn attention, that is, the tariff board of the United States. The hon. member for Hants-Kings has shown that every individual commissioner will bring his own conception of the fiscal policy to bear upon his appreciation of the evidence brought before him, and there can be no mathematical precision unless my right hon. friend is to argue that division is an integral part of mathematics.
I would refer to another matter which although not directly related to this bill, refers to the general matters which are now before the committee. The Prime Minister has urged that it is essential to have a tariff board to present conclusions or facts about the tariff before any changes are made. That statement is a direct condemnation of the attitude taken by himself and his government when they submitted last fall some four hundred changes in the tariff, all in the same direction, while two hundred additional changes are to be made during the present session. If we were to take the Prime Minister at his word, and agree to the passage of this bill, it would mean that we could ask him, with a great degree of logic, that he withdraw the resolutions concerning changes in the tariff until his own commission has considered those changes, Then, after this commission had passed upon the very items he is submitting at this session, they could be considered next year by the house.
The point upon which we differ is in connection with the character of this tariff board. The Prime Minister says that it must be judicial in character, and that therefore it is necessary to have an extended tenure of office. The Prime Minister states that a tariff board of this kind may well serve under one government or another because its work will be to find facts and submit them for the consideration of the government. We take a different attitude; we believe that this board will

Tariff Board
advise the government. It is true that it will gather facts, but there is a possibility that a conflict of opinion would be created which would be most regrettable. We take the stand that the framing of a tariff is not a judicial matter; that it is a matter of policy, a matter of responsibility. The government may use such a board to gather information and submit facts, but no government would desire to be hampered in its work of framing a tariff by a judicial board hearing evidence and coming to conclusions upon fiscal matters which might be in direct opposition to the views held by the government itself.
The Prime Minister has made many eloquent speeches, all exceedingly moderate in tone, in an effort to impress this house with the fact that he had no motives at all in this matter and that his only desire-a very sincere one, I believe-is to constitute a board which will be above any suspicion. May I say that his bill has not created a similar impression upon the public mind and upon the press generally. When we reached eleven o'clock last night I was just alluding to an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Star of June 29, which editorial dealt with the two tariff boards. The Star says that the issue is clear as crystal. I do not intend to read the entire editorial as probably hon. members have read it already, but I intend to allude to a part of it which impressed me very much and which no doubt will impress the committee. The Star takes the attitude that the tariff board which my hon. friend wants to constitute and the one which was constituted under the former government are very different in character. The Star states that the functions of the new board will be to obtain information from the chiefs of industry, from the experts on production, and from all those men who are connected with production. It charges the late board with intentions altogether different. Let me read what this Conservative paper says about the late tariff board. The editorial reads:
The job of the late tariff board was to study the industrial situation, listen to the evidence of experts, hear the opinions of miscellaneous people such as theorists, students and consumers.
This editorial tries to create the impression that the late board paid too much attention to theorists and faddists such as consumers, who are infected with the dangerous disease of not desiring to pay more for any article than it is worth.


Mr. MANION:: They were probably thinking of the Consumers League.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It does not say that;
even if it did, I do not think that would
22110-220J
ehange the aspect very much. The issue is as clear as crystal and as pure as water in the mind of this Conservative organ. The board to be constituted by my right hon. friend will listen to the producers, the manufacturers, the chiefs of industry and those who know all about it, while the late board had t'he weakness to listen to that class of faddists known as consumers, who came here with the little means at their disposal to try to demonstrate that there are two sides to the tariff question, and that perhaps their side might be worthy of consideration. Perhaps my right hon. friend has not paid much attention to that side of the question. Perhaps if this board works in the way it is understood by some of the Conservative organs in this country, he will be quite satisfied. But it is not without a certain degree of pride that I read this commentary which is supposed to be very offensive to us but which, on the contrary, is to my mind highly commendatory, that if not before the new board, at least before the old board, the-common people could appear and present their case.
The Prime Minister has mentioned the Board of Railway Commissioners, and has tried to establish a parallel between this tariff board and the railway board. There is this [DOT] difference, which I consider essential, between the two: we are not making railway rates. That power has been taken away from parliament,. It is, on the contrary, highly desirable -and I think both parties are in agreement in that regard-that the rates of the railways be determined, not by a vote of the house, but by the decisions of the railway board, and so far as we are agreed on that, it is satisfactory that we have a railway board such as is constituted. But as regards the tariff we take the position-and I am not sure whether the Prime Minister does not take another position-that the tariff must remain within the responsibility of the government and that we should not by any means establish a board that will render final decisions, even if they may be only as to the grouping of facts, which will have such an impression on public opinion or on parliament that it might prevent the house from making a proper decision on fiscal matters. It is for that reason that I shall support the amendment.
I think the leader of the opposition yesterday made a most dispassionate and moderate appeal to the Prime Minister to amend at least this section of the bill and to consider carefully the amendment that we have moved.
I am quite sure that the point made by the leader of the opposition is practically with-
Tariff Board

out any possible reply. As long as the government is in power, it remains within its ability to continue or to change the commissioners of the board; but surely when a new government is elected as a result of public opinion-and it may be returned to power on the very questions connected with the fiscal policy-it is highly desirable that the^ new government should not be hampered in its work by a commission established by the preceding administration and it should be at liberty to create a tariff board in sympathy with its views. For that reason I shall vote for the amendment.
Mr. NEILL; When the substance of the amendment at present under discussion was before the house on the second reading of the bill, I voted against it and with the government because I thought that was not the proper stage to introduce it and, being very much of the opinion that we needed a tariff board, I considered that the amendment was not of such vital importance as to precipitate the defeat of the bill. But now that it is introduced in committee, in what I deem to be its proper place, I am more than willing to vote for it. I admit there is a good deal of logic behind the contention of the government that they have a mandate from the people to-day in the direction of high tariffs, but it is quite conceivable the day may come when that mandate will be withdrawn and I shall not willingly be a party to the initiation of a tariff board with its tenure of office so arranged as to perpetuate a system of high tariffs possibly long after the country has withdrawn its mandate in that direction and perhaps even, for stranger things have happened, after the party opposite has changed its policy in that regard.
I have just one other word to say regarding the personnel of the commission. I have heard a great deal about some features of it, such as what salaries they are to receive, and a hint has been given as to their geographical selection; but I have heard but little as to what the qualifications of these men will be. I should like to take this opportunity of placing before the committee a short resolution sent to me by one of the locals of British Columbia farmers. Although this is only a small local, it voices, I believe, the general wishes of the farmers in the district I represent and, I have good reason to think, in other parts of Canada as well. This is the resolution, endorsed by local No. 35, Wellington
[Mr. Rinfret.l
United Farmers of Canada, British Columbia section:
Whereas, the various branches of farming combined constitute one of the largest industries in the province of British Columbia-
And I should say of Canada also.
-and whereas, the different branches of agriculture have suffered to some considerable extent through inadequate tariffs and trade treaties, which place the producers of farm products in Canada and particularly in British Columbia in a market flooded with imported produce,
And whereas, the agricultural industry was not taken into consideration when negotiations were being carried on with regard to the lowering of tariffs and trade agreements with New Zealand-
I might also add Australia.
-therefore be it resolved, that this organization petition that there may be proper representation of the agricultural interests on any future boards created for the purpose of imposing tariffs, taxes, or formation of trade treaties.
That, of course, is not worded exactly to meet the present situation, but the suggestion is one which I would commend to the Prime Minister, namely, that at least one of the men on this board should have a thorough, practical knowledge of farming, not of one particular branch onl/ but of as many of the different branches as possible. A good, allaround, practical farmer can be obtained and his services should be enlisted as one member of the board, especially when agriculture is such a large interest in Canada and is so vitally interested in the tariff.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I have already, on the
motion for the second reading, expressed my views on this bill and especially on the subject matter of this amendment, and I do not intend to repeat them. I have not been surprised to hear the Prime Minister every time he has spoken since the bill has been before the house and the committee, exemplify the tariff board of the United States as an illustration of the good work which such a body can achieve. My right hon. friend had to go to Washington for a model for his policy. He could not go to Britain because the policy he is trying to create, the machinery for organizing and carrying out, is truly one in which our neighbours to the south have excelled in recent years. The United States has been the Mecca of high protection; Washington is the capital city of protectionism, and it is no wonder that my right hon. friend has to go there for a model for the machinery to carry out his policy in this country. But the right hon. gentleman is going further than

Tariff Board
the men he is trying to imitate; the pupil goes further than the teacher and model, because in the United States they have made at least a semblance of impartiality in the constitution of their board. They have apparently tried, on the surface anyway, to establish a certain equilibrium as to the views shared by the members of that board. As has already been mentioned, three of the six members of the United States board shall be members of one political party and the others shall be members of a different party. But even apart from that, they have endeavoured to have another safeguard of impartiality or at least to have everybody consulted as to the personnel of the commission and the character of the men who may be appointed to that board. They are appointed by the President of the United States, but on and with the advice and consent of the Senate, which in the United States is the leading chamber. A man to be appointed to the tariff commission of the United States has to be accepted by the Senate of the United States. In their Senate all parties are represented, and a man who would be strongly objectionable to one of the groups in the United States Senate would have no chance of appointment to their tariff commission. I believe there might be less objection to the term of office which this bill provides for the members of the board if they were appointed with some impartiality by a body on which different views were represented; for instance, by parliament, as parliament appoints the chief electoral officer; or they might be appointed by a committee of parliament on which members having different and opposing views would be represented. But under this bill, which as the Prime Minister indicated will become law, they will be appointed by the government presently in office, by gentlemen having a trend of view on fiscal matters which they themselves admit and which is well known to the people of Canada.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister still insists that this tariff board is a mere fact-finding body. He stated yesterday that facts are found with a mathematical precision. There cannot be two opinions, he said, in answer to a question from this side of the house. The findings of fact cannot be disputed; they are not in the United States, he said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I correct the hon. gentleman? Perhaps it will conduce to the expedition of the debate. The question was put to me, whether the findings of fact could be disputed, and I gave as an illustration that
if the cost per unit in one country was 24 cents, and the cost per unit in some other country 20 cents, it was purely a question of mathematics that a 20 per cent duty on the 20 cents per unit would make that 24 cents, and thereby secure equality. As to the sufficiency of the evidence in finding out costs, there might be a difference of opinion, but the rate of duty to be applied to the facts as found can be ascertained with mathematical precision.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps I cannot do
better than quote my right hon. friend. At page 3443 of Hansard he said:
When it is said that these findings of facts are matters of opinion, I can only say that the findings of the tariff board in the United States, to which I referred, are not findings of opinions, but findings of facts as such.
Mr. Young: Can they be disputed?
Mr. Bennett: They cannot-not by minds that accept figures as having any effect when employed mathematically.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: Yet my hon. friend from Hants-Kings at last night's sitting showed in several instances that the members of the United States tariff commission were not of the same opinion as to their findings, and that they divided equally upon them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I was dealing with at all. With my hon. friend's permission only-


Ernest Lapointe: Of course.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a question as to the use of words. I was dealing with mathematical precision, meaning that the rate of duty to be applied to the facts as found could be ascertained with mathematical precision. That is, the cost of production in one country is so much, the cost of production in another country is so much, the cost of production in another country is so much. If the cost of production is 20 cents in the one case, and 24 cents in the other, that is a matter of finding. Then it iq a matter of absolute mathematical precision that a 20 per cent duty applied to the cost of 20 cents per unit will make that cost 24 cents, bringing about equality. That is what I endeavoured to make clear I was thoroughly acquainted with the differences of opinion in 1929.


Ernest Lapointe: If they have differences of opinion, will not my right honorable friend admit that it is important, advisable, nay, even essential, if we want to have impartial findings, that gentlemen having different views should be appointed to the board? I think that that is a necessary conclusion
Tariff Board

Apart from that, as I said before when I spoke on the second reading of this bill, the finding of fact is not purely machine work. Someone has to exercise judgment, and the attitude of mind and the personal views of the men who sit in such a court or tribunal certainly have something to do with the way in which they marshal their facts and decide which one must be placed foremost and stressed. The manner in which the investigation is carried on also depends to a large extent on the views and character of the men who sit on that board. Everybody knows what happened in this country not very many months ago when there was an investigation, or a so-called investigation, into tariff matters. The gentlemen other than those who made the application were not, according to press reports, given a very hearty welcome when they appeared before that supposed court.
The right hon. the Prime Minister is dressing his baby in the dignified garments of a court in order to make it more interesting. But that will not deceive anybody, and I do not think my right hon. friend has improved his case by so doing. My right hon. leader protested yesterday against the violation of the principle that tariff and taxation should be absolutely under the exclusive jurisdiction of parliament; but there are other principles that are being violated if we have to accept the theory of my right hon. friend that this board is a court. When you have a court dealing with matters of policy, a court which will act, according to the words of this bill, under the direction of a minister, what becomes of this fundamental principle of the British constitution, that the judicial power and the executive power must be independent one from the other as well as from the legislative power? You cannot mix them altogether as my right hon. friend is trying to do in this bill.
There is another thing which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister claims is essential, and that is the permanency of the board, for at least a period of ten years. Even there he is going further than the example of the United States, where, after an experience of twenty years with tariff commissions, the United States has adopted means of having new men appointed to the commission each year. The members are appointed for six years only, and one member gives way at the end of the first year, to be succeeded by a new man, another at the end of the second year, to be in turn succeeded by a new man, and so on, so that automatically every year a new man is appointed to the board. As I said before, he is appointed by the president,

but upon the advice and with the consent of the Senate. I think there is a great deal to be said for that method. It gives more elasticity to the board, a greater opportunity to appoint men to the board who will be more in sympathy with the prevailing trend of views on fiscal matters at the time of their appointment.
I do not think I have anything further to say, but before resuming my seat I should like to repeat and support the warning given by the leader of the opposition which the Prime Minister has called a threat but which, in fact, is only a fair warning. The men who would go on the proposed board would do so at their own risk and take their own chances. When the people of Canada inflict upon my hon. friends opposite the ignominous defeat which they may expect on the first occasion which presents itself, we will find means of doing away with the machinery they are now trying to organize so that their policies may be kept in effect.


Mr. IRVINE:: The extended discussion on the measure now before the committee certainly indicates the importance which both sides of the house attach to the legislation before us. I did not happen to be in the house when the vote on the proposed amendment was taken, but I understand that on that occasion the group to which I belong voted against the amendment. I believe they so voted because although they may have disagreed with some of the particular sections of the bill they believed in its principle, and did not wish to be a party to its defeat.
I wish to say that if the fears as expressed by hon. members in the official opposition were possible I certainly would be opposed to the bill myself. I think we must recognize however that facts will not change with governments, and if certain facts which have been discovered by the proposed judicial body are established they will not alter one iota whether a Conservative government goes out and a Liberal government comes in or vice versa. If the board were to be a Conservative board, appointed by the Conservative party to make Conservative findings, then of course I would be opposed to it and I have no doubt everybody would be. If the government were guilty of appointing a body of that character I hope the Conservative party would be opposed to it. That is the kind of board which I think my hon. friends to the left of the Speaker are contending for. What else could they mean when they say that they want a board which would be in sympathy with the policy of the government that appointed it? That is the kind of board

Tariff Board
I understand my hon. friends on the left of the Speaker are icontending for. Personally I cannot see the value of a board of that character.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The words were "enjoy the confidence of the government."-not "be in sympathy" with it.


William Irvine: I would say in reply to that statement that if the proposed board measures up approximately to the status of a judicial body any other government will give its confidence to it. If on the other hand any other government might discover that this proposed body is not judicial, does not the act provide for the discharge of the individuals composing such a body?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: No, it does not.


William Irvine: Well, then, why not make that provision?


Mr. STEW  ART@Edmonton: That is all we want to do.


William Irvine: Why not? If I am not mistaken I think I heard the Prime Minister say, when discussing this bill, that men would not be retained on the board if, as a judicial body, they were no't rendering proper sendee. If the body created was acting not judicially, but was outstandingly partisan and was endeavouring to embarrass the existing administration, I would expect the government in power to do away with it. On the other hand I canont see any use in the world of appointing a board to serve any particular government. To my mind such action would only involve unnecessary expense. If a government is doing what it likes anyway, no matter what a tariff board may find, why have such a body? That is the other side of the question.
On the other hand I do not wish to see any interference with the authority of parliament in respect to fiscal policies. We were assured last night by the Prime Minister that there was no such intention and that the proposed board would not operate in that way. If it does, surely it is time enough to object when the difficulty arises. I think we have the right to assume that in this connection the government is sincere in its efforts to secure a real fact finding body. I am assuming that, anyway; I must have confidence in whatever government may be in power. I would have as much confidence in statements made by the leader of the opposition, and I do not see why we should assume that every
statement by a government is absolutely sinister, inclined to be purely political and more or less false. From my experience in parliament and having listened to responsible men holding responsible positions I feel inclined to accept at face value the statement of the government's good intentions. In the bill now before us provision is made for the appointment of a board supposedly of a judicial nature. In this corner of the house we have always contended that since we are to have tariffs, no matter which government is in power, those tariffs, as nearly as possible, should be regulated in a scientific manner. Following that belief we have contended that some such body as the one now proposed should be appointed to find facts and enable each government in power to regulate its fiscal policy with due regard to the facts found. I do not say that the proposed body will find all the facts accurately on every occasion; I do not suppose any hon. member thinks that the board would be omniscient in judgment or knowledge, but I would think that a board which devoted its entire time to the study of all the facts entering into the framing of tariffs would be expected to know a little more about that subject and to have gathered a few more facts than an ordinary governmental body which deals with the many affairs of state. To my mind if such a body could get some of the facts accurately they would perhaps justify their existence. I think, as in every other body, very much would depend on the nature of the appointments, the personalities and capacities of the men appointed. Next in importance would be the extent to which the government would give serious thought to the facts found. As to the appointments, I believe there is no other way of ensuring a non-partisan body than to remove such a body entirely from the possibility of being discharged by the next government which might hold office. For that reason, if for no other, I would be in favour of the bill, believing as I do that there should be a judicial body and believing that facts should be found.
I do not know what my hon. friend to my right is giggling about, but if my reasoning is faulty I should like to know wherein the fault lies. If he giggles because of political suspicions, he may keep them to himself. I have tried to reason this matter out in the best way I know, just as my hon. friend has done. He takes exception to the bill because of certain suspicions he holds which I do not wish to share. The day may come when it may be proved that he was right; in fact I am not saying he is wrong. I merely state however
Tariff Board

that at the moment I do not hold the suspicions held by him. When the board is in operation suspicions will not be necessary.
I believe the proposed body as far as possible should be removed from political conflict, and I ask if there is any other way by which such a body can be removed except by the way provided in the bill?


Mr. EULER:: Mr. Chairman, I have given careful thought to the provisions of this bill, and I have come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister would be well-advised in the general interest to accept the amendment. As is well-known, I, like almost every member in this house, have always been in favour of a tariff board. I need not go into that. I agree almost entirely with what the Prime Minister has said in the course of the debate as to the desirability of a board which will have fact finding powers, which will exercise those powers, and which will then place its information at the disposal of the government in the framing of the tariff. I believe in that absolutely, and it is but fair criticism to say at this time, that if the Prime Minister realized-as he has always realized-the necessity for such a fact finding body in order that the tariff might be intelligently framed, it does seem an anomaly that he should have made changes in all the important items in the tariff schedules, and then proceeded to create a tariff board. I say that is an inconsistency that has not been entirely explained. When the other day the Prime Minister spoke of the advisability of such a board and of the powers it was to have, I asked him how, then, could its services be applied to the changes made last September and to those to be made this session, but I received no reply. And yet if it is so desirable to have such a board in order that the tariff may be intelligently framed, how can we reconcile the absence of such a board with what has been done, how can we have any assurance that the tariff changes we are making by the present budget, as well as the changes we made last September, were intelligently made? But that is merely by the way.
The Prime Minister has advanced the argument in connection with the appointment of other officials, notably the High Commissioner in London, that such a commissioner should be one who is in sympathy with the purposes of the government. I have not any great fault to find with that argument, and I submit that if you want a partisan board-which I do not-that that principle might as well apply to the appointing of the members of the tariff board which is to be created. I 
will also say in passing-and I am absolutely sincere in this-that if the Prime Minister would give the house an assurance that he intends to appoint a board that is nonpartisan in its character, I would not have a great deal of fault to find. But human nature is human nature, politics is politics, and I for one do not think in the absence of such an assurance on his part that the board will be other than a partisan board. By that I mean they will be men of the party to which he himself belongs.
Now we have heard this argument, twofold in its nature, that such a board will merely be a fact finding board, that mathematics are mathematics, and if they say a certain thing is so mathematically, it is so and cannot be anything else. I understand that when the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) spoke yesterday-I am sorry I did not hear him-he made some remarks with respect to the work of the investigators in foreign countries who are attached to the Department of National Revenue. I have had some experience of their work, and while I will say that costs in foreign countries may be ascertained approximately, such ascertainment is not an exact science by any means. I know that to be a fact. And this tariff board, no matter how competent its members may be, will find a great deal of difficulty in ascertaining absolutely correctly what production costs are in foreign countries, and perhaps even in our own country. That being the case, it will become almost of necessity a matter of opinion on the part of the members of the tariff board as to what such costs are and as to what the rate should be in order to establish the equality that is spoken of. That condition arising, I leave it to the common sense of every member to say if the board will not naturally be inclined to travel in the direction in which they feel the government would like them to travel. I think it is not possible for such a board to do otherwise. The Prime Minister has stated that the members of this board will be in the nature of a board of judges. Well, even judges disagree. In our own appeal courts composed of five or six members we very often find a decision given by a majority of one. We have seen the decision of a trial judge reversed on appeal, and that decision in turn reversed by a higher appellate court. I say that with the object of making plain that you cannot have any mathematical certainty with regard to the work of this board.
The other argument that has been advanced, and to my mind it has some force, is that you

Tariff Board
cannot obtain competent men to devote themselves to this work when they do not know that they will be retained in office for a definite or extended period of time. Perhaps there is something in that argument, but on reflection I do not think it conclusive. Members of this house, and members of this government, who do not receive greater remuneration than is to be paid to members of this proposed board, willingly undertake their duties when they know they are not certain at all of retaining office for a period of probably more than four years. I am quite sure members of the house, to say nothing of members of this government or of former governments, will not allow their modesty to prevent them saying that they are at least men of as great ability as we may expect the members of this newly created tariff board to be. I believe it would be possible to obtain men who are thoroughly competent and who are imibued with sufficient public spirit to serve on the board and do good work even though they have no certainty of ten years of office.
There is no absolute certainty in regard to the fact-finding of this proposed board, and there being no certainty their prejudice would very naturally lead them to do the thing which the government desired them to do. If that be true, in what situation is a new government? I am not now talking of high tariff or low tariff, but if we have then a board in office which perhaps at times will exercise a bit of prejudice-because we may as well say what we think-in favour of the policies of the government which appointed them, then when a new government comes in why should it be obliged to retain in office men in whom it has no confidence and who would act contrary to its wishes? It is impossible for that newly elected government to disestablish the board, and its members cannot be discharged. True, the new government might bring in a bill to repeal this legislation and disestablish the board in that way. But then it would have to contend with an antagonistic Senate. If I may without disrespect say so of that august body, it is perhaps the greatest anomaly of parliamentary government in Canada that when a new government comes in it almost invariably from the necessity of the case finds the upper house of a different political stripe from the House of Commons which has just been elected by the people, and which is supposed to represent the wishes of the people.
I can see no harm in establishing a board whose members would hold office during pleasure. Those men would hold office at
least during the tenure of the present government-unless they were shown to be incompetent, and then I hardly know how the present government would get rid of them. I would say that it should not be the wish of the government, if unfortunately for themselves they failed to elect a majority to this house and were turned out of office, that their successors should be saddled with a board entirely out of sympathy with the wishes of the new government. I believe in the final analysis that if the Prime Minister and the government would give careful consideration to the question even now they might decide, except that it might be doing violence to their pride, that all their purposes would be gained by adopting the amendment as their own, assured that the board would do good work, assured that they could obtain good men, and assured also that they would be freed probably from the unjustifiable suspicion that they are playing politics in making appointments to this board.


Mr. BROWN:: I have already spoken on this bill and my remarks will now be brief. I protest against what seems to me to be the worst fallacy I have ever heard of that is, that this is a question of absolute mathematics. The Prime Minister seems to have admitted that there may be differences of opinion as to the relative costs of manufacturing in one country and another; but he does contend that once that difference has been admitted, or once a certain figure has been found to be a fact or a so-called fact, then the imposition of a certain duty is all that is necessary to establish equality. I protest most emphatically against that idea. The Prime Minister ought to know that when any tariffs are levied, when any restrictions are put on trade, there are a thousand and one unforeseen results that cannot be accurately estimated. In nothing is it more true than in the making of tariffs that:
The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley.
You may say that a certain percentage of duty will equalize costs, but there are many unforeseen factors entering into the problem which cannot be calculated mathematically. It seems to me a most absurd position to take, that this is a case of pure mathematics.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I have not taken up any time discussing any stage of this bill, either on the resolution, on the second reading or on any other occasion, and therefore I feel justified in prolonging the discussion somewhat, to put before the committee a
Tariff Board

matter that has come to my personal attention. I refer to the way in which facts are ascertained in Canada by other countries. Before proceeding with that phase of the subject, however, I would observe that the emphatic manner in which the Prime Minister presented the case at its different stages almost convinced me that it was a mathematical problem: facts are facts he says and no change of government can alter them. The same dictum was repeated by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine). But it depends upon the angle from which you look at facts, and upon your preconceived ideas with regard to those facts. As indicated by hon. members, including the hon. gentleman to my left (Mr. Euler), different persons looking into the same facts will disagree in their conclusions. Judges disagree, courts disagree; even the railway commission sometimes disagree among themselves in the judgments based upon the same facts and evidence.
It has come to my attention on more than one occasion how difficult it is to ascertain cost of production even in one's own country. How much more difficult is it then to ascertain the cost of production of any article in another country where you have no status? All you can do is snoop around and get the so called facts as best you may. That is all. This board will not go to the United States and other countries, nor does the United States tariff board come to this country; it is the representatives of the board that visit other places. On one occasion, as I remember, a certain tariff board representative came to Canada to find out the facts regarding the cost of production of wheat, and I noticed at the time that they went into the most favourable places where they could get a low cost of production. It might have been that I was unduly suspicious, but the fact is that they went to such places as would show a low cost of production in Canada that would strengthen their case for reporting a higher duty against us. However that may be, my suspicions have been more than confirmed since then. Imagine getting the cost of producing wheat during these past three years in certain parts of Saskatchewan and comparing that cost with the production of the same article during the three previous years, then coming to a mathematical conclusion as to costs of production on the strength of such varying and unstable facts. Why, one might be a hundred times greater than the other, depending upon the year you took in which to secure the so called "facts" or cost of production. The cost of producing wheat in southern Saskatchewan this year is perhaps 
$100 per bushel-I have never worked it out
but I venture that guess. And compare that with the cost in 1928. What a vast difference there would be. Yet it is variable calculations of that kind by which the Prime Minister argued the cost of production can be arrived at.
There was an unsatisfactory tariff inquiry regarding the cost of producing potatoes in the maritime provinces. I am not familiar with the details of that United States inquiry, but I am familiar with the attempt on the part of the representatives of the American tariff board to obtain the cost of producing milk and cream in Canada. As the committee will recall, it was evident at the outset, in view of the legislation adopted in that country under the Lenroot-Taber bill that the intention was to exclude cream and milk from Canada. That legislation was modified on the representations of the Canadian dairymen, but they persevered in their determination to exclude these articles, and they finally succeeded in practically shutting out our dairy producers. During that discussion I took the matter up with the secretary or the president of the American tariff board

I forget which- protesting against their method of securing costs in Canada. Wherever they went they were looking for certain costs-low costs- which would justify an increase in the tariff in the United States. Is that a mere suspicion, or has it been borne out by the facts? What I am saying in this regard, although I speak from memory, is substantially correot, as the files in the Department of Agriculture will show. I wrote to the secretary of the tariff board at Washington, pointing out that if they wished to obtain correct data and figures with regard to the cost of producing milk and cream, I would put at their disposal the experimental farm with all its records, or any other branch farm in Canada. They never took advantage of that offer. Two or three of their representatives did come to Ottawa some time afterwards but they did not go near our farm officers, nor did they attempt to obtain any figures from us. I was not in Ottawa the day they came, so I cannot speak personally with regard to their visit. I do know, however, that I invited them to come direct to us and get any data at our disposal where the figures would probably be more reliable than any such figures and data as could be secured elsewhere in Canada. But they never came near the experimental farm officers for it.
Now, so far as the United States are concerned, I have never known them to send their emissaries to Canada but for the purpose

Tariff Board
of getting evidence which would justify them in raising their own tariff. I cannot think of a single instance, except maple products in which, when they returned to their own country, they did not increase the tariff on the particular article with respect to which they had come over to make inquiries.
No one suspects this government, surely, of any intention of appointing such a board. Oh, no. But they might. How will they obtain the facts in another country? Over and over again, the difficulties involved have been pointed out. What kind of board will be chosen? We can only surmise by what has been done recently. We know some of the representatives the government put on the Stamp commission. We know that Sanford Evans was put there, and he delivered the goods very well on behalf of the cause he represented. If that is to be taken as an indication of the kind of board we are to get, we shall have to look elsewhere for that judicial body which the Prime Minister has so glowingly described. This trio which is to constitute the tariff board is to be a sort of glorified board of judges, only of a very much higher type: they would not have any political ideas or bias in their minds; they are to be totally impartial; they are to give their decisions quite regardless of the views or the wishes of the government. Can you imagine such a condition of things? Are we ready for glory, Mr. Chairman? Have we arrived at the millennium? We do not expect that of this government, at least, and we know that we shall not get such a tariff board from them-a body which is supposed to come to conclusions on data and figures that are so problematical in character and which are next to impossible to acquire in a foreign conutry.
I have no hesitation, in the circumstances, in voting emphatically for the amendment. I his is one of those things regarding which you might very well say that the more you think of it the less you think of it; and if we keep on discussing it much longer the government, I fancy, is almost prepared to throw up its hands and discard this phase of the bill, the ten year board appointment.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Holding
the fiscal views I do, I should prefer a board appointed at pleasure and not for a period of ten years as the Prime Minister is determined to appoint them. The Prime Minister might accept the suggestion of the exMinister of Justice. The board should be appointed either by a non-partisan committee of the house, or else it should be approved by the house before the actual appointment is made. Only in that way can we ensure that'the personnel will be all and will do all
that the Prime Minister intends. I agree with the last speaker, that it is stretching credulity too far to ask anyone in this house to believe that hon. members opposite, elected as they have been on a high tariff policy, will appoint anything else than a board whose sympathies will be all in the direction of high tariffs. The little red herring of fact finding which has been drawn across the trail is just so much fog to obscure the real purpose of the board.
Let us consider for a moment the finding of facts in connection with an industry in Canada, not to mention one outside. What factors will be taken into consideration in the ascertaining of facts? Will watered stock be considered, will that be one of the factors to be investigated? Will the earnings of the company be considered, the efficiency or otherwise of its management? Who will determine what is or is not efficiency in management? What about the factories in eastern Canada whose equipment is out of date? Many of those factories will attempt to operate for purposes of internal economy, no doubt mistaken, under a high protective policy which permits them either to peg prices or actually to increase prices. What about the location of factories? Is that not a factor to be considered in investigating costs? What about available markets or the possibility of the expansion of markets? I find it impossible to imagine that any board could determine what the facts are without a formula previously being prescribed. Even if a formula is prescribed, the facts themselves may in turn become mere doubts.
The work of a tariff board of this kind may be most important, but following the suggestion made by the hon. member for North Waterloo, it seems to me to be the height of absurdity for the Prime Minister to come forward with a proposal to establish a judicial tariff board to ascertain facts and to find out whether or not the tariff should be raised after he has mutilated the tariff schedules of this country. If the administration were sincere before raising one single item in the tariff, they would first reduce them to the former level and then submit them to this proposed fact-finding tariff board. However, I do not think there is the slightest intention on the part of the administration to do that sort of thing.
Another phase of this bill to which I take serious exception is the secrecy clause. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his contention that any industry, any manufacturer or any interest of any kind, whether it be agricultural or otherwise, applying to the government for special privileges of
Tariff Board

this or any other character should be willing to submit to public view every fact in connection with the administration, the earnings and the profits derived therefrom. Without the utmost publicity all governments will be subject to proper condemnation for interfering with taxation in the interests of privileged classes. Unless that publicity is given the people will not be satisfied that the privileges granted are justified.
Ever since the history of tariffs began there has been a clear division and cleavage of public opinion. There are men who because of a certain array of facts think that a high tariff is advantageous; there is another group who are agreed that a certain measure of tariff for revenue purposes may be acceptable; then there is a third group which is against tariffs in any form whatever, they regard the principle as uneconomical and unsound. How does the Prime Minister propose to bring together, even in a judicial board of this character, the opposing views of those who follow Henry George and of those who follow the right hon. gentleman himself? How is he going to coordinate and bring down to a point of compromise the viewpoints held by private industry and those held by sound economists every one of whom is opposed to a high tariff and who contend that the principle of protection is uneconomic in character?
I find it impossible to support this bill in its present form. I submit to the Prime Minister that if he is sincere, if he wants to convince this house or this country that he has in mind solely a board to ascertain facts in the national interest, then that board should not be selected by himself and his cabinet but either by this house or by a non-partisan committee of the house. I have no confidence either in the board or in the bill.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief because I voiced my opinion on a previous occasion in connection with the appointment of this tariff board for a period of ten years. I want to reiterate that I have no complaint to make in connection with a board to advise. I am convinced that if the present government had appointed such a board they would be in a much better position before parliament and before this country than they are at the present moment. They have made increases in the tariff purely and simply for the benefit of special interests, and, so far as I am able to ascertain, without obtaining the viewpoint of the people who must pay for those increases. I am in favour of a

tariff board but I am not in favour of a board which will be of a character to perpetuate itself upon a group of individuals who may secure the majority vote of this country at some forthcoming elections. The present government has, in my opinion, a perfect right to increase the tariff. They informed the electorate they were going to do that, but I have very grave doubts that the electorate ever anticipated that such drastic increases would be made. This government have received a mandate to cany out a certain policy, and they are doing it.
Supposing the government should submit to this new tariff board the five or six hundred items of the tariff which they have increased so drastically, and the board recommend in certain cases that drastic decreases should be made. I am confident that a proper board would discover that increases had been made to an unprecedented degree and that the consumers of this country were being bled white by such increases. Think what an awful position the government would be in? They would be in a much more embarrassing position than they are to-day in respect to the Stamp report on grain. The board must of necessity be in sympathy with the policy of the government which appoints it. I do not share the enthusiasm of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin in regard to this matter; this board will be composed of a group of men whose convictions are favourable to the government. Supposing at the next general elections the appeal is made, as it undoubtedly will be made-I shall make it if I am spared to be a candidate-


An hon. MEMBER:: We suspected that.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not changed my opinion simply because this government happens to be in office. That has happened quite frequently in Canadian history; we have had reverses and I am confident there will be reverses. Then imagine the position we shall be in as a Liberal party taking their advice.


Mr. SPENCE:: The hon. member will not be one of it.


Charles A. Stewart: I have just as good a chance as has my hon. friend of being elected. I know how zealously some of my hon. friends pleaded in connection with the potato question, hence the change in the order in council. They got too much tariff on that occasion and they will get too much tariff on many other occasions as they will discover when they go to the electorate to get their votes the next election.	[DOT]

Tariff Board


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a long time
away.


Charles A. Stewart: No, it is
not.


Robert James Manion: The people gave their
verdict at the last election.


Charles A. Stewart: I give my
hon. friends credit for having put it over. There is no objection to that at all. But now that my hon. friends have put it over and the people are taking their medicine, it will come my hon. friends' turn to sit in opposition and we shall be back where we belong. All I am complaining about is this: that inasmuch as a tariff board will have to deal more with policies than with facts, no government should be handicapped by the advice of a group of men who do not believe in the policies on which that administration was elected. That is my chief complaint and that is why Lam going to vote for the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Hanbury) negatived: Yeas, 44; nays, 68.


Mr. GRAY:: Subsection 7 of section 3 of
the bill reads:
No member shall be eligible to be a candidate for election to the House of Commons of Canada until after the expiration of two years from the date when he ceased to be a member of the board.
I propose, at the conclusion of my remarks, to move an amendment to this subsection. I have never been able to see the reason for inserting this subsection in the bill, and after listening to the Prime Minister and other speakers on the opposite side of the house who have pictured to the chamber the high calibre of the men they' propose to appoint to this board, it is all the more difficult for one to see any reason whatever for introducing into our legislation a subsection of this nature. The Prime Minister has promised to appoint men of high calibre to this board and speakers on the opposite side of the house have stated that one of their reasons for making the term of office ten years is that men of that type will not accept such positions unless they are assured a term of office commensurate with their sphere in life. It is practically, according to the Prime Minister, men of the calibre of judges who are to be appointed to this board. These men will be asked to serve their country and then, should they see fit to resign or when their term of ten years is ended, they are to be placed on the Indian list. That is exactly what this means.
I wonder if there is any precedent for a clause of this kind. I have searched rather carefully; I have studied the constitution of other boards, and I do not find such a provision in connection with the Board of Railway Commissioners, the Pension Appeal Board, the Farm Loan Board, or, in fact, anywhere except in two particulars which I am going to cite. In the Dominion Elections Act, being chapter 53 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, I find under section 39 those who are disqualified as candidates for election. That is, I presume, exactly where we are going to class the members of the tariff board.
I wish to call attention to paragraph (f) of section 39, dealing with men of exactly this type that we are appointing to the tariff commission. Paragraph (f) reads:
Every person accepting or holding any office, commission or employment, permanent or temporary, in the service of the government of Canada at the nomination of the crown or at the nomination of any of the officers of the government of Canada, to which any salary, fee, wages, allowance, emolument or profit of any kind is attached-during the time he is so holding any such office, commission or employment.
What I wish to emphasize is the fact that he is disqualified only during the time he is so holding such office. Again under paragraph
(e)	we have certain other public officers, as follows:
Every person holding the office of sheriff, registrar of deeds, clerk of the peace or county crown attorney-during the time he is holding such office.
Then paragraph (d) refers to members of legislatures as follows:
Every person who is a member of the legislature of any province-during the time he is such member.
And so on. I could read a number of similar paragraphs, each one limiting the disqualification to the time the person is holding such office. But there are two paragraphs which prescribe disqualification for election for a period of years and it is in this class of disqualified persons that the Prime Minister puts the members of the tariff board whom he has placed upon such a high pinnacle of distinction. These are paragraphs fa) and (b). Paragraph (a) starts with those who are guilty of corrupt practices. I am not going to read the whole paragraph, because hon. members are all familiar with it, but at the conclusion it specifies that a person who is found guilty of corrupt practices is disqualified:
During the period of seven years next after the date of his being so found, convicted, ordered or found guilty.
Tariff Board

Paragraph (b) provides that those guilty of illegal practices shall be disqualified for a period of five years next after the date of being so found, convicted, ordered or found guilty.
Now I come to the bill constituting the tariff board in which the Prime Minister inserts a clause making every member of it non-eligible as a candidate for election to this house for a period of two years after he has ceased to be a member of the board. Is that provisions inserted, as was pointed out so ably by the hon. meimber for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) when he moved his amendment to the second reading, because the Prime Minister is afraid that these men will be guilty of corrupt or illegal practices. Is that the reason? He places the members of the board in exactly the same class with those who are found guilty of corrupt or illegal practices. I think that all members of the house will see at once the absurdity of such a provision. Surely, Mr. Chairman, after a man has served his country faithfully and well, on the tariff board, especially if he is of the calibre that has been suggested to this house, and if the people of any constituency desire him to represent them in this house, he is entitled to be a candidate. I would think he would be all the more fitted to be a member of this house because of the training he would have had as a member of the board. I do not propose to speak longer on the subject. I hope that the Prime Minister will see the force of my argument. When one searches, and I have searched diligently, to find some reason why this provision should have been inserted in the tariff bill, one can only come to the conclusion that it was done through some personal antipathy on the part of the right hon. the Prime Minister. I sincerely hope he will not allow personalities to enter in, and that he will permit this section to be withdrawn. I move, Mr. Chairman, that section 3 be amended by striking out subsection 7 thereof.


William Daum Euler: I may have missed the explanation of this subsection. I would ask the Prime Minister for what reason this clause is inserted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the reasons stated in the subsection.


The CHAIRMAN:: All those in favour of
the amendment will say "Aye".


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that we should rest satisfied with the Prime Minister's reply. We asked what

was the reason for a particular subsection being in the bill, and the Prime Minister replied, "for the reasons stated in the subsection."


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. The question has been put, and the hon. member can only speak with the consent of the house. The hon. member was a little late in rising.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the Prime Minister not give his consent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a question of the Prime Minister. The rules of order are not in the hands of the Prime Minister.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Then I will speak afterwards unless the house consents.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the committee consents, the hon. member may speak now.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: When an hon. member
asks the Prime Minister the reason for a certain subsection being in the bill and the Prime Minister replies, it is because the subsection is there, well, I do not want to use strong terms, but I do feel that the Prime Minister's disregard for the house has got to a point where it certainly should be reprimanded. The objection that has been made by the hon. member for West Lambton is very strong. He has shown conclusively that there are three classes of men who are going to be disqualified from being candidates in an election; those who have been guilty of corrupt practices are disqualified for seven years; those who have committed illegal practices are disqualified for five years; and those who have been members of this tariff board are going to be disqualified for two years. Surely a reason should be given for doing that. I insist that before we take the vote on the amendment the Prime Minister refrain for a few moments from writing the letter he is now writing and stand up and give us an explanation. With all respect I do say that I realize that the Prime Minister is working very hard. His capacity for work is stupendous, but he has imposed upon himself this quantity of work. We are not responsible for that. We have urged him repeatedly to appoint a Minister of Finance and to let his ministers be other things than small messengers around him. We have urged him to give them a chance to take their stand in this house. Surely when a question is put to the Prime Minister in the manner in which my hon. friend from North Waterloo put his question, and when an amendment is

Tariff Board
before the house on such an important matter as this, which puts together in the statutes of the country men who commit corrupt or illegal practices and men who are tariff board commissioners, there should be an explanation before the vote is taken.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I would like to have
an answer, Mr. Chairman, from the right hon. the Prime Minister to the question that was asked.
Mr. MeMILLAN (Huron):	I had no intention whatever of speaking further on the provisions of this tariff bill. I thought I had put my objections sufficiently strongly during the discussion on the first reading, but when the right hon. the Prime Minuter of this country takes the stand that he has taken in reply to the question from the hon. member for North Waterloo I am surprised. I think it is only fair to the members of this house and to the country that he should give a reasonable answer to the question.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think it? is my duty
to the electors I represent in this house to protest against the attitude of the Prime Minister. I do not raise my voice very often in this house, but I must say that I feel that the Prime Minister is in honour bound to give an answer to the question that has been properly asked by my hon. friend from North Waterloo. Otherwise, the impression will go abroad that the Prime Minister has something to hide, and that he does not wish to give the answer or meet the wishes of the house.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we are
through with the discussion on section 3, might I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we take up the succeeding sections, subsection by subsection, and that the subsections be read?


William Richard Motherwell: Might I suggest before we proceed that as the Prime Minister is suddenly stricken dumb, the Minister of Justice should substitute for him.
On section 4, subsection 1-Duties of board.


Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend section 4, subsection 1, by striking out in line 2 the words, "under the direction" and substituting therefor the words, "at the request."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 1 (a)-Raw materials.
Mr. HEENAN:: Mr. Chairman, the fact
that at this time the government has introduced an amendment encourages me to ask whether they will accept another one. Section 4 deals with the duties of the board, and may I say that while those duties are many they do not as yet go far enough. In his discussion of the bill the Prime Minister pointed out that the cost of labour would be quite a factor in determining the rate of duty required. I think the Prime Minister will agree with me however that there are factors greater than the cost of labour. For instance the costs of the reorganization of companies with increased capitalization is one of the great factors. Inasmuch as these are the days of combines, reorganizations and mergers the capitalizations of companies have been greatly enhanced, and inasmuch as the capitalization of a company in a measure affects its earnings and dividends I think the Prime Minister may well agree that these factors may have a much greater bearing on the costs of production than would the labour costs. The Prime Minister, during his discussion of the question, pointed out that such factors as low wages and long hours of labour in certain countries must of necessity be taken into account by the board and subsequently by the government in arriving at a proper tariff against those countries. I was wondering if the tariff might operate in the opposite direction. If the tariff board should learn of some country wherein higher wages were paid, and a higher standard of living prevailed would the duties in Canada be reduced proportionately? That is a matter which at the present time is concerning me because I do not know what the government may have in mind in this connection.
With respect to the labour question however, I have in mind the discussions which took place in the regular session of 1930 and again in the special session of the same year at which time the present Prime Minister pointed out that any protection which was given to any concern in Canada should also carry with it a protection for the labouring men engaged in the industries concerned. I have in my hand one or two articles which, if he has not already read them, may surprise the Prime Minister. I refer first to an article appearing in a newspaper called Labor and particularly to a press despatch from Montreal, Quebec, dated June 25, 1931:
The British American Oil Company's new $2,000,000 refinery plant, now under construction at Montreal East, is starting out to be a monument to cheap labour.
A "hard-boiled" labour policy has been established-one that has probably never been equalled on a similar undertaking in Canada.
Not only are wages lower than on any other construction job of the same type, but the
Tariff Board,

ten-hour day, seven-day week prevails. The workers have no voice in determining their conditions and are bullied and discharged at the whim of the foreman.
The despatch was sent by a Canadian correspondent to this Washington publication. The same gentleman investigated conditions in the city of Toronto, and as a result I find in the issue of July 7 of the same publication the following:
The same hard-boiled policy which exists on the British American Oil Refinery project in Montreal seems to permeate the whole organization of the Toronto Iron Works, a close ally of the British American Oil.
A representative of labour visited this city this week and interviewed a number of men- some formerly employed by the company and others still on the job.
I shall not read the whole of the article, because it is too disgusting, and sets out in detail how this particular company is bringing into Canada American methods of bludgeoning, bullying and discriminating against men who would dare to organize along the lines of the protection afforded them by the treaty of Versailles, namely, freedom of association. I have an amendment to offer-


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: How long have the conditions as described in the labour paper prevailed in the two industries to which my hon. friend has referred?


Peter Heenan: This is just a new industry which has commenced operations since it was given protection.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: When:


Peter Heenan: About a month ago.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: On the contrary I think the operations were commenced when my hon. friend was Minister of Labour.


Peter Heenan: Is that so? My bon.
friend seems to be one of those gentlemen who know it all. If hon. members would listen to him long enough they would know that he does not know half as much as he thinks he does.
In moving an amendment I do So with the utmost confidence that the present government will be willing to accept it. To indicate the view's of my hon. friends opposite in connection with matters of labour I wish at this time to quote the words of the present Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition. Turing to page 2506 of Hansard, 1930, I find the following:
Here we have a chance to say that these increases shall apply only to such mills as maintain the principles of the treaty of

Versailles. Is it unfair to say that that should be done? I commend the matter to the government. I think it should be done. It may mean great differences, but an amendment such as this, I think, would meet the situation.
And further on he stated:
That is an amendment that I commend now to the government, and that I think at the proper time should be moved; because after all, Mr. Chairman, if we really represent Canadian democracy, if we are sincere in the expressions of our faith in our party conventions, if we really mean what we have declared unanimously in this house with respect to the provisions of the treaty of Versailles and at the League of Nations at Geneva regarding labour, there should not be a dissenting voice in this chamber. We have the opportunity and the jurisdiction; let us leave out all this talk about the province and assert that _ power affirmatively,' and let it be understood in this country that when we agree to principles in treaties, in compacts and conventions, we mean what we say, and that our expressions are not mere sounding brass and tinkling cymbal.
The amendment I have to offer is practically the same as that moved in the year 1912 by Mr., now Sir Thomas, White. That amendment was as follows:
Whenever application is made on behalf of a manufacturing company for higher duties the commission shall investigate the capitalization of the company and all salaries paid to the president, directors and managers and the wages paid to their employees.
Because of the fact that we have since that time entered into treaties, the Treaty of Versailles in particular, declaring the number of hours per day that employees are required to work and whether or not freedom of association is permitted to them, my amendment will be this:
Whenever application is made on behalf of a manufacturing company for higher duties the board shall investigate the capitalization of the company and all salaries paid to the president, directors and managers, and the wages paid to their employees, the number of hours per day employees are required to work and whether or not freedom of association is permitted the employees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What clause is the
amendment to apply to?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: We are discussing section 4, subsection 2.


Peter Heenan: To section 4. I commend this amendment to the Prime Minister with every confidence that he will accept it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is this an addition to
subsection (a) ?


Peter Heenan: I have not had time to look that up, Mr. Chairman, but I think it
might apply as subsection 7.

Tariff Board


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Then the hon. member will have to withhold his amendment until we reach subsection 6, because the right hon. leader of the opposition has asked that we discuss this clause subsection by subsection. We are on paragraph (a).


Peter Heenan: As I have to leave the chamber at six o'clock, I should like my amendment to be taken into consideration when subsection 6 is under discussion.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The committee may allow subsection 6 to be discussed now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no point in departing from the rules.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: In that case the amendment is out of order at the present time. We are on paragraph, (a).


Mr. HEAPS:: I would suggest to the mover of the amendment that it might apply to paragraph (f).	.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes, when you reach that subsection, but at the request of the right hon. leader of the opposition it was understood that we should take the clause subsection by subsection. The committee is discussing paragraph (a).


Hugh Guthrie: We finished paragraph (a).
Paragraph (a) agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (b) -production.


Hugh Guthrie: I beg to move:
That subsection (b) be amended by inserting the word "efficient" before the word "production" where it occurs in the first and last lines of the clause.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the purpose of the amendment?


Hugh Guthrie: The abject is to show that the production must be of a high and efficient Standard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Window dressing.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I submit that the amendment will only make more difficult the fact finding duty of the commission; for surely efficiency is not a question of fact, it is a question of opinion.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it is just as well to emphasize efficiency.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes. Carried.


Mr. BUTCHER:: I think there are two objections to be raised to this particular subsection, which reads:
In respect of goods produced in or imported into Canada the board shall, under the direction of the minister, make inquiry as to (b) the cost of efficient production in Canada and elsewhere, and what increases or decreases in rates of duty are required to equalize differences in the cost of efficient production.
My first objection to this subsection is that it is really impossible of performance; my second is that it confers powers that I believe even the Minister of Finance himself does not intend to confer upon the board, He has told us that it will not foe within the province of this board to make recommendations or suggestions or deductions or to draw inferences, but that it shall find facts only. In my opinion the real effect of this particular subsection is to do even more than that. It gives the board power to make decisions of far-reaching importance. I believe it will not be very hard to prove what I say, for no matter how exhaustive the search, or how diligent the inquiry, it will be impossible to establish any one figure as the cost of production either in Canada or elsewhere, because the costs will vary in different countries, in different parts of the same country, in different plants in each country, and at different times in all of the plants in each country. I believe that has been proven by the tariff commission of the United States, a body which has been referred to so often during this debate, and I desire to quote from one of their reports made in 1919. I admit that is a long time ago, and I remember the Prime Minister told us they have a new board now, but I believe the board at that time had the same instructions as the board of to-day has-to find facts. Well, they set out to find facts in many cases, and I believe they came to the conclusion that it was next to impossible to establish any one figure as the cost of production even in the United States, let alone in other countries. I am bearing in mind what the Prime Minister told us the other night about the establishment of the cost of producing edible gelatin in Holland. I believe I am correct in saying he told us there was only one plant in Holland making edible gelatin-


Richard Bedford Bennett: One important plant.


Harry Butcher: -and that that plant had an agency in New York. I conclude it would be comparatively easy under those circumstances to discover the cost of producing edible gelatin. Then I think he referred to the inquiry into the cost of producing maple

Tariff Board

sugar in Canada. I believe that that also would be comparatively easy to determine, because maple sugar is more or less of a raw product, slightly processed. I believe in most cases maple sugar is a kind of by-product, and I understand there are no plants devoted entirely to the production of this particular commodity. I notice the United States tariff commission in their report of 1919, series No. 9, gave the result of their inquiries as to the cost of wool. May I say here that I believe it would have been difficult for the Prime Minister to find many other articles, the costs of production of which would be as easy to ascertain as the production costs of the two particular commodities that he did mention; when we come to the more elaborate schedules I think it would be very much more difficult to ascertain the production costs. For instance, the tariff commission of that period were instructed to ascertain the cost of the production of wool in the United States and this is what they discovered: They discovered that in 1919 in Montana wool cost 76 cents per pound. They arrived at that cost by taking into consideration labour, interest on investment, cost of feed, fees and rentals, depreciation and miscellaneous charges. The same year, with the same method of computation, they discovered that wool in Wyoming cost 48 cents; in Washington, 35 cents; in Idaho, 32 cents. But even more singular, they discovered that whereas wool cost 76 cents in Montana in 1919, it cost 44 cents in 1918. It will be seen, therefore, how difficult it is to arrive at the cost of this one raw material which enters so largely into the production cost of woollen goods. In the same year they made the discovery that the cost of producing beet sugar was $66.40 per ton in one case and 1139.80 in another, these being the extreme costs. This discrepancy is true of agriculture, but the tariff commission decided that it was even more marked in industry. Many of the facts to which I am referring I have gathered from a book written by one Thomas Walker Page, who was at this time chairman of the United States tariff commission. The book, he says, was written with the aid of the council and staff of the Institute of Economics of Washington, D.C. Referring to the cost of manufacture in connection with agriculture, he says:
In many branches of manufacturing the problem of joint costs is even more confusing than in agriculture. In its study of the dye industry in 1919 the tariff commission found that the different producers used five different bases for distributing expenses, namely, the amount of labour directly used on a given product, the cost of the raw material going into it, the amount of superintendence charge-

able to it, the sales value of the product, and the capital investment imputed to it. Naturally the costs show great diversity, and the commission on presenting its report found it necessary to strongly emphasize the uncertainty of conclusions drawn from the cost figures in this report, and the possibility of error in administrative action based upon such data.
And this brings me to my opinion that the 'tariff board is being given the power of making far-reaching decisions. It has before it the low cost, the high cost and many costs between. Shall the members of that board select the low cost or the high cost or the average? It is for them to decide; and as I have pointed out, this is a greater power even than would be conferred upon them if they were merely asked to make recommendations or suggestions.
I will not say much more because the matter has been so thoroughly threshed out by members on this side. In my opinion, however, the Prime Minister himself last night gave one potent reason why the concluding words of this particular section should be eliminated. These words are:
What increases or decreases in rates of duty are required to equalize differences in the cost of production is simply a matter of mathematics.
If it were possible to establish definitely any one figure as the cost of production in this or any other country, I admit that it would be simply a matter of mathematical calculation to decide the rate of duty that should be imposed. But I believe that is one more reason why the words I have quoted should be deleted from the clause. Surely it is not necessary to impose on this highly paid tariff board-they will receive $32,000 per annum among them-the duty of making a simple mathematical calculation that might be made by a junior clerk in the office of the Minister of Finance. Moreover, it would derogate from the dignity of the board to instruct them to perform this simple mathematical calculation. For this reason I move that clause (b) of subsection 1 of section 4 be amended by striking out the words I have quoted.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The proposed tariff board
will have an almost impossible task if they are to be asked to carry out the terms of this section. First of all they will be required to determine cost of production in Canada and elsewhere, which means that they will have to travel in all parts of the world to ascertain the costs of producing goods imported either directly or indirectly into the Dominion. This is one objection I have to

Tariff Board
the section. Further, the section provides that they shall indicate what increases or decreases may be necessary in the rates of duty. That ought to be the function of the government and of parliament. It is not something for an outside body to determine. I think we are delegating to an outside body responsibilities which we should assume as members of parliament. This delegation of the duties of parliament to such a body is something which ought not to appear in a tariff measure. When it comes to determining cost of production, I would point out that it is almost an impossible task to ascertain the cost of production in Canada alone, to say nothing of the rest of the world. Objection has been made in Manitoba to the importation of cheap goods from the province of Quebec. How will you deal with such a question? Suppose a manufacturer from Manitoba says, "I want this tariff board to inquire into wages paid in the province of Quebec, with a view to reducing the duty on textile goods coming into the Dominion." What would be the effect? Right away we are up against the wall of provincial jurisdiction. The federal government may have certain powers, but the question of wages, hours of labour, and so on are questions entirely within the provincial jurisdiction. And I imagine that if an attempt were made by the government through the tariff board to lower the duties and this board went into the province and asked for the production of documents with respect to wages and so forth, the corporation would be within its rights in refusing to submit such documents to them. The immediate result would be a conflict in jurisdiction between the federal and provincial authorities. I have no objection to that, but I would far sooner have the Prime Minister take the stand he took last year as leader of the opposition. He then made certain statements which I believe he would still stand by. He said that there should be no protection accorded industries unless they carried out in principle the ideas embodied in the treaty of Versailles. Let me quote a few words of the Prime Minister, uttered on May 21, 1930, to be found on page 2373 of Hansard, as follows:
Now in my conception of protection as applied to the fiscal policy of a country, it is always understood that we shall maintain decent	standards	of living and	reasonablehours	of labour	which certainly	must	notviolate the condition under which we signed the great world-wide treaty of peace. That being so, what has been suggested in this house	to-night is	that inasmuch	as we	areincreasing the measure of protection to industries	to enable	Canadian development	to
proceed upon orderly lines and upon equal 22110-2214
terms with its competitors in other parts of the world, we should also maintain at least those reasonable standards of living and hours of labour that obtain in communities that are our competitors. The Conservative party has always advocated a measure of protection and the advocates of protection have always put forward the arguments that I am now submitting to the house.
I could go on quoting at considerable length from the statements made last year by the Prime Minister. At that time he claimed that there would be no increase in the duties then given to the steel industry of Nova Scotia unless it was prepared to give to those employed reasonable conditions of labour and living. According to this clause it is intended to hand over to the board the making of certain inquiries, although it will be doubtful whether the board has the power to make them. The board will be making inquiries which will necessitate its going to all parts of the world in order to obtain the nec.essary information. While I believe the board should have certain powers and functions, it should be made possible for it to accomplish that which it is asked to do. I am afraid that so much is being put upon it by this clause that ultimately the law will become a dead letter.


Edward James Young: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that clause (ib) of subsection 1 of section 4 marks a new departure in the framing of tariffs. It sets up a new principle that where an industry labours under a handicap, natural or otherwise, it is the duty of the government to offset that handicap by means of a tariff. By adopting such a principle I can see where we will encourage in this country the most exotic industries. There is no doubt that we could grow oranges in Canada. They could be grown under glass at a profit if the tariff were high enough. The vast majority of our people would never be able to have oranges, they would not even have the opportunity of seeing them in the shop windows-only the very wealthy people could purchase them- but we would be establishing an industry. Our modern industry and our modern standards of living are based upon the division of labour, the allotting to those who can best do a thing the doing of that thing; the producing of commodities in the particular districts or localities where they can be produced most economically. It is by the adoption of this principle that the present standard of living has been built up and that the world is able to sustain its present population. Under this bill we abandon that principle and we say that it does not matter whether the country is naturally adapted for the producing
Tariff Board

of a certain article, it does not matter whether the people have any aptitude for producing that article, we will offset all handicaps by means of artificial restrictions on trade. It will lead us into the establishment of the most exotic industries and lower the standard of living in this country. The goods we need will be out of the reach of many of our people.


Robert James Manion: Who in 'the Conservative party ever took such an attitude as the hon. member is ascribing to the party?


Edward James Young: I do not ascribe that attitude to the Conservative party; I sa)' that will be the result of the adoption of this principle.


Robert James Manion: It is not the result.


Edward James Young: The hon. minister has not seen the result as yet. I have here the thirteenth annual report of the United States tariff commission, and in connection with the difficulty of finding domestic costs of production, it has the following to say:
An additional difficulty in obtaining cost data is the time required to get the basic information and to tabulate and summarize it in usable form for purposes of the law. As a rule it requires many months of field and office work by a large number of experts of the commission's staff to obtain the necessary data in important investigations. "Cost of production" is by definition an exact and mathematical term, and to obtain it requires a careful examination of cost records, prepared and interpreted under rules of economics and of cost accounting.
All these obstacles to obtaining costs-of-produetion data apply to both domestic and foreign industries, but they are multiplied when costs are to be obtained in foreign countries and in a foreign language.
That is the opinion of the United States tariff commission, of the difficulties in determining costs and the time necessary to determine such costs. We know that there is nothing static in industry. What it may cost to-day to produce this pen, may have nothing to do with what it will cost to-morrow. The production cost is a certain figure to-day, but as months go on a new process is invented, methods change, production costs are reduced, and the figures become out of date. I do not think there is any country in the world so disliked by other countries as is the United States. To a large measure that is due to the practice of sending experts into different factories in different countries to investigate costs. They enter a foreign factory and say: We want to know your production costs, but we will promise faithfully not to reveal any of your trade secrets. They inquire into the production costs and then go back to their

own country and use the information so obtained to persuade their government to shut out the goods manufactured by those factories. That policy has brought upon the United States the ill will of nearly every other country in the world, and it will have the same effect upon us.
An increased tariff means increased costs of living and increased costs of production. An investigation is made into the cost of producing a certain article, and at the same time another investigation is carried on into the cost of producing other articles which are the raw material of the first. It is decided that in the case of the first article a duty of 25 per cent is necessary to equalize production costs, and at the same time it is decided that a certain percentage is required in the case of the second article. It will be found that the cost of the raw material has been affected by the increase in the tariff in one case, which will affect the production costs in the other. The figures will confuse each other. The most amazing feature about this equalization principle is that the Prime Minister is apparently prepared to abandon it because he realizes that it will not always work. Yesterday when he was discussing the American tariff commission and how they had found that a certain duty was required in order to equalize the production costs between Canada and the United States of maple sugar and maple syrup, I asked him if those figures could be disputed. He said that they could not, and I then asked him what he would do about it if it was found that the American figures were correct, which figures show that it costs less to produce maple syrup and maple sugar in Canada than in the United States. I asked him if he would equalize. If he did so he would have to make a downward revision of the tariff. We have a 20 per cent tariff on maple products and I asked him if this tariff would be removed if the board found that it requires less to produce maple syrup and maple sugar in Canada than it does in the United States.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Why not?


Edward James Young: Perhaps he can tell the
hon. member why not. He says:
I have been endeavouring to point out that the government will not necessarily act at once upon the facts as found. The government may act to-day, it may act next session, or it may act the session after. The first thing to do is to ascertain the facts, then ascertain what the application of the facts may be.
I can take only one meaning out of that, and that is that when the facts are found, if they suit his purpose the Prime Minister will

Tariff Board
act on them and probably raise the tariff. But if it be found that the facts say that the tariff should be reduced, then the Prime Minister will use bis discretion as to whether he should act on those facts or not. What is the use	of	going on with such a farce	asthat?	If	he	is determined to continue	toraise tariffs, why not proceed as he has been doing heretofore, by the method of trial and error? Let the Prime Minister try a rate. If he finds that he has made a mistake, let him try another. I think he can proceed much	quicker	and at much less expense andcome	just	as	near to the actual facts as	he
can by this method.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to ask the Prime Minister whether there is any necessity at all for all these paragraphs, and, indeed, for the greater part of the entire section. I can understand that there is a reason for inserting them, which is to convey the idea that this board is going to do many things that will be of interest to, and in the nature of protection of all classes in the community, but which in fact it will never do, and never could do even were it desired it should. Is not the meaning of the section, stripped of all its verbiage, that the board may inquire into anything in respect to which the minister wishes to get information? That is the whole purpose of the section. You neither add to nor take away from the powers of the board by putting in all these paragraphs. Section 4 commences:
In respect of goods produced in or imported into Canada the board shall under the direction of the minister, make inquiry as to-
Then there appear paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). It really does not matter what these paragraphs contain when one reads the next subsection, subsection 2, which states:
The board shall make inquiry into any other matter, upon which the minister desires information.
In other words, read together, paragraphs which constitute subsections one and two mean the board shall inquire into any matter that the minister wishes inquired into, and into any other matter on which he wants information. All that it is really necessary to say is:
The board shall make inquiry into any matter upon which the minister desires information.
That unquestionably is the form in which the section should appear. Certainly the minister ought to have a right to have a body to secure for him information on anything that relates to the tariff and on which he seeks information. I suggest to the Prime Minister it would be much better to have the section so
drafted and to leave out all these misleading paragraphs as to what the board may inquire into. I say they are misleading because Obviously the board never in the world will be able to do the kind of thing that is suggested in these paragraphs. Let 'me take the subsection which we are discussing at the moment:
(b) The cost of production in Canada and elsewhere, and what increases or decreases in rates of duty are required to equalize differences in the cost of production.
While with regard to maple syrup or edible gelatin, or one or two other items such as have been mentioned, a board might prepare a report, after spending a year or so in investigating, is it not a fact that as respects the great mass of commodities affected by tariffs they will never be able to consider them at all? All that can possibly be affected is that from time to time the minister will make references of particular subjects to the board and the board will report to him upon them. He wouid have that freedom by using the words I have quoted, and only those words. I do not see how any purpose, except a misleading one, is to be served by retaining all these paragraphs in the section.
The one subsection of the several set forth says that the board shall inquire in certain circumstances into what increases or decreases in rates of duty are required. That means that the board will be concerned with rates of duty. I contend that only the ministry and the House of Commons should decide on rates of duty. Duty is a form of taxation, and taxation is a matter that comes within the exclusive purview of parliament. I know my right hon. friend will say that the ministry assumes full responsibility when it makes a recommendation to parliament; but if .my right hon. friend will tell us what is in the back of his mind, he will tell us that at any time he proceeds to make a suggestion about a change in the rate of duty he is going to base it on the fact that he has had this particular board make a report and that his recommendation is along its lines. He will ask parliament to accept that rate of duty because the board which he has appointed for this purpose, upon which large sums of money are to be spent and which is to be given all the powers here enumerated in detail, has, after working for a year or more, come to the conclusion that the rate of duty should be changed in such and such a way. If he does that he will in reality be having tariffs made by some body other than the House of Commons. My right hon. friend let the cat out of the bag the other day in one of his explanations; he actually stated that the board
Tariff Board

was to make the races of duty. As reported on page 3083 of Hansard he used the following words in reference to this board:
It has to determine what duty is necessary-
That is plain English. The sentence goes on to say:
-to enable an adjustment being made of the differences between the cost of goods which compete with Canadian goods, and the Canadian goods themselves.
That addition is qualifying only to the extent of restricting the rate of duty to what duty is necessary to maintain the protective principle in the tariff, which, as I have already said, is the real purpose of the establishment of this board. This board is to be created to maintain the protective principle in the tariff and to do so by telling the Prime Minister what duty is necesary to that end. It has as he says to determine what duty is necessary; that in a word is the meaning of paragraph (b) which we are at present discussing. To delegate such a power to any board is to take away from parliament its first and essential duty, namely, to say how the revenues are to be raised and what taxes are to be imposed upon the people. Undoubtedly when the tariff is changed my right hon. friend will say it is done for purposes of protection rather than for purposes of revenue; but whether protection is incidental or not, revenue is one of the things that is going to be affected. Moreover, as a consequence of every tariff which is proposed there will be a certain additional restriction upon trade, with the result that where any board and not parliament determines such matters, the people will thereby be deprived of some of their freedom in the matter of saying how and to what extent they shall be taxed.
Lpt me come back to what I said before, namely, that the bill would be very much improved if my right hon. friend would drop all these paragraphs and the details he has about price and cost, raw materials, production, efficiency and conditions of labour, price to consumers and other inquiries by the minister, and simply say:
In respect of goods produced in or imported into Canada the board shall, at the request of the minister, make inquiry as to any matter upon which the minister desires information.
Does the Prime Minister by all these details seek in any particular to go further than that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: One would think, listening to the speeches that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite, this was some Machiavellian device for the purpose of imposing upon the Canadian people legislation that had never been heard or thought of before. The

truth is that this is a measure by which it is proposed that tariffs shall be based upon an appreciation of facts. Whether or not, as I have so often said, one's hopes are realized depends upon the personnel of the commission and the ability it discloses to deal with the problems submitted to it. The right hon. gentleman has suggested that we should strike out the paragraphs and subclauses in section 4, and say practically that the commission will ascertain such facts as the minister may wish to find. A few minutes ago his colleague the ex-Minister of Labour was asking us to add to the measure something more in the way of detail. Which one of these hon. gentlemen are we to take seriously-the exMinister of Labour and the hon. member for North Winnipeg, who supported his view, on the former Prime Minister who says:	Let us
be done with this, and let us put down in a few words what is required? There is a rule with respect to statutes and their preparation which I think finds force here. The draftsman of a statute endeavours very often to lay down a principle, proceeds to amplify it by details, and then seeks to make it clear that the details do not in any sense exhaust the principle. In this case it will be observed, as the right hon. gentleman has read, that:
In respect of goods produced in or imported into Canada the board shall, at the request of the minister, make inquiry as to-[DOT]
-the factors mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f), and report to the minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And shall make inquiry into any other matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was dealing with subsection 1. I am coming to subsection 2 presently.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Subsection 2
is a part of section 4.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The first subsection is
the one to which I have just directed attention. The board is to inquire into the price and cost of raw materials, the cost of working up the raw materials into the finished product. The very point which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has stressed is also dealt with in paragraph, (c), the cost, efficiency and conditions of labour, includ-ind health of employees in Canada and elsewhere. The board further shall make inquiry as to:
(d)	the prices received by producers, manufacturers, wholesale dealers, retailers and other distributors in Canada and elsewhere;
(e)	All conditions and factors which affect or enter into the cost of production and the price to the consumers in Canada;

Tariff Board
And lastly:
(f)	generally, all the conditions affecting production, manufacture, cost and price in Canada as compared with other countries.
The clause was amplified in that way in part to meet the point of the very admirable suggestion made by the hon. member for Kenora-Raany River, about which I am bound to say that he knew less than his observations indicated. If he had taken the trouble to read the section in question he would have seen that it is prepared for the purpose of enabling that tribunal to ascertain to what extent there has been watered stock.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not compulsory, though. That is the difference between the section and the suggestion of the hon. member for Kenova-Rainy River.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Hants-Kings says that it is not obligatory. If he can use any words stronger than "shall make inquiry as to" I shall be obliged to him. The word "may" is used in a statute sometimes in the permissive sense, and sometimes it is obligatory, but here the word used is "shall".


James Lorimer Ilsley: But only at the request of the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: another character? Are you using the latest and most efficient devices? Are you willing to risk the expenditure of large sums of capital for the purpose of making ultimate savings? Millions of dollars were spent by the Canadian Pacific Railway in building the viaduct at Lethbridge, and people asked, how is it going to 'be worth while to spend millions of dollars to cross this ravine by a viaduct? It was simply a cold-blooded matter of computation. The movement of so many trains per day by the old method meant an expenditure of so many dollars. The rapidity with which *that movement could be made by means of a viaduct meant a saving, as compared with the old method, that enabled them to capitalize it and pay interest on the capital involved, together with the sinking fund required to meet that capital expenditure in a given time. In Canada to-day we have some enterprises which can compete with the world in manufacturing. They have not done it in a day. They have done it through the course of years, by the improvement of conditions, by adopting the most modern engineering practice, moderate cost production, and care in the management of their affairs.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River referred to the question of labour and conditions of labour. It is intended that regard shall be had to the conditions of labour The hon. gentleman also touched upon watered stock, which I conceive to be one of the most dangerous things in this country to-da>, and I direct his attention and that of his party to the fact that all the great mergers in this country which have affected the life of the people have taken place under Liberal rule in Canada-every one of them-and there never has been a time when there has been more reason to pause and think than during the last nine years. I am besieged.-not literally, but I do receive communications asking why we cannot have investigations into this or that industry where there has been a great watering Stock and where securities have been sold to the public under the guise of shares of companies in this country. In 1912, while in my place in the old parliament, I directed attention to a method I thought might .be used to accomplish some reforms in that regard. It cannot be done by resolutions; it cannot be done by an endeavour to make political capital in a purely political speech such as that delivered by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River a few minutes ago. No; it goes deeper than that. Regard must be had for elementary principles in connection with enterprises of this character-the splitting up of shares, the expanding of capital, the creating of added responsibilities with respect [Mr. Bennett.l
to those who manage the enterprises and who very often are left holding the bag after paying off the securities. When such conditions arise, as has been found in many countries-others as well as our own-then action must be taken to remedy them.
What has been done in the last nine years to remedy such conditions? Name a single step which was taken-mention even one. When I hear hon. gentlemen opposite suddenly become so solicitous about matters of this kind, I ask, first of all, if they know what they are talking about. I know by their very speeches that they do not. Secondly I ask them: What did you do to remedy the condition? I have a right to ask that question. This government has been in power less than a year and because of that has had very few opportunities to deal with legislation such as that now before us. There is no worry in this country to-day about watered stock except as concerns those who bought it-that is the trouble. I refer to those who found themselves with pieces of paper upon which dividends should be payable, and for which they paid fifty, sixty or seventy cents on the dollar, now to find themselves the possessors of something worth only about five cents. Under what government did they buy? Whose assistance or protection did they have in their transactions? When hon. members talk about these matters let them face the truth and know what they are talking about. I know. I see the fatal results which have followed the course pursued under the aegis of the government which held sway in this house for nine years.
This tariff bill is no make-believe; yet hon. gentlemen opposite cannot understand it. The difficulty with my hon. friends opposite is that they cannot understand anyone making a really sincere attempt to lessen trade difficulties in this country; they cannot understand anything of that nature. Here is a deliberate effort to have reports presented on facts as they are found. Do you mean to tell me that a business which is built up with a capital of $200,000 or $300,000 through hard work and toil is to be sold to the public for two or three million dollars? Not under this board.


Mr. POULIOT:: Is this to be a blue sky law?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the position in regard to the matter: I submit to the committee and to the house that the details given in the form in which they appear in the bill have been prepared by the draftsman in accordance with the principles govern-

Tariff Board
ing such matters; because since we have had parliamentary institutions it has always been recognized that where there are details which must be considered a general statement in a statute is not sufficient. Anyone interested in that, as is my hon. friend from Hants-Kings, will find the statement dealt with in a book dealing with the drafting of parlia-' mentary statutes. Although I am not certain I think the book was written by the late Lord Thring, the man who drafted the British North America Act.
In the present instance we have details following a declaration of general principle, and then we find the instructions to the board to consider:
All conditions and factors which affect or enter into the cost of production and the price to the consumers in Canada.
What made the costs to you as consumers in Canada? Be it clothes, be it wool, be it boots and shoes, be it neckties or be it food- what were the factors and conditions which entered into the cost to you as consumers? That is the general condition provided for in the bill in addition to the specific ones. Then follows subsection (2), to which attention has been drawn. I shall read it:
The board shall make inquiry into any other matter,. upon which the minister desires information. . . .
Certainly. As my right hon. friend has said, the minister has power to ask for information concerning "any other matters" in connection with which he desires information. However, the clause does not stop there. It continues:	'
.... in relation to any goods which, if brought into Canada or produced in Canada, are subject to or exempt from duties of customs or excise, ....
That is, we are dealing with a class of goods exempt from customs or excise-
.... and shall report to the minister, and the inquiry into any such matter may include inquiry as to the effect which an increase or decrease of the existing rate of duty upon a given commodity might have upon industry or trade, and the extent to which the consumer is protected from exploitation.
Those are the words to which I direct attention. Name any legislation the Liberal party ever offered the people of Canada which endeavoured to do what the present legislation provides. Name one thing that they ever did. When I hear the ex-Minister of Agriculture indulging in his coarse jokes I ask him: What did he ever do to protect the consumer of Canada? Name me one thing he ever did-anything-to protect Canadian consumers.
When I hear the hon. member from Wey-burn (Mr. Young) from day to day indulging in his tirades I say to him: Are you serious? Are you sincere? Do you mean what you say? If you do, then, why do you not join with the government which is endeavouring to pass legislation to prevent the consumer from being exploited? That is the position I take in respect to this matter.


William Richard Motherwell: Because it is a
humbug-the whole thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what I
expected my hon. friend would say. He is incapable of sincerity in connection with any matter, and he cannot conceive of anything being done which would not be humbug, because that is his stock in trade. Through all these years that has been his stock in trade.


William Richard Motherwell: What about the
London conference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I thought
my hon. friend would ask.


William Richard Motherwell: They were not long getting on to the right hon. gentleman over there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I can say to hon.
gentlemen opposite is this: When legislation is offered to this committee in terms unambiguous, unequivocal, in conformity with every rule of governing the construction and interpretation of a statute, which is open to one meaning and one only, then I say there is something wrong with the minds of those who read into such a measure a sinister purpose. I say in all positiveness that there never has been legislation to which more time and thought has been given for the purpose of helping the ordinary consumer in Canada than that which lies before this committee to-day.


William Richard Motherwell: There is not much
to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There must always be
some body to ascertain facts.
When the hon. member for Weyburn took his seat this afternoon he answered, I trust for all time, the right hon. the leader of the opposition. He stated the truth. This is not fiscal legislation; this does not make tariffs; this body has no legislative power and no parliamentary functions, but it is a body which shall report to the government of the day in answer to inquiries made by that government. That government in turn may pass or fail to pass legislation as in its discretion is thought desirable. Under our constitution, with which at least some hon. members oppo-
Tariff Board

site are familiar, we know that bodies such as the one proposed can in no sense make legislation respecting tariffs. That can be made only by this parliament sitting as a parliament with the Commons and the Senate and the third estate of the realm. Every hon. gentleman knows that. And that legislation must originate with the government of the day; no hon. member can submit legislation of that character unless he be a member of the government of the day. That is its function. There has been no derogation by this proposed legislation from the functions of government, there has been no lessening of the powers of parliament, there has been no restriction placed upon the plenary powers of the legislature. But the government has to assume responsibility. After reading the report that is given to it by this tribunal, in answer to the request of the Minister of Finance, that government decides whether or not it will go forward with its legislation and submit it to this parliament. Is that usurpation of the powers of parliament? Let us at least preserve a little of our intelligence in dealing with these things-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -just a little. I ask any hon. member to stand in his place and say that this legislation in any sense lessens the powers of this chamber or the powers of this parliament.


Charles A. Stewart: Who said it did?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who said it did?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the hon. gentleman suddenly lost his sense of hearing that he could not hear what was said by hon. gentlemen opposite a few moments ago? Does he not remember what his leader said yesterday, as he threshed the air and talked no longer of "feudalism," but of a "star chamber" functioning and usurping the powers of parliament? Does he forget what every other member recalls? There is not another member in this house who does not remember it. And this afternoon the others followed in his train. The lead had been given-parliament had been deprived of its functions, the high court of parliament was no longer sitting, matters had to be determined by a tribunal thus set up. What an absurdity! But it served the purpose-to endeavour to humbug the public-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -it followed the classic policy of the ex-Minister of Agriculture. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have dealt with this section at some length. One would have thought that after the second reading of the bill and after the long discussion that took place thereon, and after the more ample discussion that took place later, there might not be the least difficulty in arriving at conclusions with respect to this section. The opposition is bound to oppose the section. It has done so. It has placed itself on record-but it did not vote on the second reading!-and I assume on the third reading it will place itself on record. I hope so. Let the people of the country know what all this talk is about. Let them know what is the conception of hon. gentlemen opposite of a tariff board. When they were the government they got two or three men together by order in council and called them an advisory board on tariff and taxation. That was their conception of a tariff board!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: "And e'en the
ranks of Tuscany could scarce forbear to cheer."
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House again in committee on Bill No. 33, to amend the Companies Act (auditors).-Mr. Hackett.
Mr. HACKETT:: With the permission of the house, I ask to withdraw this bill. It was incorporated in a bill introduced by the hon. the Secretary of State.


Mr. SPEAKER:: With the consent of the house the bill is withdrawn.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 26, consideration of the motion of *Mr. Woods-worth for the second reading of Bill No. 19, to amend the criminal code (unlawful assemblies).
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Toronto Northwest) :: I want to place myself in direct opposition to Bill No. 19. I have given the subject

Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
considerable study and investigation, and the more I examine into it the more I am opposed to what I believe would result in this country if this bill were adopted. I listened to the speeches that were made in support of the bill and later read them, and to my way of thinking a very great deal of time was spent in attacking the city of Toronto, its peace enforcement department, and too little time spent in supporting the object of this bill- unlicensed free speech. There is altogether too much effort made to break down the traditions and principles which the people of Canada stand for almost unanimously, and a slackening of effort in defence of these principles.
In support of what I am going to say, I may observe that behind me is the almost unanimous opinion of the city of Toronto. In the municipal elections of 1928 Mr. Jack McDonald, an avowed communist, ran on a free speech platform for the board of control, and received, after having had the privilege of freedom, of all platforms in the city, 539 votes out of a population of approximately 700,000. Last winter again, Mr. Tim Buck, another leader of the communistic party, contested an election for the board of control and he too received an insignificant number of votes. This goes to show that the people of Toronto are not behind what they know to be the objective of those who are advocating so-called free speech.
In the debate that took place some time ago on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to amend the criminal code with respect to unlawful assemblies, several of the great cities of Canada were mentioned-Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Toronto, with the emphasis of attack principally upon Toronto. The people of Toronto are proud of their peace enforcement department; they are proud of the 1,200 men and women who comprise that department. We, in Toronto, are proud of their integrity, their attentiveness to duty, their civility, their loyalty, their earnestness and their courage whenever it is necessary for them to show it. And I believe I can say the same of the great cities of Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver in relation to their forces.	_
Commencing with Montreal, I wish to read what the official organ of the communistic party of Canada, The Worker, has to say in reference to these cities. I shall quote from the issue of May 16. Now, Mr. Speaker, every member of this house is in favour of free speech, but free speech within the law. We are opposed to free speech that tolerates sedition and revolutionary or blasphemous
talk. And it is that kind of talk that has been prohibited, wherever it has been prohibited, or attacked after it has been made, wherever it might be. On the top left hand corner of the front page of this issue there appear these words:
The defence of the Soviet union from the attacks of the imperialists rests with the revolutionary workers of the world!
The whole basis of this so-called free speech propaganda is revolution, and to that the almost unanimous public opinion of Canada is opposed. On two occasions already attacks have been made on the law and order of the country, attacks carefully organized. And there is one more coming shortly. The first was early in May. I am not sure whether it was the first of May or not, but this paper refers to it. The second date was June 26 last, when we had riots more or less in Windsor and Winnipeg and a disturbance in Toronto. There appears on the back of The Party Organizer, the publication of the central organization of the communist party in Canada, the following:
Prepare For August First.
It would seem that the next day on which we may have riots of one kind and another connected with free speech will be August 1. The Worker, the official organ of the communist party in Canada, contains the following under date of Montreal, May 12:
Indictments charging unlawful assembly and sedition were returned here Tuesday by the grand jury against-
Then several more or less unpronounceable names are given. The following, referring to the disturbance in Montreal, appears on page 4:
Montreal, May 11.-The approaching trial of nine workers in Montreal charged with sedition and unlawful assembly is being prepared in an atmosphere of considerable prejudice which is being worked up to a high pitch by the Catholic church in its organizations. This institution is at present conducting an intensive campaign of anti-communistic propaganda amongst the broad masses of French Canadians.
The Catholic church is to be commended upon its attitude toward communism and its opposition to sedition, revolution and blasphemy. The article continues:
This is the first time in twenty-five years that a case of sedition is being tried in the courts in the province of Quebec. The present framing of sedition and unlawful assembly in the case of the nine workers is part of an attack against the whole revolutionary movement.
More power to those in the city of Montreal who are opposed to the revolutionary
3478	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
movement. Under the title "C.P.R. Throws Out Weston Shopmen, the following appears on page 1:
Now is the time for the railroad shopmen to act. The agreements between the division bureaucrats are scraps of paper. The strangle hold of the A. F. & L. machine can only be broken by committees of action organized around the Workers' Unity League.
This would show that these people-the communists-are against that great labour organization, the American Federation of Labour. The article continues:
Every militant in the A. F. & L, locals is duty bound to immediately organize around himself opposition groups of the Workers' Unity League that will pave the way for the struggle. The Canadian National railway men will be next. The move is already heralded. The miners of Alberta in voting for the W.U.L. on May 11 have shown the shopmen the way. Only militant struggle will' avail.
The basis of the organization seems to be a struggle of some kind. The following article appears in connection with Vancouver:
Allan Campbell, militant leader of the Vancouver unemployed, and recently sentenced to one year for sedition has been released on $5,000 bail pending his appeal, which will he heard on June 20. The Court of Inquiry has ordered his deportation. A nation wide campaign is being staged by the national committee of the C.L.D.L. for his unconditional release, for quashing deportation proceedings.
On page 1, under the title of "Why Every Militant Worker Should Be a Communist," appears the following:
The communist party, however, is the central organizer	of	all the	struggles,	the	generalengineer	for	the wrecking of	the	ancientstructure	of decaying	capitalism	and	for the
construction of the new socialistic society.
. To the readers of The Worker who have familiarized themselves to some extent with the activity of the party from coast to coast, the next step should be clear. Bearing well in mind Lenin's	famous	statement,	"Without a
revolutionary party there can be no revolutionary movement," they should during the present May recruiting campaign enter their application for membership in the communist party.
My observation has been that many movements which have caused trouble in Canada have been directed by some official in some foreign country. The following would go a long way to prove this contention:
The eleventh plenum of the executive committee of the C.I. met in Moscow. The plenum heard:
1. Comrade Manuilsky's report on the tasks of the sections of the communist international in connection with the aggravation of the economic crisis and the growth of the prerequisites of revolutionary crisis in a number of countries and the co-reports of comrades Thalmann, Lensky and Chemodanov on the situation and tasks of the C.P.'s of Germany. Poland and the young communist international respectively.
fMr. MacNicolJ
We have in Canada a young communist party to which I will refer later on. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has moved a resolution to amend the unlawful assembly section of the criminal code. This is section 87 of chapter 36 of the revised statutes of Canada. It reads:
An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of such assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that the persons so assembled will disturb the peace tumultuously, or will by such assembly needlessly and without any reasonable occasion provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.
It is to that section that the hon. member moves his amendment, as follows:
Section eighty-seven of the Criminal Code, chapter thirty-six of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, is amended by adding the following subsection thereto: -
"(4) Nothing in this section shall restrict or interfere with the right of all persons peacefully to assemble for the purpose of discussing or hearing any discussion upon any matter of public interest, and such persons when so assembled shall not become an unlawful assembly merely by reason of speeches made to them or discussion carried on by them unless the general nature and character of such speeches or discussion would be likely, in the opinion of firm and reasonable persons, to cause an immediate breach of the peace."
If a breach of the peace has occurred, it is then too late for "firm and reasonable persons" to consider the matter. The only way in which this amendment, if it were adopted, could be effective would be that the ' speeches should be censored before they were delivered. Of course we in Canada will not tolerate the censoring of speeches. I read the amendment rather in this manner, leaving out words that I believe to be superfluous or of no effect:
Nothing in this section shall restrict or interfere with the right of all persons peacefully to assemble for the purpose of discussing or hearing any discussion upon any matter of public interest, and such persons when so assembled shall not become an unlawful assembly merely by reason of speeches made to them or discussion carried on by them to cause an immediate breach of the peace.
That leaves out the words that, so far as I can see, are ' irrelevant, and it reveals what would be the result of that amendment if it were adopted.
I should like to speak of Toronto for a little while, because that city was frequently mentioned when this matter was previously discussed. We have not had in Toronto just the same trouble that I have read about as taking place in Vancouver, Winnipeg and

Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
Montreal, but the peace enforcement department of Toronto has issued an order to owners of public halls in that city directing them that they must comply with the law7. The department has not, as has been said in the house, prohibited the holding of meetings in public halls, as I shall later show from evidence taken before an investigating commission; but it has sent this following notice to all owners of public halls in the city:
Chapter 36, section 98, subsection 5:
Any owner, lessee, agent or superintendent of any building, room, premises or place, who knowingly permits therein any meeting of an unlawful association or any subsidiary association or branch or committee thereof, or any assemblage of persons who teach, advocate, advise or defend the use, without authority of the law7, of force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than five years, or to both fine and imprisonment.
The fact is that owners of halls, having in mind the situation they face and knowing that they themselves will be censured if they allow on their premises a meeting that causes trouble of that character, naturally inquire into the views of the organization asking for a lease of their halls, and after they inquire into some of them, it is not much wonder that they refuse to allow their halls to be used. It was said, I think in the earliest debates on this subject, that certain people had been refused permission to address the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Personally I have nothing to say about the Fellowship of Reconciliation. It may be first class, f<3r all I know. I do. not know any who belong to it or entertain their views, but I should like to read what the Globe had to say about it in an editorial under date of Friday, January 16 of this year. It says:
The Fellowship of Reconciliation presents itself as an international organization having forty-four branches, with headquarters in Vienna, born of the conviction "that all differences of race, colour and creed, and social problems ill general, could be solved by conference and mutual understanding." It is not easy to see how there can be any quarrel w7ith either the fellowship or its objective on this ground. The Toronto branch vras formed last May. While it was functioning according to the principle laid down, it attracted little or no public attention; certainly no adverse criticism. But it was not content with this, apparently, and adopted a militant course, with a challenge to the police. Out of this has arisen the present controversy, and the introduction of an issue, which, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be said to belong to the category of "reconciliation" with sincerity, for it presupposes and adopts an attitude of uncompromising partisanship.
The origin and purpose of the fellowship, as far as can be seen, had nothing to do with the present situation. The whole trouble arose when it was proposed to start an open forum by calling on the police to defend in debate their attitude tow7ard the communists. It is true communists are not mentioned in the correspondence. Judge Coatsworth and Chief Draper were invited to uphold the affirmative on the question: "Resolved, that the Toronto Police Commission is justified in its present attitude in regard to free speech." Inasmuch as the so-called "free speech" issue arose between the police and the communists, and nowhere else, the fellowship might as well have used the word "communists" frankly and openly.
This matter of "free speech" which is agitating the fellowship and has brought forth the "protest" of sixty-eight college professors is but a 'red herring" across the trail. It is strange that members of the faculty of the university would attach their names to such a ridiculous document. Is "free speech" forbidden at Hart House? Was not the very subject of "free speech" debated there? Why, in any event, is the cause of a group of revolutionary agitators to be preferred to the welfare of a loyal, Christian nation? This is the only point involved in the so-called free speech issue. The police have taken action to protect the community against the invasion of foreign propaganda, openly promoted to supplant Christianity by atheism; the rule of democracy by the rule of a soviet which enslaves the population, and cannot be called representation of "the proletariat" in any sense, which intimidates the people by such farcical law administration as the world recently witnessed in the trial of eight engineers.
After the trouble in connection with that matter an investigation was held, and I should like to read what took place at it. This is dated January 23 and is published in the Toronto Globe under date of January 24 of this year:
Statement in connection with the appearance of deputation representing the Fellowship of Reconciliation before the Board of Police Commissioners.
Reverend Salem Bland, referring to the mayor's statement that at yesterdays meeting the board unanimously endorsed the policy of free speech, "but that free speech must be within the law and in accordance with British institutions" stated:
"Frankly that last statement leaves us in great perplexity. If that enunciation of policy stated by the mayor is and has been the policy of the board we are very much puzzled."
Mr. Bland was interrogated by Judge Coats-worth and Judge Morson as follows:
Judge Coatsworth: Do you know that is what I contended for at the board of control last year when you were lined up with other men opposing us, that there should be free speech, subject to British limitations; there must be no sedition, no slander and no blasphemy, and you were in the line-up of communists on the other side. You were with them; I don't say you were one of them.
Mr. Bland: Well, what Judge Coatsworth has just said is all we contend for, that speech should be permitted except it is seditious, blasphemous or indecent.
3480	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
Again:
Mr. Bland:	The hall owners have been
debarred from renting halls to communists.
Judge Coatswerth: Not by us.
Mr. Bland: Why they have been threatened with the loss of their licences.
Judge Coats worth:	Only if they did not
comply with the law.
Mr. Bland: There is no law against communism.
Judge Coatsworth: No, we are not proposing to make one.
Mr. Bland: Well, why should not communists be freely permitted to speak?
Judge Coatsworth: We have not interfered with them. All we do is say to the owners of the hall, you must keep within that law, and when the police have interfered it has been when they have been congregating on the streets, blocking traffic and raising disorder.
Again:
Judge Morson:	You know, of course, the
principles of the communists?
Mr. Bland: I know something about it.
Judge Morson: Would you say ff they preach their doctrines as we know them or have heard what their doctrines are, would you say it was in violation of that section?
Mr. Bland: Some of the doctrines are, no doubt.
Judge Morson:	I did not say some. I said
if they preach their doctrines would not some of them be a violation of that code?
Mr. Bland: I have no hesitation in saying if certain communists were to advocate certain forms of communism they would violate the code, but that is not true of all communists.
Judge Morson: I am only asking you a question. You do not need to answer it. If a communist or anybody preaches the commonly accepted doctrine of communists, which is well known, if they do that publicly, isn't that a breach of that section of the act? Give us yes or no.
Mr. Bland:	Any communist who preaches
that kind of communism which is a violation of the act should be dealt with by the police.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said the same thing at page 1202 of Hansard of May 1, 1931. I quote his words:
Now, the police are there to arrest a man, if necessary, and then charge him. If he has said something seditious, let him by all means be condemned on that ground.
The newspaper to which I referred a moment ago-The AVorker-refers to a long list of organizations into whose right to hire public halls for the holding of public meetings [DOT]-the peace enforcement department might think it necessary to inquire. The list is as follows:
Industrial Union and Arbieter Ring.
Communist party of Canada.
Canadian Labour and Defence League.
AVorkers International Relief Association.
AVorkers' Alliance.
National Unemployment Workers' Association.



U.L.F.T.A.

[Stage Direction]
F.S.U. (Friends of the Soviet Union).
[Mr. MacNicol.l
I should like to quote what The Worker says about this organization, called the Friends of the Soviet Union. It says in headlines:
Hundreds enlist in F.S.U. Branches set up through country.
It goes on;
The newly organized Canadian section of the Friends of the Soviet Union is well on its way towards becoming a real mass organization of all friends of the U.S.S.R. For the few weeks of its existence it has succeeded in forming branches in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Hamilton.
That goes to show that these organizations are very busy. I will now continue with
0	ther organizations:
L. & A.AV.I.U.
International Labour Defence.

[Stage Direction]
Union Label League.

[Stage Direction]
Young Communist League.
Canadian Defenders.
Free Bread League.
Women's Labour League.
Farmers' Unity League.
National Children's Bureau.
W.U.L. Council.
Parents' Councils.
National Fraction and District Bureaus.
International Workers' Order.
That last organization may not be communistic, but is very much supported by The AVorker, which would lead one to suppose that it might have communistic principles. The list continues:
The Circle.
International Workers' Circle.
Workers' Secret Circle.
I see my time is almost up. There is much more evidence that I could place on Hansard, showing what various organizations stand for, which would convince any reasonable man or woman that it is up to the police authorities in all the principal cities of Canada to be on guard to maintain the traditions for which this country stands.
In conclusion I should like to say a word as to what the people of the city of Toronto have done, and I do this only because on the last occasion when this bill was up two hon. members felt it necessary to rise in defence of Toronto. The people and citizens of Toronto need no defence. Their works speak for them.
1	should like to give a few facts as to what the people of Toronto have done:
Number of Toronto enlistments, 1914-18, 60,000; of whom 45,000 were bona fide residents of this city.
Number of Toronto citizens killed 4,707 and to whose dependents the city paid $1,000, $4,707,000 in all.
Contributions by the city toward all charitable purposes including hospitals:

34S1
Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
In 1926, $1,325,169; which amount has been increased every succeeding year until last year the sum reached, $2,693,554.
Contributions made by citizens on Tag Days last year:
Catholic Charities	$ 12,692
Humane Society	 25,500
C.N.I. Blind	 56,024
Salvation Army	 10,377
I.O.D.E	 16,300
True Blue Orphanage	 14,000
Bed Cross		10,000
Navy League	 12,000
Poppy Fund	 21,000
Queen Alexandra	Day	 16,000
[Stage Direction]
Contributions made by the city to sufferers in disasters:
New Ontario Fire, 1917.. ..	$25,000
Northern Ontario Fire, 1922.	25,000
Empress of Ireland disaster,
1914	 25,000
The citizens of Toronto last year contributed to the Neighborhood Workers as follows:
Christmas relief, $55,000.
Summer camps, $14,000.
The people of Toronto and York county raised $7,000,000 for the patriotic fund during the war, and $2,000,000 was raised by Toronto for the British Red Cross. The city of Toronto also made the following grants during the war:
Grants, etc., for patriotic relief, soldiers' welfare and military hospitals, $1,979,000.
Returned soldiers' receptions, grants, etc., $79,500.
Assistance in military and naval activities, recruiting, etc., $205,000.
The city of Toronto also paid out in life insurance for their troops, $4,791,000, and in wages' to enlisted civic employees, $1,847,000.
Mr. Speaker, the people who do that kind of work for the relief of humanity need no defence in this house or anywhere else, and I say it ill becomes anyone to attack people who are so generous. I said a few moments ago that those two great labour organizations, the American Federation of Labour and the Trades and Labour Council, had been attacked in this official organ The Worker. Having had twenty-five years experience in industry both as a worker and as an executive officer I just wish to say that these two organizations, the one in the United States with affiliations in Canada, and the other exclusively in Canada, have done a very great deal to relieve the difficulties of the working men in Canada and the United States. I can support them in their just activities, and trust they will continue in their good works and withstand the attacks made on them.
In conclusion may I say that we are all in accord with the principle of free speech, but we insist upon free speech within the law. We are all opposed or should be opposed to the preaching of sedition, revolution and blasphemy.
Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two in connection with this amendment to the criminal code. The explanatory note is as follows:
This bill is intended simply to provide a safeguarding clause to ensure that the general nature and character of speeches upon public affairs must be the ground for regarding any meeting as unlawful.
The last six lines of the bill contain the words:
.... an unlawful assembly merely by reason of speeches made to them or discussion carried on by them unless the general nature and character of such speeches or discussion would be likely, in the opinion of firm and reasonable persons, to cause an immediate breach of the peace.
I should first like to draw the attention of the house to the words:
-in the opinion of firm and reasonable persons.
Who is going to designate who are "firm and reasonable persons"? Then we find the words:

to cause an immediate breach of the peace.
If that means anything it must mean that unless a riot breaks out immediately, it matters not what kind of speech may be made or, how seditious a speech may be, no breach of the peace or violation of the criminal code would be committed.
As the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol) has indicated, if we are to be guided by what has been said this bill is primarily directed at the police force of the oity of Toronto. I am not a citizen of that city, and I know nothing more about its police force than does any other person in Canada. My only source of information has been the daily newspapers. We do know however that the present chief of police in that city has been attacked, is being attacked and I presume will continue to be attacked. In my opinion the chief reason for these attacks is that he is too great a menace to violators of the law, and he is not being criticized because he is endavouring to restrict anyone who does not deserve to be restricted.
The organization which has aroused discussion with regard to the curtailment of free
3482	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
speech is an organization with its base in a foreign country. The agents of that country are in Canada endeavouring to undermine Canadian institutions as well as those of every other country with governments similar in form to ours. I have in my hand the report of a commission which inquired into the activity of the communist organization of the United States, and at page 9, 10 and 11, I have found evidence given under oath before that commission by the leader of the communist party in the United States, Mr. Foster. I quote from the evidence as follows:


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Does the communist party advocate the confiscation of all private property?
Mr. Foster: The communist party advocates the overthrow of the capitalist system and the confiscation of the social necessities of _ life; that is, the basic industries and other industries for producing the means of livelihood for the people. By the property of individuals, personal belongings, and so on, no; that is, in the sense of their personal property.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: When you refer to the
capitalist system just what do you mean?
Mr. Foster: I mean the system under which the industries of society are owned by private individuals.
Later on the chairman asks some further questions:


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Does your party advocate the abolition and destruction of religious beliefs?
Mr. Foster: Our party considers religion to be the opium of the people, as Karl Marx has stated, and we carry on propaganda for the liquidation of these prejudices amongst the workers.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: To be a member of the communist party, do you have to be an atheist?
Mr. Foster: In order to be there is no formal requirement to this effect. Many workers join the communist party who still have some religious scruples, or religious ideas; but a worker who will join the communist party, who understands the elementary principles of the communist party, must necessarily be in the process of liquidating his religious beliefs and, if he still has any fingerings when he joins the party, he will soon get rid of them. But religion, that is, atheism, is not laid down as a formal requirement for membership in the communist party.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Have you been in Russia?
Mr. Foster: Yes. Eight or nine times.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: You are familiar, then, with the workings of the communist party in Russia?
Mr. Foster: Reasonably.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Well, can members of the
communist party in Russia be married in a church. . . .
I would like hon. members to note this particular question. The question was:


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Well, can members of the communist party in Russia be married in a church and maintain religious beliefs of that nature, and practise them?

Mr. Foster: My opinion is that a member of the communist party of the Soviet union who would be married in a church would not be of any value to the communist party.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Could he maintain his membership in the party?
Mr. Foster: He would not.
At its last meeting, Joseph Stalin was elected head of the Third Internationale in Russia, and the following resolution was
passed:
We the communists have no need to hide our aims and our purpose is the absolute ultimate control of the entire civilized world. Our purpose is not to be conceived in mere words but it is a bloodsoaked reality; It is to overthrow every existing institution which is not communistic; It is to capture all parliaments, not by evolution but by revolution; not by ballots but by bullets.
The activities and propaganda of that organization have led to agitations in this country against free speech. The activities of the communist party remind me of the man who demands personal freedom in order that he may deprive other people of their freedom. The whole tenor of the agitation, all the speeches delivered, tend to one end only, namely the complete destruction of every civil and religious institution in Canada. I submit that instead of loosening the criminal code to make that easier, if there is anything necessary it is to tighten up the criminal code.
In the course of this discussion on another occasion an effort was made to link up the labour organizations and working men of this country with the campaign carried on by the the communists. I have in my hand an article touching on the relationship of communism to -the workers in this country. This is what it says:
At the present time we are passing through a period of severe industrial depression and unemployment.-


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I ask what
paper the hon. member is quoting?


George Brecken Nicholson: The Canadian Labour Press.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Where is that published?


George Brecken Nicholson: In Ottawa.


James Shaver Woodsworth: By whom?


George Brecken Nicholson: By the publishers of
the Canadian Labour Press.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Who are they?


George Brecken Nicholson: My hon. friend has
the same sources of information at his disposal as I have.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is a Conservative organization.


George Brecken Nicholson: The energies of our dominion government, our provincial governments, our civic governments, our social welfare organizations, and our trade unions are being actively used to remedy this severe industrial crisis. It is recognized by everyone who has given thought to the subject that any efforts by individuals or groups to wilfully increase unemployment is a ghastly social crime. Yet, that is exactly what is being done by the notoriety-seeking group of men and women associated and affiliated with the communist party of Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What date is that?


George Brecken Nicholson: April 15, 1931. My
hon. friend says that this is a Conservative paper. Well, it is the Canadian Labour Press. But I have something else under my hand which I will quote for the benefit of my hon. friend with regard to the viewpoint of the communist organization on the North American continent in relation to organized labour. It has been my privilege for the past forty-two years to be a member of one of the bodies of organized labour in this country. I have kept in touch with their activities, and I know something of their aims and their aspirations and what they are trying to do. The organizer of the communistic body, Mr. Fred G. Biedenkapp, of the city of Chicago, had this to say with regard to a strike that was waged by two or three bodies of organized labour in an effort to improve their condition:
The true communist and labour leader rejoices more over one unsuccessful strike than over ten strikes that succeed. What the O.B.U. and smaller organizations aim to create is not asking better working conditions for the average man, but worse conditions. The workingman, -'or oraganization of workingmen, who strikes for higher wages and gets them, or for better working conditions and fewer hours of labour, and gets them, is not the material from which revolutionists are made. He is likely to be contented and take a conservative so-called sane view of a world in which the conditions have been easier and better for him. On the other hand, the striker, or group of strikers, who fails, are likely to be more embittered against the employers, the whole employing class and society generally and after repeated failures of this kind they will come to the conclusion that striking and voting are alike useless to improve the workingmen's lot, and they will listen to the red who talks intelligently of direct action and the overthrow of society and forms of government as at present constituted. We have already two million workers, members of the O.B.U.


That is what this gentleman says.
-and our numbers continue to grow as one unsuccessful strike follows another. Therefore, we, of the new vision encourage strikes not because we desire to better the workingmen's condition, but in order that they may fail.
Now, I ask hon. members to listen to what follows:
Our first aim must be to destroy organized labour as it has previously existed. It is one of the chief obstacles to a successful revolution in any country where it exists.
Having same knowledge of organized labour in this country, let me say there never was a more truthful statement made. The great bodies of organized labour are bulwarks against revolution in this or any other country where these bodies exist. Having quoted that for the benefit of my hon. friend, will he permit me to follow it up with a statement of fact, which I think anyone who is familiar with what is going on in this country will admit is a fact. I am quoting from the same paper:
A strike was called by this communist organization and some sixty men and women workers responded, being a small minority of the workers employed. It failed, as it was bound to do, and as a result these sixty men and women workers lost their jobs and left to the legitimate trade union of their industry a much harder task in order to secure an agreement with the employers concerned.
The labour movement fully recognizes from past evidences of communist history in Canada, that the policy of this group is to bore from within the workers' ranks in order to keep industry in a continuous ferment, the result of which is, and only can be, the adding of further workers to the ranks of the unemployed.
As a member of one of these bodies of organized labour, constantly in touch with what they are endeavouring to do, I know that to be the fact, as does every representative of organized labour in this country. They know the greatest enemy their organization has is the communist organization, masquerading for a period as it did under the name of the O.B.U. but now openly and definitely proclaiming itself as the representative of the Soviet organization in Canada, in the United States and in other countries.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, may I ask, if the hon. gentleman understands anything about the labour movement, whether he does not know that the O.B.U. and the communists for a number of years have been at daggers drawn? All you have to do to realize this is to read any communist paper or any O.B.U. publication. It is absolutely ridiculous to say they are the same.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. gentleman closes the debate he can answer what I have said. I have stated what I know to be a fact from my constant intercourse with representatives of the solid, sane, sound bodies of organized labour in this country. They know just exactly what the

3484	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawjul Assembly
O.B.U. was when it was organized in Chicago some twelve or fifteen years ago, they know what its aims are to-day. It is possible the
O.B.U. may be trying to shift its position and take the ground that it is not now associated with the communists, because it may think by doing that it may strengthen communism. But the plain facts are these -and let me repeat in conclusion what I said at the beginning of my remarks-this whole agitation regarding free speech has sprung up from one cause and one cause only, that there are men and women paid in this country, with their headquarters in the city of Toronto, with another headquarters in the city of Winnipeg-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker. I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As the sponsor of this bill I will not tolerate the accusation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will not tolerate the accusation that seems to be directed against me. I am here-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Free speech.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, this is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman suggests that those who are advocating the safeguarding of free speech such as is proposed in this bill, are in the pay of certain forces. I say that suggestion must be withdrawn.


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I did not understand the hon. member for Bast Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) to be directing his remarks in general or in particular to anyone in this house.
The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of Bill No. 47.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege, I have the right even after nine o'clock-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The discussion will be
resumed next Friday night.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise to a question of privilege, and I may do so even after nine o'clock. I may do so at any time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member
state his question of privilege? I ruled against the point of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member who has just been speaking made a statement

which might easily be taken to imply that those of us who are urging safeguards for the freedom of speech are in the pay of certain organizations situated outside this country.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I did not hear a statement of that kind.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That statement
must be withdrawn. I ask that the hon. member withdraw the statement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I did not hear the hon. member make that statement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As a question of
privilege, Mr. Speaker, I say I heard the statement and I ask that a statement along that line, which assails me, be withdrawn. I have a right to make that request as a member of this house.


George Brecken Nicholson: As a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I made no reference whatsoever to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I was referring to the agitation throughout the country by paid agents of the Soviet government in Russia. Anyone who wishes to put on that cap and wear it can do so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not regard
that as a withdrawal.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have not asked the
hon. member to withdraw any statement. I do not consider that his words were unparliamentary or were anything but fair comment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The member's
speech distinctly implicates me.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Speaker has
ruled.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, you will understand that, according to the rules of the house, he should withdraw his remarks. His very last statement was a reinforcement of what he said before.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not consider that
any statement was made which should be withdrawn. That is my ruling.



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 47, to provide for the appointment of a tariff board-Mr. Bennett- Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: The suggestion is not
acceptable. The right hon. gentleman may say that it covers everything, but it is not
Tariff Board

usual in statutes to make such a provision. This follows the usual form, and we prefer it to the form suggested by my right hon. friend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend think that the late Lord Thring would have taken exception to the form I have suggested?


William Richard Motherwell: Just a few minutes before Big Ben was announcing six o'clock the Prime Minister had ended a ranting, roaring, snorting, snoring speech fully characteristic of the right hon. gentleman, a speech that reminded me of two others of a similar nature for which he has been sorry just once since, and that is all the time. He told us men of the west how much money we had in the banks and how many cars we had bought and sported. Nothing could equal the sensation and disgust of that speech unless it be the speech which he made this afternoon. I do not know which of the two would take the cake. My right hon. friend need not think that his bluff and bluster will intimidate anybody. If every sheet of copper on this roof were a Bennett and every supporter of the right hon. gentleman were a bluffer, it would not make a particle of difference to us because the people of the country and we in this house now know my hon. friends. The calendar on the table, Mr. Chairman, indicates that it is now eleven months since they took office, and do you think that the people have not found the right hon. gentleman out in eleven months as the prince of humbugs? We do not need to go back to the economic conference for that evidence; it is being demonstrated right here in this house. There has never been a month or a day or an hour since they proclaimed their peculiar love for the British preference and intra-empire trade that they have not shown the kind of love they have in examples such as their anti-British tariff of last September. The duty was raised against British goods and there has never been an hour since that time when their whole record has not been one of continuous and well sustained humbug. There have been dozens of instances, and the right hon. gentleman knows it. It did not take Mr. Thomas long to find it out, and it does not take anyone who knows the right hon. gentleman and the crowd behind him long to find it out. I am receiving letters all the time complaining about this Bennett bunch. The writers thereof state that the government are loony and ask us to keep them groggy as long as we can. We do not want to overdo it; we have a little

sympathy for them but we do not have to take the kind of speeches lying down we heard just before six o'clock, at least I do not. I have never in all my life had to submit to a bully, and I am not going to do it now.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: I have tried to
show the absolute humbug of this bill. It would be impossible in a year like this to obtain the true costs of production of wheat in Saskatchewan. In many areas, some of them hundreds of miles in extent, it might be found that it cost $100 per bushel. What about the cost of mining? Does the right hon. gentleman think he could obtain a fair indication of the real cost now? What about the costs of production of pulp and paper with the mills running forty or fifty per cent of capacity? It would be absolute nonsense for a tariff board to attempt anything as foolish as that. My right hon. friend did not answer these questions, but kept inquiring as to what the former Minister of Agriculture had ever done for the consumer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: The remarks of
hon. members show their ignorance; they do not know anything about it. Even this very minute I am endeavouring to the best of my capacity to fight for the consumer. If I know anything-


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member does not.


William Richard Motherwell: The right hen.
gentleman does not know anything about agriculture. This afternoon I attempted to indicate in the short remarks which called forth such fury from my righ hon. friend that the American tariff commission had attempted to find the costs of production in Canada of milk and cream. They went out of their way to find the lowest price in Canada, and then went back home, put the tariff up, and now these products are practically excluded from that country. I would have called for the file from the Department of Agriculture, but if there was the same delay as there has been in other cases I would not have received it until next session. The Minister of Agriculture can bring this file to the house tomorrow and disprove or prove my statement. If that action was taken by a board which was fifty-fifty Republicans and Democrats, what action can we expect from this board which we do not hope will be fifty-fifty Liberal and Tory? We can only judge our hon. friends by what they have been doing during the last eleven months. It has been

Tariff Board
rumoured that Mr. Sanford Evans is to be the chairman of this board, and why should he not receive some reward for the manner in which he delivered the goods when on the Stamp commission? Does the committee think the leader of the government cares anything for public sentiment? Has he not done something just as outrageous in the case of the Washington appointment? Did he regard public sentiment then or even that of his political friends? '


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: What about-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: Order nothing.
What about the appointment to London?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: He, the Prime
Minister himself has said that the commissioner there was a joker. Of course he was about right. He should know. We have to judge this government by the kind of appointments they have made during the last eleven months. One of those appointments was the wine-bibbing joker who was sent to Canada House in London.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rather.think that the
hon. member is transcending the rules of decency in debate.


William Richard Motherwell: Which one am I
to withdraw, the Washington one, the London one, or both?


An hon. MEMBER:: Be a man and take it back.


William Richard Motherwell: The trouble with
this country is that complete confidence has been lost in this government and in its appointments. This country has no more use for this tariff board than a dog has for two tails. If the people had an opportunity of expressing themselves to-morrow two-thirds of the seats opposite would be vacant. Knowing the type of investigation which has been carried on by the American tariff board, we know what to expect as far as the investigations of this Canadian tariff board are concerned. It is a big sham from top to bottom, it is hypocrisy personified, with humbug on top, it is only something for the government to hide behind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Melville has stated that I referred to the High Commissioner for Canada as a joker. That is not correct and I would like to know what warrant he has for making any such statement.


William Richard Motherwell: The right hon.
gentleman took about ten minutes to justify Mr. Ferguson's speech on July 1 upon the ground that he was disposed to be jocular. I agree that at times he is exceedingly jocular, but that is not always the case. I think my right hon. friend used that term half a dozen times, and surely I am to be permitted to use it once.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman referred to the high commissioner as a wine-bibbing joker.


William Richard Motherwell: I did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I submit that that is
not a collect reference to be made to an official who is not in this house.


William Richard Motherwell: It may not be
parliamentary but it is absolutely true.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


William Richard Motherwell: But I know it is
true.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member
does not know that.


William Richard Motherwell: I do.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. gentleman is an old member of this house and he has knowledge of standing order 41.


William Richard Motherwell: I will withdraw
my remarks, not because they are untrue but because, Mr. Chairman, you asked me to.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member
knows the rules too well. Standing order 41 covers decorum in debate. I will quote from Bourinot at page 358, as follows:
All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of personal attacks and censure have always been considered unparliamentary and the speakers of the British and Canadian houses have always treated them as breaches of order.
I think the hon. member should withdraw his remarks.


William Richard Motherwell: I will withdraw,
Mr. Chairman, but-


An hon. MEMBER:: No buts.


William Richard Motherwell: I just wanted to
say that there is nothing coming to the right
34S8
Tariff Board

hon. gentleman after the unwarranted attack he made on me this afternoon. Did he expect to get away with it? I do not intend to let him get away with it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't abuse Ferguson because of that.
Amendment (Mr. Butcher) negatived: yeas 34; nays 50.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
On section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (c)- Labour.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and my colleague the hon. member for North Winnipeg both somewhat anticipated this paragraph in some remarks which they made on paragraph (b). I am very glad that there is 'at least some reference in this to labour, but it seems to me that it is really too slight to mean anything very much to the labour people. In the preceding paragraph there is a definite arrangement by which theTe is to be a report on increases or decreases in rates of duty which are necessary to equalize differences in the cost of , production. There is, however, nothing definite here with regard to labour or that will ensure to labour decent conditions. Some hon. members may remember that a year ago some of us urged that increases in the tariff should be made contingent upon the maintenance of decent labour conditions, that is, proper conditions with regard to hours, wages, and labour condition in general. I should have liked to see something of that kind included in this legislation. The Prime Minister has all along in this debate been emphasizing that he intends to protect the interests of Canadians, but I think he has really had in mind Canadian industrialists, manufacturers. He has had very little to say with regard to workmen employed in industry, and even the manner in which this section is introduced would seem to indicate that he is thinking particularly of the cost of labour and not of the welfare of the labourer. We in this corner of the house have pointed out on previous occasions that protection to industry does not necessarily involve protection to employees in industry.
It would seem to me that there is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to make it clear in the veiy phrasing of this paragraph that the workers in industry will be protected. I do not think it right to give under the tariff special privileges of any kind to any of these people unless they are prepared to afford to their employees a decent living wage, decent hours such as are supposed to be given under 
the Versailles treaty, and other proper conditions which we believe to be necessary for the maintenance of a Canadian standard of living.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Are there in Canada industries that do not do that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: A large number of them.


Peter McGibbon: Would the hon. member be good enough to name one of them?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; the textiles are an outstanding example. According to the figures given the other day by the hon. member for Beauharnois, not only have those industries made enormous sums of money, but at the same time they have paid extremely low wages and they have laid off their men very frequently; there has been great unemployment. If the hon. member wants another industry, there, is one that became known to us all last year, namely, the steel industry. At the very time when they were being given increased protection a thousand employees of the British Empire 'Steel Corporation were being worked eleven hours during the day, thirteen hours at night, and every other week, twenty-four hours on end. I understand that after the discussion which took place in the house last year and after pressure which was brought to bear upon those companies by the provincial authorities, the hours of the workers in the steel industry, at least in Nova 'Scotia, were reduced to eight hours and ten hours. A number of them are still being worked ten hours a day.


Peter McGibbon: What wages do they get for the ten hours?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That does not make any difference.


Peter McGibbon: It makes a great difference.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It does not make the slightest difference.


Peter McGibbon: It is everything.
iMr. WOODSWORTH: It does not make the slightest difference, and if the hon. member thinks 'the wage paid is the one consideration, that just shows his ignorance of the fundamentals of labour ideals.


Peter McGibbon: That is only my hon. friend's opinion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is the opinion
endorsed by every labour organization in Canada and, indeed, endorsed by the International Labour Office at Geneva. We believe workers

Tariff Board
ought not to work more than a certain number of hours in the day; that irrespective of the wages paid, men ought not to be worked as they were eleven and thirteen hours a day and on occasion twenty-four hours on end.


Mr. ROBINSON:: Are they compelled to
work ten hours a day?


James Shaver Woodsworth: They are compelled to work those hours, or else they forfeit the job altogether. The hon. member for Mus-koka-Ontario asked for instances. I have given him some.


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member has
not given me anything.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not dealing
just now with particular industries; I am dealing with the general principle underlying, and I think there is an opportunity, in the creation of this board and the outlining the scope of their work, to ensure that among other duties that might be performed by a board of this kind, is a careful inquiry into wages and an insistence that wages, hours and other conditions of labour shall come up to recognized standards. I should have liked to see that included in this paragraph. As it is now drafted the matter is left in very indefinite form. Possibly the Prime Minister might give us some assurance that, even under the present drafting, he has this in mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The clause as it reads
was drafted to meet the situation to which the hon. gentleman refers, without endeavouring by particularity to destroy the generalitv of its expression:
The cost, efficiency and conditions of labour, including health of employees, in Canada and elsewhere.
The capital question that was raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River this afternoon was also dealt with in succeeding subsections. The question of hours of labour becomes vital; the question of conditions is important always, and the question of the capital structure of corporations to which reference was also made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is, I think, covered entirely by what the section states. There was a mistake which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River made, to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not refer, and it was this: under this bill the application is not made by a manufacturer for increases or decreases in the 'tariff. Under this section a reference is made by the Minister of Finance to ascertain the facts. The subsection is to enable the facts to be reported upon as to the very conditions to which reference has been made.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the method of procedure in investigating an industry be somewhat similar to that undertaken by the previous tariff board?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I could not answer that
question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On this point I raised, has the Prime Minister in mind that increases in tariff or special favours of any kind will be made contingent upon the maintenance of decent standards of living? I think the Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that the manufacturer is to be protected as against any external competition, but he has not made it so clear that the employee in the industry is to be protected in his living standards.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no provision in this measure, so far as I know, for special interests or special favours to anyone, and I do not know just why the hon. gentleman should make that reference. It was the intention of those responsible for the measure that there should be afforded before this tribunal an opportunity for ascertaining the facts to which I have referred, affecting capital and labour alike.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to be clear on this matter. By paragraph (b) increases or decreases in rates of duty may be recommended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If they are required to equalize differences in the cost of production.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They cannot be recommended.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then the board may ascertain whether increases or decreases in rates of duty are required to equalize differences in the cost of production. I should like to ask whether it will also be required that certain recognized standards of living, wages, hours and general conditions of labour will be considered as essential before any tariff increases are granted. If the Prime Minister does not like my use of the word "favours'', I withdraw that expression for the moment. I will put it this way: Is it understood that unless certain standards of living are maintained, increases should not be granted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no emphasis attached to any subsection of this section. They all have equal emphasis, and they mean, so far as I know, exactly what they say. The government must accept responsibility for sub-
Tariff Board

mitting to parliament any measure that involves an increase or decrease of duty, and the facts as ascertained by the board and reported, depending upon the testimony adduced and the information gained, will of course be one of the determining factors, but not necessarily the sole determining factor, in the action taken by the government. The very instructions to which the hon. gentleman refers are instructions with respect to which the government must assume responsibility, but the finding of the facts in question will be by this tribunal. I need hardly say, what the hon. gentleman must already know, that most of the recent tariff changes in this country have been made because the costs of production in competing countries were so much lower than they are in Canada on account of the standards of living that obtain in this country as compared with other countries of production.


Mr. VENIOT:: Will this board have power, if the minister so requests, to look into the equalizing of freight rates? For instance, take a factory situated anywhere in Ontario. The freight rate from Ontario to the maritime provinces being so high, our people are compelled to import rather than buy the same article in Ontario-because of the difference in the freight rate as between Ontario and elsewhere to the maritimes, not because of the duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Undoubtedly, as the hon. gentleman has suggested, freight rates are a factor in determining costs, and as such the tribunal would have power to ascertain the facts and report.


Peter John Veniot: I have a case in point, to which I might refer. In Ontario there is a tin plate factory at Ojibway. The freight on that article to the maritime iprovinces is 20 per cent higher than the freight by water from a place in the United States where tin plate is manufactured. The railway freight from Ojibway to Moncton is some 10 or 12 per cent higher than the freight by water from Wales, from which large importations of tin plate are made. The tariff has been raised to protect the Ojibway industry, and our people have to pay this extra tariff and are getting their tin plate from either Wales or Pittsburgh in the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. gentleman is aware of the fact that the formula adopted by business men generally is that one land mile is equivalent to forty water miles so far as the tariff is concerned. It being 2,800 water miles from Wales to St. John, that is the equivalent of about 70 land
(Mr. Bennett.]
miles. The distance from Ojibway to Moncton being a little over 1,000 miles, necessarily the rail rate would be much higher than the water rate from Wales to St. John. That factor would, of course, be inquired into.


Peter John Veniot: Another question. Did I understand the Finance minister aright this afternoon to say that under this act would be found means of preventing mergers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


Peter John Veniot: I must have misunderstood my right hon. friend. Then I have no argument to make.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In case there were no tariff matters under consideration by the board, could the minister direct that an investigation be made into the wages or other conditions of labour?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. It will be observed by a subsequent section, when we come to it, shortly I hope, that the governor in council may direct the board to inquire into any matter affecting the trade and commerce of the country.
Paragraph (c) agreed to.
Paragraph (d) agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (e). -Conditions affecting cost and price.


Mr. MacLEAN:: In the very vigorous speech which the Prime Minister made before six o'clock, and in a great many other debates in this house, we have been given the assurance that the consumers of this country would be protected by this government. We have been led to believe that under the provisions of this bill authority would be given to the board to set up inquiries and to deal with the prices which the consumers of this country have to pay. That is dealt with in subsection 2 of section 4. What is not clear to my mind is how this government or any government can protect the consumer when it is setting up a high tariff and is thereby putting into the hands of the manufacturers of the country the one weapon through which alone they can best exploit the consumer. This government says: We are going to protect the consumer. Then immediately they raise the tariff right along the line and put into the hands of the manufacturers of this country the one weapon by which they can exploit to the full extent of the increase in the tariff the consuming public of this country. I would like the

Tariff Board
Prime Minister to answer this question. How is it possible in view of the tariff increases which ths government has made all along the line for this board to control the prices to the consumer? H the manufacturers are asking for an increase in duty, what are they asking it for? It is for the sole purpose of charging the consumer more.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: If it is not that, what benefit is the tariff? It is of absolutely no benefit in that case. That is why the manufacturers are asking for an increase in duty.
Let me give a concrete example. I have one before me on my desk now. Fertilize!; was on the free list under the Liberal government, but when our good friends opposite came into power they put a duty of 10 per cent on fertilizer.


Mr. JONES:: And it is $3 a ton cheaper this year.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I am glad my hon. friend has said that. The spread betwen the price of the raw product and the price to the consumer is far greater this year than last, when the difference in the price of the raw product is taken into account mixed fertilizer should be $5 a ton cheaper this year. I have resolutions before me which have been passed by all the farmers organizations throughout the maritime provinces.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I have one from the Potato Growers' Association of Prince Edward Island, the largest organization of its kind in the Dominion of Canada, in which the statement is made-


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: May I
ask a question?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: My hon. friend may make his speech when I am through.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Can my hon. friend tell me the ingredients which go into the composition of fertilizer upon which duty has been placed?


An hon. MEMBER:: Radishes.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Last year four tons of chemical cost $169. This year the same four tons can be bought for $139, or $30 less. A few moments ago some one shouted across the floor of the committee that he was buying fertilizer this year $2 a ton cheaper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Three dollars.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: It should be $5 cheaper. It was stated in the press of this country
that owing to the increase in duty, and to the fact that fertilizer mixing plants were beginning operations in Canada, the farmers of this country would be able to buy that fertilizer $2 a ton cheaper.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Three dollars.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I am speaking about my own province, with which I am most familiar. That lowering of the price was attributed to the action of this government. What do we find? We find that the spread between the price of the raw product this year as compared with the price last year should warrant a reduction of at least $5 per ton for ready mixed fertilizer. That is one example where, owing to the imposition of the duty, the consumer is being made to pay $3 a ton more for fertilizer this year than he should have to pay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Three dollars

we thought so.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: My hon. friends cannot get away with that. The public is too intelligent to listen to their remarks. They know perfectly well that raw material is much lower in price, and the same applies to gasoline and a great many other commodities which I could enumerate.
I would like to know before this item passes how our good friends in one breath are going to announce tariff changes and make the consumer pay increased prices, and in the next breath say to the people of Canada that they are protecting the consumer from exploitation. That is the question before this committee, and I should like to have it answered.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I think it is only fair that the committee should be further informed concerning fertilizer in Canada. There is not a single ingredient which goes into the composition of the fertilizer to which my hon. friend has referred upon which any duty has been imposed by the present administration. A duty has been imposed upon the mixed product, with the result that industries have been located at St. John and in other sections of the maritime provinces so that this commodity may be mixed by Canadian workmen rather than by workmen on the other side of the line. The only duty which has been imposed is upon the mixed product. Our farmers do not want their fertilizers mixed on the other side of the line; they want them mixed in Canada. Quite properly I think, this government has placed a duty upon the products coming into Canada in the mixed form. The ingredients, however, bear no duty whatever.
Tariff Board


Mr. YENIOT:: Will my hon. friend tell
the house how many manufacturers of ingredients there are in the maritime provinces? Are they not all mixing plants?


Mr. SMITH (Vietoria-Garleton):: True, they are all mixing plants,-why would they not be mixing plants? Canada is not in a position to produce all the ingredients which go into the composition of fertilizers. Those ingredients come very largely from the city of Baltimore, as my hon. friend should know, and many of them come from South America, Germany and France. They are brought in and mixed in the city of St. John rather than in the United States.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend seems to
know a great deal about the mixing of fertilizers, but unfortunately he has not told the committee all he knows. If he had done so he would have said that the action of mixing plants at St. John and St. Stephen has had the effect of preventing the farmers and dairymen's association of his own constituency from going into the mixing business. As a matter of fact by importing the ingredients in a cooperative way and mixing them themselves they were saving $3 a ton as compared with the price they are now paying, when they are forced to buy their fertilizers already mixed. Further than that, if my hon. friend is thoroughly familiar with fertilizers he must know that ingredients are not imported for mixing purposes. Some are imported for use separately, unmixed, and upon those a duty has to be paid.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, a duty of so much a
ton has to be paid on ingredients imported, not for mixing purposes, but for separate use. That is a fact, and there is no use contradicting it. The Dairymen and Farmers' Association of Nova Scotia at their annual meeting in the month of February last passed a very strong resolution which was forwarded to this government setting forth the fact that certain acids or phosphates used for top dressing, unmixed, were charged with a duty. Those people ought to know what they are talking about, because they had to pay the duty. I have a copy of the resolution passed by that association at their convention, and also a copy of the memorial sent to the government. So that ingredients for separate use are not imported free of duty. To that extent at least the importer is exploited by the manufacturer or the mixing company at home.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: My hon. friend seems to know a great deal about fertilizers, but I am afraid he has only demonstrated the fact that after all he is not very familiar with his subject.


Peter John Veniot: At least I know something about it, and I know my hon. friend is not telling all he knows.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: As I have previously stated, there is no imposition of duty upon ingredients which enter into the composition of fertilizers. If my hon. friend wishes to buy fertilizers for his own private use I am not prepared to say to the committee that there is or is not any duty upon it. I do say that the farmers of this country are interested only in what goes into the composition of their fertilizers, and on those ingredients there is no duty. When my hon. friend makes the statement that the mixing plants at St. Stephen and St. John and elsewhere in the maritime provinces were making it impossible for the cooperative associations of the maritime provinces to buy their fertilizers as cheaply as they otherwise would buy them, he makes a statement which cannot be substantiated by the facts, because all those mixing plants charge $1 a ton for mixing. The farmer has the privilege of mixing his own ingredients in his own barn.


Peter John Veniot: One of these mixing plants was established in 1928, and the other at St. Stephen in 1929.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Does my hon. friend know that they went out of business?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: The one at St. Stephen
now employs four men during the summer time, and fifteen during the winter time, the mixing season. My hon. friend says that our people did not want their mixing done on the other side, they wanted it done on the Canadian side. The gentleman in charge of the plant at St. Stephen,-this is an American plant-is an American and lives across the river St. Croix on the state of Maine side. I do not care what arguments the hon. gentleman advances, those are the facts and they cannot be gainsaid.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I have
one further remark to add about this matter. My hon. friend knows, or does not know-


Peter John Veniot: I do know.

Tariff Board


Benjamin Franklin Smith: -because the member here from the county of Charlotte well knows-


Peter John Veniot: He will not contradict me.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: He
knows the mixing plant at St. Stephen went out of business while my hon. friend's party were in power, and were allowing mixed grades to come in free; but just as soon as this government put a duty on mixed grades the plant went into operation again. That is why I say the plant was out of commission the years there was no duty on mixed fertilizers coming into Canada.


Peter John Veniot: It was only established in
1928.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I hold in my hand a
letter issued by the secretary of the Prince Edward Island Potatoe Growers' Association stating:
Charlottetown, P.E.I.,
February 4, 1931.
We submit herewith our prices on fertilizer for this season, and enclose blank forms for your orders of fertilizer, and for the corrosive sublimate.
You will be pleased to note the very great reduction in the price of chemicals. We cannot show as large a reduction on mixed fertilizers. This is because of the duty on mixed goods, which does not apply to chemicals.
There is a direct statement from the secretary of the potato growers association. At their annual meeting they passed this resolution :
Whereas there has been a duty of ten per cent imposed on mixed fertilizer imported to this province.
Whereas practically all fertilizers must be imported to Canada.
And whereas the work of a mixing plant is done largely by machinery, and requires only a few labourers in its operation.
I want the committee to take note of that, because my hon. friend's contention is that the farmers must pay this ten per cent duty in order that labour may be given to a few people in this country. Let me repeat that recital:
And whereas the work of a mixing plant is done largely by machinery, and requires only a few labourers in its operation.
The resolution continues:
And whereas fertilizer is a raw product, which must be used by the farmer in the growing of the finished product, and any increased cost is a handicap to the producer.
Therefore resolved that this meeting express its disapproval of the said duty, and respectfully ask for its removal-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: This is out of order.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: A copy of this resolution was sent to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Customs and to each federal representative.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Paragraph 306 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and1 Forms makes this comment on standing order 41:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters, or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member of expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.


Mr. RALSTON:: There is nothing in the resolution read by the hon. member for Prince reflecting on the proceedings in this house, Mr. Chairman.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: To read communications from persons outside the house expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house is out of order.


James Layton Ralston: Do you mean to say, Mr. Chairman, that if a newspaper criticizes some action in the house that newspaper cannot be read by an hon. member?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It cannot be.


James Layton Ralston: Then, with all due deference, a lot of newspapers ought to be at the bar of this house.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The right hon. Prime Minister promises that ibv this tariff bill he will protect the.consumer from exploitation. Now that he puts into the hands of our manufacturers a weapon which, I contend, enables them to make the consumer pay two prices instead of one, I think the committee is entitled to an explanation from the right hon. gentleman.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: I would ask
the hon. member for Prince to be fair. He has given the committee the impression that the Prince Edward Island Potato Growers' Association protested against this duty. It is a well-known fact-and the hon. member knows it as well as I do-that the potato growers of Prince Edward Island are very much opposed either to importing or using mixed fertilizers. Their importations are entirely of the raw chemicals, which even this spring they advised the farmers .they should buy and mix themselves as by so doing they would get a fresher mixture.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Nobody denies that.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: The hon.
member gave the impression that this duty on mixed fertilizers was a hardship on the potato growers of Prince Edward Island. It
Tariff Board

is not so, because even this year they imported all raw chemicals and distributed them to their members, and those raw chemicals carry no duty whatever.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: My hon. friend knows
perfectly well that the potato growers' association have every year advised the farmers to mix the chemicals themselves. This year they are forced to do that to a greater extent than before on account of the duty. But large quantities of mixed fertilizer were also used.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not at all.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: On account of the duty
on mixed fertilizers. I am not talking about chemicals.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: But the hon. member knows that the potato growers' association use straight chemicals entirely.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Yes, and they recommend the use of chemicals; but they do not recommend the action of my hon. friend in supporting the imposition of the duty of ten per cent against the farmers of Prince Edward Island.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: If my
hon. friend went to the city of St. John and consulted the workmen employed there in the factory during the last season when unemployment was rife, I am sure he would find that they in common with the farmers of the maritime provinces at least were veiy strongly in favour of this tariff. We are providing work for Canadian workmen. My hon. friend opposite advocates that we should give that work to American workmen rather than to our own.


Peter John Veniot: Nothing of the kind.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: He read into my remarks something that I did not say. He said I had stated that this ten per cent duty on mixed fertilizer had increased the cost of fertilizer to the farmers of this country'. I made no such statement. My statement was exactly the reverse, that it had not increased the cost one iota. As a matter of fact, fertilizers are from $3 to $4 a ton cheaper than at any time in the last thirty years.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say that my hon. friend had made that statement.


James Layton Ralston: I think the discussion has brought out that at least there is a difference in the price of fertilizers on account of the duty. I do not think that any of this special pleading about raw chemicals coming in free to be mixed has anything to do with the point

being made by the member for Prince. His point is that the government imposed a duty on fertilizers, while those goods came in free under the previous government. I can assure my hon. friend opposite that there are no apologies from this side of the house because fertilizers did come in free.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: They
come in free now.


James Layton Ralston: I beg the hon. member's
pardon; they are not free. Mixed goods are not coming in free. We regard fertilizer as raw material for the use of the primary producer, and as such it should come in free. And my hon. friend, when he speaks about starting a mixing plant which may give employment to four or six or eight men, is not doing much to assist in connection with the unemployment problem, while he is supporting a new tax on the very people he is supposed to represent in this parliament. I wish to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to this. Time and time again it has been said in this house that duties are not going to affect prices-that the manufacturers will operate under the shadow of the tariff wall but that prices are not going to go up. I have in my hand a statement with regard to this very matter. This statement comes from the Prince Edward Island Potato Growers' Association-and by the way, I have a similar statement from the Nova Scotia Farmers' Association as well-with regard to fertilizers, indicating that the price of fertilizer is higher to-day on account of the duty. That is the point we are making.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the
hon. member taken pains to ascertain the current market prices of mixed fertilizers last year and this year?


James Layton Ralston: I have taken pains to
obtain a statement made by the Prince Edward Island Potato Growers' Association, who are supplying fertilizer to their members. This is what they say:
We submit herewith our prices on fertilizer for this season, and enclose blank forms for your orders of fertilizer, and for the corrosive sublimate.
You will be pleased to note the very great reduction in the price of chemicals. We cannot show as large a reduction on mixed fertilizers. This is because of the duty on mixed goods, which does not apply to chemicals.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It doe3
not follow-


James Layton Ralston: That is exactly what
they say, just as I have read it. I do not set myself up as an authority on fertilizer as some hon. members do, but I am content

Tariff Board
to take the statement of people who handle the commodity and who use it. And they state that the duty is what is keeping the price up. I commend that to the Prime Minister because this year, in his legislation, he is going further than he did last year. Last year we were told that the price was not going to go up as a result of the duty; this year he assures us that if prices are put up by reason of the duties he is going to resort to the old star chamber punishment of the peine forte et dure. In other words, he will see that protection is completely removed. But he cannot do this for the reason that it will hurt other industries. He will therefore have to fine them by imposing an excise tax equal to the duty. Here is an industry which ought to be fined, an industry which ought to come directly under the penalties of the section which he is going to introduce in connection with the budget resolutions. There is no use emphasizing the fact that chemicals are free when the duty on mixed goods remains, and when that duty is resulting in the price being higher than it was before.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: May I ask the committee not to discuss the tariff in connection with this bill.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Chairman


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Just one moment. I must ask the committee not to get away from the section under consideration for the purpose of discussing the merits of policies.


James Layton Ralston: I was discussing.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am not referring to the hon. member particularly.


James Layton Ralston: With due deference to the chair. I understood that I was being called to order. I was referring to paragraph (e) which relates to:
All conditions and factors which affect or enter into the cost of production and the price to the consumers in Canada.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That paragraph is wide, but it should not be made a pretext for discussing the budget.


James Layton Ralston: It is not a question of using -the paragraph as a pretext, Mr. Chairman, we must discuss everything involved in the question of cost of production. And that brings me to this other point. The Prime Minister has said time and again that an investigation into cost of production must be provided for in view of the fact that we are importing goods from so many countries where production costs are low. I have not had time to count them, but I could mention goods imported from the United States; and
I submit to my right hon. friend that conditions of living-without running down Canada in the slightest-are in the United States practically equal to what they are here. So that if -this is to be an investigation into costs of production in the United States, it is not going to get us very far. And a great many increases in duty will not be dealt with at all under this section, because my right hon. friend knows before he starts that cost of production in the United States will be found to be as high as it is here. Take gasoline, which has already been mentioned, and automobiles. The cost of production in connection with automobiles, from the standpoint of the standard) of living, is the same as it is here. Then take steel, machinery, rope-articles which are in daily use and on which the duty is being raised by my right hon. friend on the pretext that living conditions in those countries from which we import are such that we should see to it that our manufacturers shall not be subjected to competition of that kind. The conditions in the United States in these industries, so far as I have heard, are the same as those in Canada. So that this provision is absolutely useless for the purpose for which it is put in, if it is to investigate conditions on the other side of the line.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The committee will recall that on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Gloucester I requested the Secretary of State not to discuss the tariff generally. I must ask hon. members to confine themselves to the section under consideration.


Mr. MYERS:: I may be permitted to say a word with reference to fertilizer. With all due respect to my hon. friend from Prince, to the ex-Postmaster General, and to the hon. member for Shelfourne-Yarmouth, I think I am in a position to know as much about the subject as any of them. I doubt whether they use any of this article, whereas I use tons of it every year. With reference to the cost of fertilizer, may I say that I have been a director for several years of the Prince Edward Island Potato Growers' Association, and every year our secretary and president have taken great pains to advise us against the use of ready-mixed fertilizers. They recommend the use of chemicals.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. The question before the committee is whether section 4 shall be agreed to. The subject under consideration concerns the functions of the board.


John Howard Myers: That is what I am coming to. One of the functions of the board when it is established will be to visit Prince Edward
Tariff Board

Island and inquire into conditions with regard to fertilizer. Now, we have been taught there to use chemicals, mixing them ourselves -that is, acid phosphate, ammonia, potash and soda. Since this government saw fit to impose a duty on ready-mixed fertilizers coming into Canada, it has not increased the cost of ready-mixed fertilizers in Prince Edward Island. It may have increased-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


John Howard Myers: -the cost of American fertilizers coming into Canada.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


John Howard Myers: But we are able to import
chemicals as usual and mix them on the farm.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member may discuss the wisdom of giving certain powers to the board, but he may not discuss the question whether the government has or has not raised the duty on fertilizers. He is not in order in doing so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is merely replying to the observations of an ex-minister.


John Howard Myers: When the board is established we should like to have them inquire into just what has been done with reference to this very thing in Prince Edward Island. Should they take a trip to Prince Edward Island they would find out that since this duyt was imposed on fertilizer coming into Canada there has been established in Prince Edward Island something which we never had before. A fertilizer plant has been established in Charlottetown, which plant imports its chemicals, mixes them and sells the product at a lower price than ever obtained before.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, you have stated that it is permissible at this time to discuss whether or not this clause should be in the bill. May I give to the committee the reasons why I think it is utterly absurd to insert any such clause, and with your permission may I deal at the same time with the clause which follows. In the light of the discussion which has just taken place, I ask hon. members to contemplate for a moment what this board will be charged with if called upon to make an inquiry in accordance with subsections (e) and (f). We have heard during the past quarter of an hour something of the difficulty with respect to ascertaining the effect of the cost of fertilizer upon costs and prices. That is one small ingredient that enters into costs of production and price. The board under subsections (e) and (f) is expected to inquire into all conditions and

factors which affect or enter into the cost of production and the price to the consumer in Canada. Subsection (e) reads:
all conditions and factors which affect or enter into the cost of production and the price to consumers in Canada.
Subsection (f) reads:
generally, all the conditions affecting production, manufacture, cost and price in Canada as compared with other countries;
In other words, this board is to inquire into all the conditions and factors which affect cost of production and prices. Every hon. member will agree that ait the present moment prices and costs of production are in part the result of world conditions. There is no hon. member who has not stated over and over again that we are suffering to-day from depressed prices the result of world conditions. World conditions then are the first thing the board will have to inquire into.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh yes, there is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says, oh yes. The next thing this board will have to inquire into will be how far the policies of this and previous governments have affected conditions, prices and costs. The whole question of commercial crises, industrial depressions, panics and the like will have to be fully investigated. Every hon. member knows that these are factors entering into costs and prices, and the board will have to go fully into them. Up until the present time the world has been suffering from the direct and indirect effects of the great war. Costs and prices in all parts of the world are still being affected by what took place during the war, and the board will have to inquire fully into these factors because they constitute a part of the conditions and factors affecting costs and prices. Within a very short time the world hopes to have declared a moratorium with respect to international debts. Prices will be affected immediately and we assume that in some particulars cost will be affected as well. The board will have to inquire into these effects as being one of the conditions and one of the factors affecting prices and costs. There has been considerable discussion this session as to the extent to which currency affects prices, the effect of gold reserves, the quantity of silver produced and in circulation in comparison with gold. These matters also will have to be fully and accurately inquired into by the board if this section means anything at all. We know something of the effect of stock exchange panics and crises upon prices and costs; these things naturally will have to be gone into. The board will have to tell the

Tariff Board
minister the extent to which crises on the stock exchange in New York have affected each particular commodity, whether it be fertilizer or something else. The laws and tariffs of other countries as well as our own have their effect upon prices and costs; so also has credit; everything which enters into the law of supply and demand must of necessity be a factor in connection with costs and prices; all this will have to bq gone into very fully and carefully.
These are only a very few of the things which under these sections the board will be expected to inquire into. I ask hon. members if there is any sense in enacting this kind of a clause in a bill such as the present one.
I come back to what I said to the Prime Minister a little while ago; I think it would be much more sensible under this clause to make a simple direct statement that the minister shall have the right to obtain information upon anything he wishes. The right hon. gentleman should not particularize in this absurd way which really makes this legislation wholly ridiculous.
One of the things which as I have just said affects prices and costs is the operation of the tariff. Here we see the injustice of the appointment by a government that entertains one view with respect to the tariff, of a board to make investigations into the effects of tariffs for possibly another government which may hold a directly opposite view. I do not think I need to enlarge upon what I have indicated. It should be sufficient to say that all this kind of thing is so much in the nature of, I was going to say, window dressing, but it is something very much worse than that, it is absolute deception so far as the public is concerned. No board in the world, no matter how competent it might be, could begin to make a report to a minister with respect to all the conditions and factors which enter into costs and into prices in connection with any commodity.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
Paragraph (f) agreed to on division.
On section 4, subsection 2-Inquiry by minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This subsection reads in part:
and the inquiry into any such matter may include inquiry as to the effect which an increase or decrease of the existing rate of duty upon a given commodity might have upon industry or trade, and the extent to which the consumer is protected from exploitation.
This board is not as has already been said to be merely a fact finding board. Here again
it is to draw inferences. By the subterfuge of this language it is in reality to be a price fixing board. It will indicate to the ministry of the day that a certain price is a fair price, that if it is maintained the consumer will be free from exploitation and as such it will be claimed that the price should be maintained.
I repeat what I said the other day; that is going back to where we were when we had the Board of Commerce operating as a court to interpret the fair prices act. It was shown in actual practice that this board could not be of any service, and the legislation in addition was later on declared by the courts to be ultra vires.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 3-Inquiry into combinations which enhance prices.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This subsection reads:
The board may be empowered by the Governor in Council to hold an inquiry under section fifteen of the customs tariff, in the same manner as the judge of the Exchequer court or any other judge therein referred to may be so empowered, and the said section shall include and apply to the board as if it were therein expressly named.
If an application is made to the government for an inquiry and if the applicant expresses a desire to have the investigation made by a judge under the Customs Tariff Act, will , this subsection take away from the applicant the right which he now has of having his investigation made by a judge-the government having the power as an alternative to refer it to the customs board-or is it just an alternative power which will leave to the applicant the privilege of saying by which tribunal he wishes to have his investigation made?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Prior to the passing of
the Combines Investigation Act, which was before the courts last year, there was in the customs tariff of the country the following provision:
Whenever the governor in council deems it to be in the public interest to inquire into any conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement alleged to exist among manufacturers or dealers in any article of commerce to unduly promote the advantage of the manufacturers or dealers in such article at the expense of the consumers, the governor in council may commission or empower any judge of the supreme court, or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any superior court or county court in Canada, to hold an inquiry in a summary way and report to the governor in council whether such conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement exists.
Tariff Board

2.	The judge may compel the attendance of witnesses and examine them under oath and require the production of books and papers, and shall have such other necessary powers as are conferred upon him by the governor in council for the purpose of such inquiry.
3.	If the judge reports that such conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement exists in respect of such article, the governor in council may admit the article free of duty, or so reduce the duty thereon as to give to the public the benefit of reasonable competition in the article, if it appears to the governor in council that such disadvantage to the consumer is facilitated by the duties of customs imposed on a like article.
I think the origin of that was in 1907. This merely affords another judge to make the inquiry. It is not always convenient, as perhaps the right hon. gentleman knows, for judges of the exchequer court to hold such inquiries, and this would enable the governor in council to authorize this body to do so. I have no doubt, if the parties affected complained of this, a delay would follow that would enable a judge of the exchequer oourt to be named. That is the position so far as the statute is concerned, and in practice, as I have been told by the judges, their duties in the exchequer court are at the moment so onerous that some body should be created that would do this work. Judges of the supreme court are obviously not free for that purpose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has spoken only of the exchequer court. I believe the act mentions judges of the supreme court, the exchequer court, county courts and others. I can see wherein a body of consumers might have much more confidence in a supreme or county court judge who is wholly removed from any political considerations one way or the other, than in a board which my right hon. friend might appoint to deal exclusively with the tariff. What I want to make sure of is this: when the applicants ask for an investigation and directly advise the minister they would like to have that investigation before a county court judge or a judge of the exchequer oourt, will they be precluded in any way from having the investigation so conducted? Will the minister be free to swing the investigation into the other court he is here creating?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am able to answer only with respect to the present administration. If a body of consumers asked that the inquiry be held before a judge of the exchequer court, superior court or county court, I would certainly advise His Excellency that an order be passed to give effect to their wishes in that regard.
Subsection 3 agreed to.
ILMr. Bennett.]
On section 4, subsection 4-Powers under Combines Investigation Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I desire to ask the Prime Minister the same question in regard to this subsection. If preference were expressed by those who believed they were adversely affected by a combine to have the investigation made under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, would the government be prepared to have the investigation made under that act, or would they take advantage of or claim the right under this particular subsection to insist on the investigation being made by the tariff board rather than by the officers named in the Combines Investigation Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the light hon. gentleman remembers, no judicial powers are reposed in the investigators or the registrar, and if two or three matters are being conducted at the same time, it is quite an expensive process, as we have learned in this country, to name lawyers to conduct them. But if those concerned ask that a registrar or investigators other than the tariff board should hold the investigation, I can only repeat that so far as I could direct the order in council it would provide that the investigation should be held by either the registrar or an investigator.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To put the
matter briefly, I understand from the replies of the Prime Minister that the intention of these two subsections 3 and 4 is not to take away from the applicants for inquiry any rights they may have at present under existing legislation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it is merely to
provide that in case of activity of judges and investigators, there is an alternative. If that alternative be objected to, it will not be used.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsection 5 agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 6-Inquiries to be summary, and reports made.
Edward James Young: On this side of the house
we hold that the person who is most concerned in what will likely happen before the tariff board and in the result of its findings is the common consumer, because whatever increases are made in the tariff will have to be paid by him. Not only will he have to pay the increased price of the goods, but where the object of the legislation is attained and goods are shut out of the country, the government will lose the revenue which they

Tariff Board
are now deriving from duties and the common people will be asked to make that up under other forms of taxation. We therefore consider it important that the ordinary man on the street be allowed, not only to plead his case before this board, but at any time he likes to attend the sittings, listen to the proceedings and know what is going on. Therefore I have an amendment which is very moderate in its terms, and I hope the government will accept it. I move:
That subsection (6) of section 4 be amended by inserting after the words "manner" in the second line of such subsection the following words:
"and shall be open to the public."


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a public court.
As in all public courts the limitation imposed upon the publicity of the proceedings is the limitation imposed in the public interest. Courts sit in camera when dealing with certain matters; sometimes courts have to receive information that is mentioned in a measure such as this, and if the hon. gentleman will move that the subsection be amended to provide that inquiries under this section shall be conducted in a summary manner and shall be open to the public "except as hereinafter provided," I am quite content.


Edward James Young: I can hardly accept that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I thought.
The hon. gentleman did not want it.


Edward James Young: We take the stand that
those cases should not be heard in camera. When applicants come before this board asking for tariff concessions, they are seeking permission to put their hands into the pockets of the people of this country, and before that permission is granted they should be prepared to lay all their cards on the table and show adequate reason why their demand should be met.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Notwithstanding all the
discussion that has taken place, the hon. member for Weyburn still talks of someone asking for something in this court. That is not the situation. The reference is made by the minister, not the manufacturer, who is not a suppliant in this court, who is not the petitioner before this tribunal. That is what differentiates it from what has been done heretofore.


Edward James Young: Do I understand that an
applicant for increases in tariff will not appear before the board?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is not making an
application before the board.


An hon. MEMBER:: He petitions to the
minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems passing strange, after this bill has been read and reread, it should not be understood that the minister requests that an inquiry be made. That is the answer to the question.


James Layton Ralston: Who petitions the minister?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no provision in
the bill for that. The bill is clear in that regard; the leader of the opposition put the matter plainly. This is to inform the government, not in the way of recommendations or advice, but in answer to inquiries, specific answers to questions asked. I am not averse that the declaration should be made. As a matter of law that would be the case anyway. But there is a provision that certain information is confidential, and the court might not be an open court while that is being given. That is all. I say once more to the hon. gentleman: If he desires he can add after the words "in a summary manner," the words "and shall be open to the public except as hereinafter provided."


Edward James Young: Will the right hon. gentleman explain exactly what that means?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It means it is open to
the public except as hereinafter provided, which is a provision with respect to confidential information.


Mr. FACTOR:: Which section is that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Subsection 10 of section 5.


Charles A. Stewart: I think the minister is over anxious about the necessity for secrecy of the hearings. Undoubtedly it might be necessary to regard as confidential trade secrets and, questions relating to patents and secret processes, but when an individual makes an application to the board, or the minister of his own accord asks for an investigation, the board must of necessity summon the individuals concerned in order to get the necessary information upon which to decide whether they will grant the application.


Mr. CAHAN:: They have no power to
grant.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps
that was the wrong expression. I will use my right hon. friend's own phrase-power to find the facts, which personally I do not think they will. But we will suppose that they are going to come as near as possible to find-

Tariff Board

ing the facts. I cannot see why the hearing should be secret in any respect except the two I have mentioned. There may be trade secrets, patents and secret processes that it would not be desirable for a firm to expose to othei-s engaged in the same line of business. As my right hon. friend has pointed out, the whole population of Canada are interested in these hearings because if the applications before the board for increases are granted, the consuming public is of necessity precluded from buying in open competition. I do not think it will tend to any good purpose to preclude the public from attending the hearings. Take the case of my right hon. friend's budget. The increases he has brought down are based upon information that for the most part is known only to the officers of his department. They have listened to the representations made and have read the briefs filed, and increases are brought down on the basis of those representations. Possibly the minister may have introduced some changes of his own personal knowledge, but I venture to say that they are not very numerous. The usual course is for representations to be made to the officers of the department, who in turn make representations to the minister, and the tariff changes are brought down on the strength of those representations. Parliament is not in possession of the information on which the increases are made, but undoubtedly the minister will inform the house why in his judgment the increases should be made. We have no access to that information, and until the information is before U3 we are in a measure dealing blindly with the subject. I maintain that it is not fair to the public or to parliament itself to have the hearings before the board of a similar character. We should have that information in our possession, and with the two exceptions I have mentioned I cannot conceive why any hearings should be other than public.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would refer the hon.
member to subsection 6 of section 4 which provides:	[DOT]
Each report shall be accompanied by a copy of the evidence, if any, taken, and by a copy of all information obtained in connection with the inquiry.
Nothing could be more public than the presentation of that evidence and that information to the government and to parliament. The only limitation is in subsection 10 of section 5, which says:
The evidence or information shall not be made public in such a manner as to be available for the use of any business competitor or rival of the person, firm or corporation, respectively.

The only limitation upon making public the evidence tgken before the board and the information elicited by the board is that such evidence or information shall not be available for the use of any business competitor or rival of the person, firm or corporation. The provision is simply to protect the person who gives evidence from having that evidence made available in such a way as to enable his competitor or rival to destroy or injure his business.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Since the Secretary of
State has joined in this debate I shall direct to him a question that has been in my mind while considering this section. The Secretary of State will remember that in his amendments to the Copyright Act, section 10 provides that a certain company controlling a large number of performing rights in musical productions must file a list of its prices, and if in the opinion of his department those prices are excessive, he may conduct an inquiry into such prices. Reading over this section, I think it allows the Secretary of State to direct such inquiry to be made by the tariff board. I put the question to my hon. friend whether that is his opinion. If I read the section aright, I have given a further example of how far the powers and duties of this board may go. I see no reason on reading this section why the Secretary of State would not be authorized to direct an inquiry into copyright to be made by the tariff board, and yet I think everybody will admit that it is going very far indeed to give the tariff board such extensive powers. Will the Secretary of State favour us with his opinion?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not been able to find in this bill any provision which would enable the government to refer the question of copyright, under section 10 of the new Copyright Act, to this board. If my hon. friend can point it out-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Do I understand the minister to say that he may authorize an inquiry by the tariff board into copyright matters?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I say that I do not remember any provision of any section or subsection of this act which would authorize the governor in council to refer to this board such issues as that which my hon. friend has suggested might arise under the recent amendments to the Copyright Act.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Let me explain. The
Secretary of State may, under the Copyright Act amendments, authorize an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. Now, subsection 4 of section 4 of this bill provides that the governor

Tariff Board
in council may empower the board to make any investigation or hold any inquiry authorized by the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, or of a relative nature. I maintain that this practically means any inquiry at all that is more or less in the nature of an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act. My point in rising was to show this committee by a further example how far the powers of this board may go. I submit that the board may investigate matters of copyright, and I do not think the Secretary of State, except by giving his opinion, has said anything to the committee to refute my argument.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is impossible to argue with gentlemen who trust to their imaginations entirely for their facts. I cannot pursue a discussion of that extent or of that quality or character. Under the Copyright Act there is a provision that under the Inquiries Act an investigation may be held, but I do not think that it is within the intent of this act that the tariff board should be authorized to make such inquiries as those which might arise under the Copyright Act.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not think that it will, but I maintain that according to the strict interpretation of the bill it would have that power.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Just restrain your imagination and everything will ,be all right.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Subsection 4 of section 4 says very clearly that the board may hold any inquiry authorized by the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, or of a relative nature. The provision in the Copyright Act amendment is very clear. If the minister considers that the performing right society is exercising a monopoly, or is a combine, he may authorize an inquiry. How does my hon. friend maintain that that is not covered by this clause? My point is that the bill is altogether too sweeping and extensive in practically every one of its sections. I maintain that by a strict interpretation of this bill the Secretary of State may order the tariff board to institute an inquiry into a matter as germane to tariff as copyright matters would be.


Mr. NEILL:: I do not feel like joining in
the condemnation of the Secretary of Slate, because the ex-Secretary of State nas an imagination. I never saw anybody go very far who did not have some imagination.
If I heard the Secretary of State correctly I think he said that there was no need to press that the hearings be held in public, 22110-2231
because a subsection provided that the report would be accompanied by a copy of the evidence, and that would be all the publicity anybody would need. Would he kindly tell me, not as a matter of imagination but to enlighten my ignorance, where in the bill there is provision for the report to be made public? I presume that the report would go either to the cabinet or to the Minister of Finance. That is not making it public in the sense that the public would wish, and in the sense of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Weyburn. Would some hon. member opposite kindly advise me on this point?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would refer my hon. friend to section 6 of the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that the amendment before the committee at the moment is to insert after the words, "summary manner" the words "and shall be open to the public." The Prime Minister has indicated that if there were a further restriction which would safeguard cases in connection with which there should be secrecy he would not object to the insertion of the words, "and shall be open to the public." So that we may proceed a stage further; in view of the fact that later we may discuss the provision that certain matters should be heard in secret, may I ask my right hon. friend if the amendment I now have in my hand would be acceptable to him? I would move to insert after the words, "summary manner" the words "and in public, except as herein expressly otherwise provided." I think that would cover any exceptions my hon. friend has in mind and which the committee may agree to. When at a later time we come to a discussion of the section we may consider whether the words there appearing go too far or, from the point of view of my right hon. friend, do not go far enough. If that is acceptable to my right hon. friend I would hope that the hon. member for Weyburn would accept his amendment modified to this extent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman meets the situation. If he desires we may let subsection 6 stand for the moment and proceed to the next section.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the hon. member for Weyburn is willing to withdraw his amendment, and the committee would give unanimous consent, I should be pleased to move the amendment I have outlined.
Tariff Board


Armand Renaud La Vergne: With the consent of the committee the hon. member for Weyburn withdraws his amendment.


Edward James Young: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I more in amendment
that after the words "summary manner" in line 13 the following words be inserted, "and in public, except as herein expressly otherwise provided."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should like to reply to the question of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Section 6 of the bill states that within so many days the report must be laid before parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps my right hon.
friend realizes that his suggestion does not go quite far enough. Probably the words, "except as hereinafter or by any statute of parliament provided" would suffice, because there are statutes which in connection with the production of documents provide that they can be produced only under the subpoena of a court, and there is no power to act otherwise. I should think the situation would be met if the words were added, "except as hereinafter or by any statute of Canada expressly provided."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That wording would be satisfactory to me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The words I have given are about the same as those suggested by my right hon, friend with only a slight addition. I had not thought of the necessity for mentioning the statutes until my attention was called to certain matters by the Minister of National Revenue.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall subsection 6 of section 4 stand?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may stand for the moment.


Mr. BERTRAND:: Mr. Chairman, before we reach-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member wishes to speak to this section of the bill.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It stands.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, subsection 6 stands, but not the whole section.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Very well.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Before we reach section 6 I wish to make an amendment which will
*M>r. Mackenzie King.]
be added as subsection 7 to section 4. As was brought to the attention of the house this afternoon by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) and later by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. W oodsworth)-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think section 4 is passed, is it not?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No, section 4 is not passed; subsection 6 stands, and the hon. member is now proposing a new subsection 7.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Following what has been said by the hon. members for Kenora-Rainy River and Winnipeg North Centre hon. members on this side of the house claim that the labourers are not getting full protection. The Prime Minister said a few minutes ago that the manufacturing interests would not apply to the board, but the minister would request the board to make certain inquiries. I should like to know, however, what would prompt the Minister of Finance to request the board to make inquiries into different matters which would result in the raising or lowering of duties. The Prime Minister may be prompted by personal curiosity, or there may be some other motives in his mind. The public would know however that those manufacturing interests would ask for an upward revision, and owing to the fact that the policy of the Conservative party is one of protection to the industries of Canada it is to be expected that the requests made would be for upward revisions. In the amendment I shall now propose we seek to learn the capitalizations of companies and the salaries paid to presidents, directors and managers. By so doing we may be able to learn what part of the overhead goes into the production of the article, and thereby learn what parties are deriving the most benefit. Also, I think it is only fair that, a clause should be: inserted dealing with the rate of wages and the working hours. Further. I think it is very important that our workingmen should be assured freedom of association. In many cases the workmen are not allowed to become members of a labour union. This gives the manufacturer's a decided advantage, because it enables them to impose their own terms on their employees. Therefore I desire to move this amendment:
That section 4 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
(7) Whenever application is made on behalf of a manufacturing company for higher duties the board shall investigate the capitalization of the company, and all salaries paid to the president, directors and managers, and the wages paid to their employees, the number of hours per day employees are required to work, and whether or not freedom of association is permitted the employees.

Tariff Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: This, it is obvious, would not be in order, for the simple reason that there is no provision in this bill for applications to be made by manufacturers to the board, neither is there any suggestion that this will ever be done. But assuming that the amendment were put in order, it endeavours by detail to cover what is already covered in the bill itself, the power of inquiry conferred on the board with respect to capital and labour, using the words in the broad sense. And the operation of labour in connection with the matter inquired into as well as capitalization are already covered by the statute. So that any endeavour to specify these particulars would be a failure as against the general terms that are employed. We cannot accept any such suggestion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I suggest to the Prime Minister that certainly there will be applications. The applications may not be made to the board; they will be made to the government, though. Time after time such applications will be made, and that will be the reason for directing that their subject matter be investigated by the board. I suggest that the idea of the mover of the amendment is this, that when persons apply to the government for increases of tariff on their products they should be put in a little different position from other persons whose businesses are investigated for the purpose of obtaining information or for some such reason. That is to say, when petitioners come to the government asking for increases of duties on their products it should be obligatory upon the board to investigate certain specified matters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is already covered
by the bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I submit, Mr. Chairman, it
is not covered by section 4. The minister may request the board to make investigations into certain matters, but if this section becomes law it would be necessary for the board, irrespective of any requests by the minister, to insist on finding out all about rates of wages, and conditions in the industry of the persons who want an increase in the tariff. I think there is a good reason for making distinction between such applicants and those whose businesses are merely investigated.


James Layton Ralston: I want to emphasize that point too, because the right hon. Prime Minister has certainly, I think, brought to the attention of the committee a new phase when he says there will not be any applications. I think everybody visualizes a sort of trial at
least between those who are applying for an increase in duty and those who are opposing it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be a decrease.


James Layton Ralston: We have not heard of
very many applying for decreases. But let us take it that way-a consumer is coming to the government and asking that a certain duty be decreased. The government then requests the board to make an investigation. Surely the person who is applying to the government becomes an applicant before the tariff board and one of the parties to the action. My right hon. friend shakes his head.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the way.


James Layton Ralston: There can be no other way in which the investigation can be conducted. I want to assure my right hon. friend that the amount of work with which the pension appeal board and the pension tribunals are being crowded will be as nothing compared with the work which will be ahead of this tariff board, and they will not have time to hear applications submitted to them by the minister as of his own motion. There will be applications enough. There will be people coming asking for increases or decreases of duty, and there will be more than one party. I submit the only way in which you can have any semblance of a real investigation is by having someone interested in supplying information from his point of view and, on the other hand, having someone who is equally interested in opposing it because of the way he may be affected by the application being granted. That brings me back to the section which is standing for the moment, namely, the section which has to do with publicity. The very competitor of the man who is applying is most likely to be the one opposing the application. What is everybody's business is nobody's business. If you do not have an application, and do not have somebody opposing it from personal interest, you are not going to get very far in the way of an investigation. While it may be technically correct that there will be no applicant under the statute, there will be a very real applicant who will move the minister to make a request of this board, and that is the applicant to whom my hon. friend refers.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At. eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Statute oj Westminster
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 8, 1931.