1931-07-23

[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Stinson.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 139, to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act, 1913.
He said:	This bill is intended, first, to
define the respective jurisdictions of the New Westminster and the North Fraser river harbour commissions with respect to a certain part of the river, as to which both agree; second, to empower the North Fraser harbour commission to pass certain bylaws.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1 Did the government receive communication of a resolution passed by the Brotherhood of Firemen, on the Canadian National Railways, at their meeting in Montreal, on the 14th of March last, requesting the repeal of the Montreal agreement of May 1, 1926?
2.	If so, has any action been taken by the railway to meet such request?
3.	In such case, what action?
4.	Does the minister intend to order an investigation under the provisions of chapter 20, of the statute 6-7, Edward VII?
Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	No.
2.	Canadian National Railways state that no action has been taken, as the matter is covered by agreement with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, and the management has not been requested to open the agreement. They state further that the matter was passed upon by a board of conciliation in August, 1929, and the unanimous decision of the board was that the agreement was a proper one.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No application has been received for the establishment of a board of conciliation and investigation under the provisions of chapter 20 of the statutes 6-7, Edw. VII.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MUNICIPAL TAXATION, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Have there been any arrangements providing for payments to the province of Nova Scotia by the Canadian National Railways, in lieu of municipal taxation?
2.	If so, will particulars regarding same be laid on the table of the house?


Mr. MANION:: 1. The arrangement made under authority of order in council P.C. 1352, dated September 2, 1926, whereby Canadian National Railways were to pay taxes to the maritime provinces for the years 1925 to 1930, inclusive, as follows:
Per annum
Prince Edward Island.... $ 40,000
Nova Scotia	 91,000
New Brunswick	 119,000
was by order in council P.C. 723 of March 30, 1931, continued for a further period not exceeding five years.
2. Answered by No. 1.


NEW FRASER RIVER BRIDGE
Mr. REID:: *
Have applications been made to the hon. Minister of Public Works for the right to construct a bridge over the Fraser river, British Columbia, at a point east of the present bridge at New Westminster?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Yes.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. M. STITT (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) a question in reference to a newspaper article appearing in the Ottawa Citizen to-day stating that the Saskatchewan government are going to furnish the entire trial shipment of 750,000 bushels of wheat for the first official test of grain shipments from Churchill. In my maiden effort in this house I attempted to point out to the government that in my opinion the excessive marine insurance rates might possibly strangle this whole enterprise. The people of the west are fearful of these rates, which are per cent as compared with i of one per cent out of Montreal. I should like to ask the Minister of Railways if he has any statement to make in regard to these test shipments, now that the Saskatchewan government has signified its intention of furnishing the cargoes.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The hon. gentleman told me
yesterday that he was going to ask this ques-

Canadian Copyright Act
tion, and in view of the wide discussion in Manitoba and Saskatchewan as to the statement made by me in this house on July 16, regarding shipments of grain from Churchill, I desire to make absolutely clear the position of the government, which has been subjected to unfair and unjust attacks.
In the first place, the fact that we have continued to push forward the work at Churchill at great expense, so that it is ahead of schedule while other important works in Canada have not been proceeded with, proves our good faith. Secondly, being assured of the port being ready for test shipment by September 15, as arranged for in the contract by the previous government, we then endeavoured to induce grain shippers to supply cargoes on the basis that ships would be available to carry such cargoes at rates not greater-including insurance and all charges -than via present through routes. But as pointed out in my statement of July 16, we did not succeed in this effort, and the government has no machinery with which to buy grain in Canada and dispose of it in Europe.
Since making the statement, certain newspapers and organizations in western Canada have criticized us severely for alleged inaction. I have requested western grain dealers to submit any reasonable proposition they thought desirable for providing cargoes of grain for the test shipments on the basis of a freight rate not higher than the present through rates, the natural and intended inference being that we would absorb any difference in rates due to increased insurance or other charges. The only proposal I have yet received in reply has been one wire stating that 150,000 bushels of grain can be assured. This is only about half a cargo.
In view of the above let me again state our position. If a proposition is made to the government to supply from one to three cargoes of grain for shipment via Churchill, the shipper to pay rates on the basis of present through rates from the prairies to Europe via Montreal, the government will see that ships are available and absorb any difference due to insurance or other transportation charges. That surely is a fair proposal on the part of the government. Now instead of criticism or abuse let the grain trade or some responsible organization come forward with cargo proposals.
Let me add that the statement that Mr. Dunning intended sending out five million bushels as a test movement cannot be verified or substantiated either by departmental records or officials, the same officials as obtained under the late government, and furthermore such a quantity could not be shipped out via Churchill this season, as it
could not be handled between September 15 and the close of navigation.
If any action is to be taken it should be taken quickly as I am advised that vessel arrangements must be made not later than August 10.
May I just add, in regard to the statement of my hon. friend concerning Hon. Mr. Merkley, that so far we have had no proposition of any kind from this gentleman. Some days ago Mr. Merkley telegraphed me asking some questions, and I wired back telling him to put forward any proposition he might have and the government would give it fair consideration. As yet I have received no proposition from him, but if he brings forward any suggestion certainly it will be given fair and reasonable consideration in every possible way.



CANADIAN COPYRIGHT ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: I
should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) based on a press article appearing in to-day's Ottawa Morning Journal. It is a Canadian Press cable, and is as follows:
Authors Complain On Canadian Law International Organization Registers Protest At Geneva
Geneva, July 22.

The International Federation of Authors and Composers to-day complained to the League of Nations committee on intellectual cooperation with regard to the Canadian copyright law. The present session of the committee is under the chairmanship of Professor Gilbert Murray, of Montreal.
According to the complaint, the Canadian law was in certain respects conflicting to the Berne convention, of which Canada was a signatory.
The committee decided to uphold its 1928 resolution on arts and letters, attaching special importance to the question of copyright and expressing the hope it might be settled under the auspices of the permanent court of international justice.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State what action will be taken in view of this situation.
Hon. C. II. CAHAN (Secretary of State): I would say that no such complaint has been received by the government of Canada. If a complaint of this kind is received, even from any authors' association, it will receive due consideration, but on questions of international law the International Federation of Authors and Composers is not the final tribunal.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Would the Secretary of State say what is the final tribunal?
40S2
Halifax Harbour Bridge

HALIFAX HARBOUR BRIDGE On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. L. ILSLEY (Hants-Kings):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). I am informed that Sir Alexander Gibb is expected in Halifax to-day, to consult with the port authorities. I should like to ask the minister if it will be part of his duties to study and report on the bridge question at Halifax, that is, the feasibility and desirability of proceeding with the construction of a bridge across Halifax harbour, connecting Halifax and Dartmouth.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: The instructions given Sir Alexander Gibb have to do with the development of our national ports. If the construction of this bridge enters the question of the development of the port as a whole he may consider it, but I am not sure whether he will study that question. If it has to do with the development of the harbour he may report on it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would the minister consider especially directing that matter to his attention?


Alfred Duranleau: The matter has not
been considered as yet.
FRASER RIVER BRIDGE On the orders of the day:


Thomas Reid: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) whether the Minister of Labour made any report to him, following his trip to British Columbia, with regard to the proposed bridge over the Fraser river.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The answer is no.
BANK NOTE CIRCULATION On the orders of the day:


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance):: The hon. member for Battle
River (Mr. Spencer) yesterday directed attention to the fact that an answer given to a question asked by him was at variance with the figures given in the official Gazette of July 11. This morning the officer in charge directed my attention to the fact that he had already noticed that the figures 123 should have been 143. The other figures are the same, with the exception of the last numeral. The computation had not been verified when the answer was prepared. The correct answer is $143,749,692, as published in the Gazette.



MINISTERS OF THE CROWN


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 35, to remove the necessity of the reelection of members of the House of Commons of Canada on acceptance of office.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,
the bill which is at present before the house as a government measure is one which the house will recognize as a bill previously introduced during this session, by an hon. member, as a private measure. As such it was considered by the house, disposed of in the course of debate and dropped from the order paper. It has made its reappearance as a government measure, and the question which naturally suggests itself to the minds of hon. members is just what circumstance has developed which has occasioned the government to take this particular measure as a means of assisting itself along its own path as the years go by. Not only was the measure disposed of at this session some weeks ago as I have indicated, but it made its appearance in parliament several times in previous years only on each occasion to disappear. When the former Liberal administration was in office the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) brought in a similar measure and the government, though it had been in office for almost eight or nine years, intimated, when last the bill was introduced, that it saw no necessity for the enactment of any such legislation. We preferred to uphold the principle that we should keep the government and the people in as close contact as possible on all matters of concern to the nation as a whole.	,
Now the present administration proposes in this measure that a member of parliament, if appointed to office as a minister of the crown, may assume office without in the first place going back to the people for reelection. The bill is entitled:
An act to remove the necessity of the reelection of members of the House of Commons of Canada on acceptance of office.
I think it should read:	"An act to remove
the necessity of the present administration having by-elections when the same at any cost can be avoided". So regarded, the measure is in keeping with what up to the present time has been the practice of the administration. We have a statute which provides that by-elections shall take place

Ministers of the Crown
within six months after the chief electoral officer has been advised that a vacancy exists in any constituency. The intention of that statute was that all constituencies should be represented in the House of Commons, and that at least within six months from the time a vacancy occurred it should be filled by election. Two elections are being held next month, one to fill a vacancy which occurred in October last, and the other to fill a vacancy which occurred early in the month of January. But throughout this entire session the two constituencies in question, one in Ontario and One in Quebec, Hamilton East and Three Rivers-St. Maurice have not been represented at all in this House of Commons. The government of the day is responsible for that fact, and there must be a good and sufficient reason in the mind of the administration for its having hesitated to bring on by-elections in time to permit of the representation of these constituencies.
No doubt the Prime Minister is anxious to make certain Changes in the administration. He has intimated to parliament that he does not intend to continue in the office of Minister of Finance. I presume that one of the objects of the bill is to enable him to bring into the ministry as Minister of Finance some hon. member he has in mind, to have him assume the office without the necessity of going back to the people for reelection. I imagine that what he will do will be to make one of his present colleagues Minister of Finance and then bring in some hon. member to fill the portfolio thus left vacant. At any rate, it is quite clear that the administration has to a very considerable extent lost confidence in itself, or it would not hesitate to appoint a new minister and let him go before his constituents for reelection in the usual way, it would seek the approbation of the electorate, as has been customary in this country from the days of confederation to the present time.
There are, I think, the strongest reasons why under representative institutions the government should seek an expression of the people's views as intimately and as frequently as the customary procedure of the constitution provides. The hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) will probably tell us, if he speaks on the measure, that Great Britain has adopted a course similar to that proposed in this measure. There, since 1926, a newly elected minister is not obliged, if he holds a seat in the House of Commons, to go back for re-election. But there were two stages in effecting that change in the British system. The first change was to limit the time within
which a minister who was a member might assume office without vacating his seat to the period of nine months after a general election. It was in 1919 that the British Act was first amended and amended in this way. It was felt that where immediately after a general election a government had been formed there was not the same necessity for' a minister of the crown to go back for reelection; and the act as it then stood was amended to provide that if a new minister took office within nine months after a general election he should not be obliged to go back for reelection. But it was not until seven years after that, in 1926, that the nine month limitation was removed. I suggest that if this measure is to carry at all it should provide the same limitation that was enacted in Great Britain when the British act was first amended.
I was interested in some of the reasons given at the time the act was amended against the change, and one paragraph in the speech of Sir John Marriott delivered in the British House of Commons on February 12, 1926, is so much to the point that I shall read it. It contains, in a word, all that I would say at this moment on the measure. Sir John Marriott said ;
I want to suggest whether at this particular moment in the evolution of our constitution- and now, as always, our constitution is changing udth very great rapidity-it is really wise to do anything that will further disturb the equilibrium of the constitution in favour of the executive and against the legislature on the one side and the electorate on the other.
That question, I think, may be asked with great pertinency with reference to constitutional development in' this country to-day. Great Britain, as we all know, is a very compact country; the number of constituencies is large but they are all comprised within a very small area. Moreover, under the British system by-elections are brought on within a very few days and at most weeks after vacancies occur. So that in Britain there is constant opportunity for the electorate to express its views on the government's policies and the administration of the nation's affairs. With such a large number of member's of parliament, the vacancies that inevitably occur are considerably more than those in a smaller body; and there the expedition with which by-elections are brought on affords a constant expression of the nation's view as to the way in which its affairs are being administered. In Canada, and particularly since the present administration has been in office, the tendency has been more and more to increase the powers of the governor in council, to with-
Ministers of the Crown

draw from parliament those opportunities for discussion of public questions which would be available if the governor in council was not being given such excessive powers. There has been the further tendency already referred to of protracting and delaying the filling of vacancies by by-election. In these and other ways the ministry is getting further and further away from the electorate; it cannot so readily ascertain the views of the people.
But there is this further fact which I submit is of great significance in a country like Canada. We have vast stretches of territory, there are racial, religious and economic considerations of which account must be taken in so many particulars that there is an ever present necessity for a ministry to be reconciling differences which in the nature of things are inherent by seeking to get the approval of the people in as many ways as possible. One would be any important changes made in the personnel of the ministry.
If this present measure goes through it will be possible for my right hon. friend in making future appointments to the ministry if he so desires to ignore altogether considerations of geography which are very important in the formation of a ministry. It would be possible also for him to ignore altogether considerations of a religious character which are important in the formation of a ministry, having regard to the diversity of religious beliefs of the people in our country. There would be also the possibility of ignoring altogether important economic considerations. I know my right hon. friend will say that when it comes to a general election the day of reckoning will have arrived and he will then have to take responsibility for all changes made. But much of mischief may' have been wrought as a consequence in the interval. I submit that what is needed in Canada is that every important act of the ministry should inasmuch as may be possible be of a character which will not tend to emphasize differences, but which will tend to lessen them. The fact that a newly elected minister is obliged to go before the people for their approval before being permitted to continue as a member of the administration is a great safeguard in more ways than one.
It is not for me to advise the Prime Minister as to what may be in his own interest, but if he will allow me to say one word in all kindliness, it would be that I think he will find when this measure has passed that instead of his troubles being lessened they will be very greatly increased.

A moment ago I was interrupted by the hon. member lor York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). If my right hon. friend were changing his ministry to-morrow and the hon. member for York-Sunbury wished to be taken into the ministry, in giving as a reason why this might not be possible the argument would no longer be possible on the part of the Prime Minister that account must be taken of the particular part of the country from which he comes, of the particular profession which he follows, or of the particular religious belief which he holds. The Prime Minister will find that what is true with respect to one hon. member will [DOT] be equally true with respect to all hon. members on his side of the chamber. Every hon. gentleman opposite should realize that once this measure passes whatever there formerly was in the way of necessary consideration on the part of the Prime Minister as to how the country is likely to view his appointment, will have largely disappeared. The Prime Minister will find increasingly that this is so in the minds of his followers. I am inclined to believe that that is something which my right hon. friend will discover to be even truer than at the moment he may believe to be the case.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to delay
the house during the preliminary stages of this bill, except to say that the reason why this bill has been taken over is that it is sound in principle and its application will be found to be beneficial in this country just as it has been in every other British dominion as well as in the motherland. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) who, in the absence of the original sponsor, moved the second reading of this bill, gave a very careful and full statement of the reasons why such legislation should be placed upon the statute books. Those who heard him speak were convinced of the soundness of his argument; those who did not hear him speak should read his remarks in Hansard.
The law now upon the statute book of Canada had its origin in the seventeenth century when there was probably a sound reason for the maintenance of such a rule. In those days the influence of the sovereign was very powerful and the subjects were very jealous of their rights. They demanded that no favourite of the king should be appointed to office without first giving them an opportunity of pronouncing upon the individual. This law arose from an effort of the people to maintain their rights against royal encroachment.

Ministers oj the Crown


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: If my
speech was so immensely convincing, as the minister so flatteringly says it was, why was it that on that occasion I could not get any support from my hon. friend or those around him?


Hugh Guthrie: We on this side of the
house thought that the bill was moving so smoothly and in the proper direction that we should not interfere with its passage, and we hope that it may move just as smoothly on the present occasion.
In those early days when this law was first introduced into the British parliament, members of parliament were not paid any salary or remuneration. They served freely in the parliament of Great Britain and it was thought that, having been elected under conditions which prevented their accepting salaries, when they obtained positions of emolument under the crown they should go back to the people in order that the people might ratify the appointments and agree to the emolument. Members of this parliament have at all times been in receipt of emolument so there was no reason for the adoption of this law in Canada. My right hon. friend stated that I probably would refer to the fact that in Great Britain and the other dominions this ancient law had been abrogated some time ago. Any hon. member who reads the bill will see these facts all set out in the explanatory note.
In 1919, Great Britain practically abrogated the law, but included a nine months limitation which provided that for nine months after a general election members of parliament upon, being called to the cabinet should not be required to go back for reelection. That law worked for the succeeding seven years but it was then found that there was no necessity for the nine months limitation, and the parliament of Great Britain, in 1926, deliberately repealed that limitation. Now the law in England does not require that a member who has been called to the government go back for reelection, neither is this required in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the Irish Free State or in any other British dominion so far as I am aware. Why then in this parliament should we hold on to this antiquated statute? The hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) introduced this bill once or twice in previous sessions, but for some reason or another the bill was never pushed to a conclusion. The hon. member for Cartier seemed to have rested on his oars for some reason best known to himself, and the bill never advanced to its second reading.
But the time has come when we believe we should put ourselves in line with the legislation of the rest of the British Empire in this respect. My right hon. friend's chief objection to this bill seems to be to its title. He imagines that it might more properly be called a measure to relieve the present government of the embarrassment of by-elections. I do not think this government fears anything or has anything to fear at this particular time in regard to by-elections. Let me tell my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition that a by-election is pending in East Hamilton and the Liberal party is not even represented in that constituency. I am inclined to think it may be some little time hence before the Liberal party is seriously represented in electoral constituencies in the Dominion of Canada.
There are, however, some very sound reasons for the adoption of a measure such as this. We urge it, first, on the ground of convenience ; second, on the ground of expediency, and third on the ground of saving of expense. Those are three strong reasons for supporting this proposal. We know the delay in bringing on elections in this country is very great. I am told that in Great Britain a writ can be issued and a man be returned and take his seat in parliament in twenty-one days. In Canada this takes two months. This delay is very inconvenient. The expense of elections is very heavy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friends opposite seem to have taken out of that statement a meaning which I did not attach to it and did not intend to have attached, but I know they can speak from experience.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: So can
my hon. friends.


Hugh Guthrie: But there is in the history of this parliament in regard to this very matter one outstanding incident which I think must be present in the minds of most hon. members opposite, when the services of one of the most illustrious sons of Canada could not be utilized by the government of the day on account of this antiquated rule in regard to by-elections. When the late Sir Wilfrid, then Mr. Wilfrid Laurier, in 1877 was called to a portfolio in the government of Alexander Mackenzie, it became necessary for him on account of this antiquated statute, to go back to Drummond and Arthabaska for reelection. He went back; he was defeated and the country lost his services.
Ministers oj the Crown


Mr. LAPOINTE:: No; Quebec East elected him immediately afterwards.


Hugh Guthrie: He was defeated in the byelection in Drummond and Arthabaska and he was elected in the general election of 1878.


Ernest Lapointe: No, in a by-election in
Quebec East.


Hugh Guthrie: My statement is right
that he was defeated in the by-election in Drummond and Arthabaska.


Ernest Lapointe: But the country did not lose his services.


Hugh Guthrie: The country did lose his services for the time being; and" what happened in the case of so illustrious a statesman as Sir Wilfrid Laurier might happen again in connection with his successors. I am pointing out that it is a matter of inconvenience to a government, to parliament; it is a loss to the country to be deprived of the services of a man under such conditions. It may not and did not in that case affect a majority in the house, but it does affect the conduct of affairs in the Dominion of Canada. There is no sound reason for retaining the rule and there are very sound reasons for doing away with it. For those reasons we ask that the bill be now passed.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE:	(Montmagny): I listened to the address of the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) when he introduced this bill, and when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was speaking I was wondering whether he would say if he were in favour of the measure or not. Perhaps it was due to lack of understanding or poor hearing on my part, but I am not quite sure whether the leader of the opposition is in favour of this legislation or not. Probably, before asking this side of the house the reasons for such a bill, he might put his question to the hon. member for Cartier.
I have listened to the Minister of. Justice (Mr. Guthrie) ' and I have heard his three reasons and the example cited. I am not supposed to be a democrat; on the contrary I am supposed to be a very strong Conservative ; but being a Conservative I am in favour of the rights of the people being maintained, and I cannot see why a man who has been given a portfolio should not have to go back to the people to have his appointment confirmed. The fact that this rule has been abolished in Great Britain, the Irish Free State or South Africa is no reason to me. The important point of this bill is what

is good for Canada. I believe, representing what I think are the rights of the people to approve the choice of a minister, they are the masters of the administration and no government should give a portfolio carrying a salary and the confidence of the government to anyone without its action being approved by the people. I think the measure brought forward by the hon. member for Cartier, this foundling left on the steps of the government, should not be adopted by the government. We are going against the rights of the people, against the constitution, against our institutions bj' adopting such a bill. I am only a very ordinary, humble member; I do not expect ever to be a minister of the crown, but I think any man who is chosen as a minister should not be chosen without having the approbation of the people, and he should resign his seat in order to stand for reelection. If the people reject him, they are the master and he should not be a minister. Therefore I am going to vote against the bill.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: It is very interesting to follow debates on matters of this kind which have reference to historical developments. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has been interesting on this point, but I think he missed one historical connecting link. The measure as adopted in England was not based on the old claims of the people to control nominations. On the contrary, it was based on what happened after the revolution of 1688. As everyone knows or ought to know who intends to be faithful to British precedents and history, after the revolution there was an assertion on the part of the House of Commons as against both the claims of the crown and the claims of the House of Lords. Eventually the House of Commons came to be dominated largely by the nominees of the great Whig families who controlled most of the rotten boroughs, and, under the reign of George III, by the favourites of the crown. This measure in England, if I remember right -I am speaking from memory, and old memory-was enacted at the time of the reaction against the old Whig rule. The Reform movement was largely supported by Edmund Burke, and later on by Charles James Fox, and there came a time when the House of Commons was largely composed of the nominees either of the great aristocratic families or of the crown . It was not a question of official emolument, nor was it a question of official position under the crown. It was a question of influence.

Ministers of the Crown


Hugh Guthrie: My recollection is that
the statute in question in England is a statute. of Queen Anne, not of the time of Burke and Fox at all, but years and years before that.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so. The hon.
gentleman is right. The statute was passed under Queen Anne, but perhaps the hon. gentleman will remember that under George I, Robert Walpole, one of the ablest men who ever ruled England, went around the statute and found means of filling the House of Commons either with placemen of the crown or nominees of the great Whig families. The reaction showed that the enactment of a *statute is not sufficient to protect the liberties of the people or the independence of members of the House of Commons. Eventually when the reaction came on, curiously enough it was supported by such statesmen as Chatham and later by Edmund Burke, more or less connected with the old Tory tradition. They reacted against the Whig influence.
But to go into that would carry us too far. I think it is better to take the conditions as they are in Canada at the present time. For my part I have supported the principle of this measure ever since it was first introduced into this house by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) in 1926, and I have seen no reason to change my views because the parties have changed sides. I was in favour of this measure when the Liberals were in power, and I am still in favour of it now that the Tories are in power, whether it favours one government or the other.
As far as the rights of the people are concerned. they are exercised in a general election. Then the people have an opportunity to show their mind when they vote for one party or the other, rightly or wrongly. Once a party is in power I do not see why choosing one member of the House of Commons or one member of the Senate to become a member of the administration should necessitate reelection for his maintenance in office. If the Prime Minister chooses one member of the House of Commons to fill a vacant office in his cabinet, I do not see how the people at large in the country have a chance of expressing their views for or against the policies of the government in a bye-election, which will be held in one single constituency, for the election of that particular member. In that regard I think the argument made by the right hon. leader of the opposition falls entirely short of the question. He says that there are considerations of geography and considerations of religion. I do not see what
religion has to do with it, but I suppose he meant that the Prime Minister could choose a member of the house from one province or another to fill a vacancy. Well, after he has been chosen, I do not see what difference it makes to have to submit to reelection. If, for example, he has been chosen from Ontario to fill an office that has been vacated by a member from Quebec, it is not likely that he will offer himself for reelection in the province of Quebec, and so I do not see what chance the people of Quebec would have to vote against the choice of the Prime Minister from amongst his Ontario membership. If the new minister had to be reelected at large, there would be a kind of plebiscite which might allow an expression of opinion to the people at large; but since he has to be reelected in his own constituency, it is a hundred to one that he will stand a much better chance of being reelected as minister than as a private member of parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has not caught the point I had in mind. He speaks of religion. May I say that in a country like Canada, speaking broadly of Roman Catholics and Protestants, it is generally understood that any ministry here will be made up with some regard to the proportion in the country of the adherents of both religions. Under this proposed arrangement a ministry, if the prime minister so desired, might in the course of a parliament become entirely Protestant or entirely Roman Catholic without the people having any say in the matter. In the same way a ministry might become an entirely western or an entirely eastern ministry, or a ministry composed entirely of lawyers, or agriculturists or manufacturers or some other class, without any opportunity of being given to the people to pass upon it so long as a parliament lasts.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course one can always indulge in any amount of speculation as to the -probable results of a measure, but in actual practice this bill concerns simply the reelection of one man in one constituency. I do not suppose any Prime Minister, either our present Mussolini, or the right hon. leader of the opposition, if he has a chance of coming back to power, or any other Prime Minister, would be foolish enough to resort to such a practice as the right hon. gentleman has suggested. But if he did, what chance would all the Ro-man Catholics of Canada, for example, have to express their disapproval of one Protestant minister taking the place of a Roman Catholic when that minister was being reelected in a Protestant constituency? They
Ministers o] the Crown

would have no chance at all; their chance would be in a general election.
On various occasions I have endeavoured to bring back the minds of the house to this fact, that after all the only safeguard which the people at large have is at a general election. A by-e'lection where a member of the government who is already a member of the House of Commons goes back to his own constituency for reelection affords very little relief to the people at large, in the nine provinces of Canada, belonging to this creed or that creed, this race or that race, this class or that class, or very little opportunity to express their opinion. On the other hand, I can see the practical results of this measure, the effect of which will be to avoid at least one by-election. I believe one of the curses under which this country of ours, as well as the neighbouring republic, is suffering, is in having too many elections, general elections and by-elections. We have municipal elections, provincial elections, and federal elections. There is almost no year in the life of a parliament, and hardly any month in any year in which some part of our country is not disturbed with political and electoral agitation. Of course, we are bound to have it, but once we have had a consultation of the people at large at the proper time and they have made their choice as to the party that should rule and the government that should be formed, I think the less we have of electoral agitation and the less going back to this or that particular constituency the better. I cannot see that the reelection of one or two members of a government for this or that constituency gives any indication of the attitude of mind of the millions of electors in the Dominion of Canada from one ocean to the other. I cannot see the significance of a by-election as far as the general policies of the government are concerned. I repeat, when the hon. member for Cartier introduced a similar bill on a former occasion I supported it, and nothing has developed in the meantime to prevent me from supporting the measure once more.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: For many
years. Mr. Speaker, I have been in favour of this bill, and I am still. I readily admit that the reasons that were necessary two hundred years ago for a member of the house to seek reelection on acceptance of an office under the crown no longer exists. But although I am in favour of the principle of the bill, it seems quite evident to me from the speech made by the Minister of Justice that the government of the day is making a virtue of necessity.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) that although the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) is a Liberal member, he never introduced a measure of this kind as a party measure, and certainly not as a government measure.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so.
Mr. RiINFRET:	So when he says he supports the bill whether he sits on one side of the house or the other, he is speaking for himself-


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: -as he always does very nobly. There is something in the argument that other parts of the empire have adopted a similar measure. But I accept the argument of the right hon. leader of the opposition that in many respects we are different from other parts of the empire. When we were in power and wished to amend the Naturalization Act to put Canada on a basis similar to that enjoyed by other parts of the empire, the Prime Minister of to-day and several of his colleagues strenuously opposed the amendment on the ground that Canada was a different country from Australia or South Africa, and that the conditions prevailing here did not prevail in those dominions. I believe the same argument might well be advanced with regard to this bill. I would be in favour of it if it was limited in its application to a certain number of months after a general election. I do think that when a party is returned to power those of its members who are selected to form the new administration should not be subjected to the formality of a by-election, although I think a reference to past records will show that there has never been any opposition to the reelection of members of the government immediately after a general election. But when a government has been in power a number of years, I submit that sometimes circumstances may arise which create a very different condition of affairs. Let me give two concrete examples which are within my own memory and I am sure within that of most members of this house. In 1905 when Sir Wilfrid Laurier introduced legislation creating new provinces in the. west, one of the most outstanding members of his cabinet resigned. It is. to be supposed that when that minister resigned he had a following in his province which was opposed to the proposed legislation. The Laurier government could not go to another of its supporters and simply invite him to accept the vacant port-

Ministers oj the Crown
folio; it had to have the new minister reelected by his constituency. In that particular instance the government was forced to have its policy approved by the province irom which the late minister had been elected, and from which his successor had also been returned.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Pardon me; one constituency, not the province.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is true; but the
constituency does to a certain extent reflect the average political opinion of the province. Let me give another instance. When I came into this house in 1920 and in 1921, the province of Quebec was not represented in the then Meighen government by a French Canadian.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It was never so happy.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That may be. But if this proposed legislation had then been in force what would have happened? There is no official record of it, but it is within the common knowledge of everyone who sat in the house at the time that the government came to our ranks and tried to persuade one of our members to accept a portfolio. Everyone remembers the famous breakaway of a then Liberal member who is now supporting the Conservative party. He made a long speech to explain why he was breaking away from the Liberal ranks. It is common knowledge that if it had not been for the obligation of having him reelected he would have joined the Meighen government. I quite agree with the member for Labelle that when a new minister is called from the ranks of his own party it does not matter very much if he has not to submit to reelection by his constituents, and ten times out of twelve he will be reelected; but when there comes a crisis as in 1905, when there was a division in the party ranks in the province of Quebec, or as in 1921, when the government tried to seduce a member from this party or from an independent party to accept a portfolio, then I do say that the necessity for the new minister to be reelected by his constituency is a very important safeguard. Suppose the right hon. Mussolini, as the hon. member for Labelle has called him, should go to him-


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: May I ask a question? The hon. member said that if the ministers had to go back for reelection that would be a test of the government's policy. Is not the by-election now in progress in Hamilton a test for the government?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In a way. I surmise
from what the hon. member says that he is sharing our views. But I am urging the
point that where a government desires to take into its ranks an hon. member who had not been elected to support it, then the necessity for a by-election is a safeguard. Suppose the Prime Minister had come to the hon. member for Labelle and had offered him the portfolio of Finance!


Mr. McGIBBON:: A wild flight of the
imagination.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not suppose he would accept it. But supposing he did accept the portfolio, would it not be fair to the electors of Labelle, who elected the hon. member as an Independent, to say whether they wanted to see him as the Minister of Finance in a Conservative government?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: They would express their opinion later on.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That might be at too
late a date.
Mr. LaVERGNE :	Does not my hon.
friend from Labelle recall how on the naval question he declared the importance of the by-election in Drummond-Arthabaska?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It is usual for an hon.
member who wishes to speak to another hon. member to do it through you, Mr. Speaker. I am quite willing to transmit the message from the member for Montmagny to the member for Labelle. I suppose the question would at least show that they are not as close together to-day as they were twenty years ago.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: But I accept the question of the hon. member for Montmagny as showing there are times in the life of a government when a by-election is desirable.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Hear, hear.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think it is even more desirable when a Prime Minister calls in a member to become a minister of the crown that the electors should have a chance to approve of his acceptance of the portfolio. Under ordinary conditions, as has been pointed out, most likely the member will receive an acclamation. But the circumstances may be altogether different, and I do submit that as independent groups become stronger it becomes more and more desirable to maintain the safeguard of a by-election. That is my point. My hon. friend has mentioned that an individual member is likely to be reelected in his own constituency if he goes back as a minister. That all depends on how he was elected in the first place. If he was elected as an independent, as a Labour
Ministers of the Crown

member or as a Progressive and he joined the Conservative government, surely his electors would have a right to say whether or not they would support him in his new political attitude.
I do think the government will go far enough in this sort of evolution if they limit the time within which a by-election is not required to a few months, which will cover the period immediately following a general election. I think in that regard this measure would be very satisfactory, but if a government has been in power a couple of years and fails to redeem a great part of its promises and brings down legislation which was not contemplated, before an hon. member becomes a member of the cabinet he should be forced to go back to his electors for their approval.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: When the fathers of confederation framed the constitution of this country they had in mind government by the people for the people, and they took every means in their power to see that the people would have absolute control of this parliament. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that immediately following a general election it should not be necessary for an hon. member to go back to his constituency for reelection if he accepts office in a cabinet formed by his own party; I would have no objection to the removal of the necessity for reelection in a case of that kind.
There comes to my mind the occasion in 1877 when Sir Wilfrid Laurier went back to his constituents for reelection. The country was passing through an economic crisis at that time, and when the by-election took place the Conservative party, led by the late Hon. Mr. Tarte, who subsequently became Minister of Public Works, fought Sir Wilfrid day and night, to the great surprise of the [DOT]country and to the dismay of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. That was one instance when the people were given an opportunity to pronounce a verdict. Another instance which comes to my mind is that of the resignation of a minister from the northwest in 1905, when the western provinces were incorporated. At that time I had the honour to be deputy speaker of this house, and a new minister had to be elected from the west. The minister elected was Hon. Mr. Oliver, who had to go back to the electors following his appointment to the cabinet.
We have made exceptions to this rule of requiring the reelection of ministers; the [DOT]deputy speaker, and the leader of the opposition, are not required to follow this procedure. Those exceptions have been made by
fMr. Rinfret.]
the internal management of this house, for reasons which are obvious. In the explanation given with regard to this bill it was stated that in the British parliament and in several of the dominions reelection is not required and I may say that the same thing applies in France also. In that country the government changes every ninety days, on an average, but the ministers are not required to go to the people; parliament is elected for a stated period, and the members remain in office even after their appointment to the cabinet.
I believe that if a member who was elected on July 28 last to support a particular policy and a particular party, to-morrow or six months or a year from now walks over to the other side of the house and accepts a portfolio with a different party, it is only fair that his constituents, whose representative he is, should be consulted on the new stand he takes. The downfall of governments has been brought about by such things; in 1879 the government of Quebec was defeated because three or four members who had been elected as Liberals walked across to the other side of the house.
I would be prepared to do away with the necessity for the reelection of ministers within say three or four months after a general election, but beyond that I think we should stand by the old principle and not abrogate in these democratic days the control of the people over this parliament. It is imperative that this control should be maintained. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) seems to be maturing with age; I remember that in 1899 he resigned from this house in protest against the sending of a contingent to South Africa. He appealed to the electors of Labelle, and in the by-election which took place he was reelected. He took the stand that the people had not been consulted and that this should have been done before such a step was taken. That is another instance of the usefulness of these by-elections, and I think in the interests of the administration itself it should be able at times to feel the pulse of the electors in any part of the country. For these reasons, if the bill is not modified I shall have to vote against it, but if it is amended to cover only a short period after a general election I am prepared to support it.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: I
desire to say just a word or two in support of this measure, which I believe is a reform long over-due. This requirement that a member accepting a portfolio must go back to the people for reelection is a hangover from

Ministers oj the Crown
the days before responsible government. If I understand constitutional history aright it seems to me that Lord Dufferin first laid down the principle that a cabinet minister must be elected by and be responsible to the people. At that time cabinet ministers were not necessarily chosen from a legislative body, and it seems to me that safeguard was required at that time. But that time has gone by; after a member is elected to this house surely it should not be necessary for him to go back to the people for reelection.
Let us suppose, for instance, that the present government lost the confidence of this house and were defeated by an adverse vote. That should not necessarily mean a general election. If the right hon. leader of the opposition were voted into office I contend that he should be able to carry on the government of the country as long as he enjoyed the confidence of parliament. But in the present situation that would not be possible, and it seems to me that this condition of affairs should be removed. When a government is voted into office the Prime Minister almost invariably finds it necessary to reconstruct his cabinet to some extent. He wishes to bring in men who have not appeared before the people in the election as cabine t ministers. Although elected, the moment they are called upon to assume office, they must go back to the people for reelection. It may be necessary to call parliament at the earliest possible date, but delay is inevitable because of by-elections. I regard this as a reform long overdue.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
On section 1-Seat of member not vacated by accepting office of profit.


Ernest Lapointe: I will not repeat what I said on the second reading of the bill. I agree with the objections stated 'by the leader of the opposition. I am willing to admit that, immediately after a general election, it is a tedious and largely a useless process to compel ministers forming the new government to go back to their constituencies for reelection. I believe, however, that after a certain time has elapsed and the government has adopted new policies which may or may not be approved of 'by the majority of the people, popular control of the government and of parliament should require any new appointment to the cabinet to be ratified by the electors of the member so appointed.
Mr. LaVERGNE: The hon. member will recall the case of the Hon. Mr. Dobell. In 22110-260
1896 he was elected as a Conservative in Quebec West and he joined the Laurier cabinet. The people approved. Does my hon. friend agree with that?


Ernest Lapointe: He was appointed without portfolio and was not subject to reelection.
Mr. LaVERGNE: But even so.


Ernest Lapointe: Possibly, if he had been a member of the government with portfolio, he would have had a rough passage on going back to the then constituency of Quebec West. Of that I cannot speak with any authority. My hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Rinfret) has cited certain instances, and I think my hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) did too. Perhaps I can give a more recent one. The history of Canada in recent years might have been different if this bill had been on the statute books in 1926, because the new Prime Minister who was called upon to form a cabinet would not have been defeated in the house had his ministers not been compelled under the law to withdraw from this parliament and run for office, seeking the approval of their constituents. I am sure my hon. friend, from Labelle will admit with me that at the time he thought it was a proper requirement to make of neiw ministers. The reason which I gave on the second reading and which was repeated this afternoon by an hon. member is a strong one. If a government goes to another group in the house and invites to the cabinet a member who has been elected by his constituents to oppose the government, and that gentleman is willing to accept the invitation, I object to his transferring his electors with him to the government side. That is my strongest objection to the bill, and for that reason I propose that in this section we adopt the provision of the nine-month limitation which existed in the British statute until 1926. Nine months is as good as any other period. I want the new ministerial baby to be presented to the people of his constituency in order that they may see whether all the circumstances, physical, moral and spiritual, surrounding his birth, deserve their approval. I move, therefore:
That section 1 of the bill be amended by adding at the end of the proposed new section 13 of the Senate and House of Commons Act, the following words:
"and if such acceptance has taken place within nine months after the_ issue of proclamation summoning a new parliament."
(2) That section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out the last line of the proposed

Ministers of the Crown

new section (14) of the Senate and House of Commons Act and substituting therefor the following words:
"If such nomination has taken place within nine months after the issue of proclamation summoning a new parliament, and is not otherwise disqualified."


Hugh Guthrie: I can only say that we
cannot accept the amendment. That would be going back to what the British House of Commons did in 1919 and subsequently found was improper or unworkable and therefore deliberately repealed. Surely we in this house can profit by the example of others. That was adopted in Great Britain and after a trial of seven years it was repealed. Why not let us take advantage of their experience? I do not see any sound reason for the proposed limitation; it does not appeal to my judgment at all. The measure is either right or wrong in principle; if it is right in principle, why have the limitation?


Mr. SPEARMAN:: I am interested both
in the bill and in the proposed amendment. So far as I could follow the ex-Minister of Justice when he moved his amendment, he was actuated by the very laudable desire to safeguard the political morality of members in this house belonging to independent groups!


Ernest Lapointe: Or of any group, even
of this group here. I assure my hon. friend that I was including all hon. members opposed to the government.


Alfred Speakman: I assure the former
Minister of Justice that I was not taking it personally, as I do not believe any hon. member could imagine my being placed in that position. To my mind the main argument in favour of the principle of this bill and against the amendment is that when any government desired to appoint an hon. member to the cabinet there would be a possibility of the only consideration being the suitability of that individual by character, by training and by attainments. That should be the first, last and sole consideration. Under the present system that consideration is subordinated to the popularity of a particular hon. member or to the possibility of his being reelected by a large majority. At times we have seen appointments made which would not have been made had the suitability of the proposed member of the cabinet been the sole consideration. This bill would remove the necessity of considering the reelection of an individual as the main qualification for membership in the cabinet, and make it as it should be, that those best fitted for the positions will be chosen.

Mr. LaVERGNE:	Why have elections at
all?


Alfred Speakman: The suggestion of the
hon. member is hardly cogent. We have elections in order to ascertain what party shall be in power over a period of years. That having been settled, then the detail of deciding what individuals are to form the cabinet should be left to the discretion of the government which has been given a mandate by the people. This bill would obviate a situation which is too frequently found in this and other countries. The seeming necessity would be avoided of, I will not say, bribing but of influencing people to support a certain individual by making all sorts of promises which must be implemented out of the public purse. To the government would be left the responsibility of appointing to office the best man to be found to serve the people as a member of the cabinet. For these reasons I am in favour of the bill and opposed to the amendment.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Chairman, I would
gladly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) if it attained the object which he apparently hopes to attain. He told the committee that his object was to prevent the government bribing members of the various parties in opposition. As I understand the amendment, for nine months this would not be necessary, but after that time the government might have to resort to this method. It seems to me that it is rather difficult to prevent by text of law any government from bribing, directly or indirectly an hon. member of the house. That matter rests with the conscience of the members.


Ernest Lapointe: I did not use that word.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Words are nothing. We
have had examples of members belonging to one party giving support to other parties much more effectively than by crossing the chamber and waiting for a reward which might or might not come. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has said, the principle of this bill is either good or bad. If it is good and it is considered that one of the prerogatives of the ministry is the recruiting of its own membership from among those chosen by the people, then I do not think that any impediment should be presented. If the principle is bad and if every member of the cabinet should be reelected, then the law should be allowed to remain as it is at present.

Ministers of the Crown
It may be said that when the people vote at a general election they do not vote for a ministry. Each constituency elects its representative and then a government is formed. The leader of the party having a majority occupies no constitutional position -it is purely a matter of tradition and habit -but he chooses his colleagues and they go back to the people to be reelected as members of the cabinet. There is something to be said in favour of the reelection of each member of the government, whether that takes place fifteen days, nine months or two years after a general election. I would be quite prepared to listen to an argument that the present law be maintained, but if we abolish the obligation placed upon a minister of going back to his constituency for nine months, I do not see why such action should be made obligatory after that time. We should either support the bill as it is or reject it in toto. The right of the people to elect a member of parliament and to reelect that member if he accepts office should be absolute. I think it will take the cogitation of many parliaments to discover such means as would remove the possibility of bribing any hon. member of any party.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Mr. Chairman, I think both the bill and the amendment dangerous. The amendment suggested by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) would be clearer than that proposed by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). The theory of the former is that once elected, for five years a party will d)o whatever it pleases and if the people are not satisfied they can turn it out of office. I am surprised, not to say astonished at the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I remember his having stated some time ago that he believed in the importance of by-elections as a means of teaching the government a lesson at certain times and giving to the people an opportunity of pronouncing on the actions of the government during a term of parliament. I must admit that I was convinced then by the hon. member for Labelle, but now it seems that everything is changed. I am probably one of the last monarchists left, I will not say in the house, but perhaps in the country at large. The hon. member for Labelle seems to have changed his viewpoint because in 1926, if my memory serves me aright, he denounced the use of the prerogative of the sovereign to turn out a government and call upon somebody else to form one. According to him the sovereign was only what we call in French "un roi-soliveau," that is, a king who had 22110-2004
no rights and no powers of intervention, or of interference with the affairs of the nation. But to-day it seems that the rights of the people are not recognized any more. I am prepared to support the amendment of the hon. member for Quebec East as a "pis aller."
I speak as a man who 'believes in the prerogatives of the sovereign on the one side and the prerogatives of the people on the other. That is the beauty of British institutions. I do not see why in our country of liberty and freedom we should pass a measure which would entitle the sovereign to call a minister who would not be subject to the approval of the people. We are told that after a general election this approval is not necessary. That may or may not be true, still I believe the people should be consulted and should have an opportunity to express their opinion in regard to the formation of a cabinet; but if we cannot have that, I shall accept the amendment of the hon. member for Quebec East.
A moment ago I quoted the instance of the' late Mr. Dobell. He was a Conservative,-elected as a Conservative in the constituency' of Quebec West, who joined the Laurier" cabinet. If he accepted a portfolio, I am inclined to think the people of Quebec West who had elected him as a Conservative were entitled to pronounce upon his change of allegiance and upon his acceptance of the Liberal doctrines of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Being a Conservative in doctrine and a monarchist in sentiment, I maintain that the best guarantees of our freedom are to uphold the age-old and age-tested principles of the British constitution involving at- the same time the rights of the sovereign and the rights of the people. To-day. when we see thrones tottering, when we see in different countries the great institution of monarchy declining we can say as British subjects that what has made the greatness of England and of the British Empire is the maintenance of age-old and age-tested institutions, on the one side the rights of the sovereign and on the other the sovereign rights of the people. They make for the liberty of the nation; they are the guarantees of the freedom of the people and we should adhere to those principles which underlie the British constitution

principles which have given freedom to the world.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I am quite willing to leave the question to the judgment of the house. I think the best guarantee for our institutions is what we call in French "la voix.
Ministers of the Crown

des morts qui parlent," that is, the voice of those who came before us, who made the British nation, British institutions, the British Empire and the British freedom of which all Canadians are proud.


Mr. JACOBS:: If I have not projected myself into this debate until the present moment, it is due to the fact that I have in mind the untimely fate that this bill met when it was introduced by me on several previous occasions. I felt that perhaps the unpopularity of the proposer was responsible for the death of the measure. I claim some little sagacity. I presented the bill to the Minister of Justice and I am glad to know by the expressions of opinions so far heard in the house that this bill has a chance of passing. It is a case of the stone which the builders have rejected becoming the cornerstone of the edifice. It is a popular measure, I can see, and I am glad to know the government is prepared to accept something at the hands of the opposition. I have listened to the eloquent remarks of the various members who have spoken on the bill, particularly the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) who declared that he is and always has been a monarchist in principle; that he is in favour of monarchy in every phase. What does he say to the bill which was passed by the British House of Commons in 1926? We are five years behind the British. The trouble with the hon. member for Montmagny is that he is a monarchist of the Bourbon or Stuart type. By revolution or otherwise we put them into the discard a long time ago.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	The best government
France ever had was under the Bourbons.


Samuel William Jacobs: I agree with my hon. friend in this respect that he has been born 150 years too late. He should have lived in the days of that monarchy. When I heard the eloquent observations of those who know what they are talking about, like the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and others, I felt that my work was largely completed. I felt like old King Aeolus-I remember my Virgil to that extent-who sat in his cave and who sent out the west wind, the east wind and the south wind and they all did his work. The wind does the work and the man who starts it can sit in his cave.
So far no valid reason has been urged-and I say this with all due respect-why this bill should not pass. There has been some suggestion that members from another side of the house might be purchased. That might
rMr LaVergne.]
be. If they have the purchasable mind, what we call the mens rea; if they are ready to be purchased, we would like to know publicly that they can be purchased. The electors will deal with them in due time. Any person who sells himself for the temporary pleasure or advantage of being a member of the cabinet, will find he has been living, so to speak, for a short time only in a fool's paradise. When I say "a fool's paradise," I do not refer particularly to this government; I am using the term which is generally used to express the view that a man is living in a place which he thinks is a paradise and which turns out not to be one. It is significant that the Minister of Justice should have accepted this bill. He has had his experience with this side of the house; he knows that sometimes good people and good measures are not appreciated and it is only when they join the other side that they are appreciated at their true worth. When I came to deposit this child on somebody's doorstep on the other side I remembered the fact that my good friend the Minister of Justice was once an honoured member of this side of the house, and when I had something good to advance I went to my former friend who used to support us here.
As the bill is likely to go through I do not want to say anything which might in any way delay its passage. I am anxious that the bill should be passed because after all I am its legitimate father, and having turned it over we know the rule of law that once taken over by adopted parents the regular parents must in no way molest the child. For that reason I leave the bill in very good hands. If there is any measure which I think deserves the approval of the entire house it is this one. It is a pleasure for me to know that it is likely to go through. This is not the first measure of the kind that has been accepted by the government and introduced by me. Several electoral measures amending the Senate and House of Commons Representation Act I am proud to know were the children of my imagination. The measure which restricts the government to holding off elections to not more than sixty days is mine. The meaning of it has been somewhat tortured by the present government, but self-preservation is the first law of nature.


Robert James Manion: Is that why the Liberals have no candidate in the Hamilton byelection?

Vocational Education


Samuel William Jacobs: "God moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform." We find that the electors of Hamilton have not yet attained that high degree of intelligence where they can accept a Liberal candidate, so we are trying them out with a Labour candidate first, and if that succeeds we will give them something better at the next election. I notice that my hon. friend does not refer to Three Rivers. I hope that he will be able to go down there and with his eloquent tongue make the people of Three Rivers believe that the present government is the best government that Canada has ever had, and when the opportunity offers I shall be one of the first to support the move that he be elected to the leadership of the Conservative party. It is very pleasing to me to see that the leading members of the present government are onetime Liberals. They got a good training with us and we are glad to know that they are spreading the light all over. It was rather restricted for them here, but now they are appreciated at their true worth. When I think of the little leaven that leavened the whole lump on the other side, I am glad to think that we are responsible for having provided the Conservative party with these gentlemen.
There is nothing further that I wish to say, Mr. Chairman. I am very sorry indeed to be obliged to differ from my party on this bill. On several occasions I brought up the bill, and it did not receive very favourable consideration. I withdrew it at the request of our party, who were not in favour of it, but I think the time has now come when in the interests of the country, party for the moment should be discarded and patriotism take its place. It is in the role of a patriot that I provide this bill to the country, and I hope that when the proper time comes my efforts will be commemorated by a bronze figure on Parliament Hill.
Amendment negatived, on division.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 53, for the promotion of vocational education in Canada.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
when on May 26, my hon. friend the Minister of Justice introduced the resolution on which this bill is based, ho made certain references to his own attitude and to my attitude with respect to the subject of technical education. I felt at the time, and still feel, that if not deliberately, then unintentionally he totally misrepresented my attitude. In order that in the future there may be no mistake as to what my attitude has been from the outset, I should like to clear up any difference there may be between us and establish if possible the true position. My hon. friend is reported in Hansard of May 26, 1931, at page 1973, as follows:
.Tust a word in regard to the very learned address-
That is in reference to my remarks which had preceded his own:
-offered to the house by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition. This 1 will say in regard to his address, that the attitude which he has taken to-day in regard to the proposal to make federal grants in aid of technical education in the various provinces has been pretty consistent with his whole course since this question was first brought to the attention of the federal parliament, for I wtell remember that when I moved for the first time dn this parliament a quarter of a century ago for the appointment of a commission to inquire into technical education, my right hon. friend the present leader of the opposition was the one who moved a motion which killed mine, and I was the only one then on the Liberal side who voted in favour of such a commission. However, a year or so afterwards, he decided that the popular demand in favour of something being done by the federal government was so great that it was time to act, and my right hon. friend, who was then Minister of Labour in the Liberal administration of that day, did issue a commission for the purpose of inquiring into technical education, and that commission made a very valuable report to parliament.
I wish to say that those statements contain a false and unwarranted implication as to my attitude. The statements are not tme, and I think I can prove they are not true by the words of my hon. friend himself. I hope if his remarks have been unintentional that when he replies to me he will not hesitate to correct a statement which is not accurate but which he has repeated many times in this house and elsewhere on occasions when I have not been present and able to reply. My hon. friend says:
[DOT]-when I moved for the first time in this parliament a quarter of a century ago for the appointment of a commission to inquire into technical education, my right hon. friend the present leader of the opposition was the one who moved a motion which killed mine.
Vocational Education

When my right hon. friend moved his motion in the House of Commons a quarter of a century ago-it was in 1907; that is when his motion was first made for the appointment of a royal commission on technical education. I was not, Mr. Speaker, a member of the parliament of Canada at the time my hon. friend moved that resolution. I hope that is an all sufficient answer.


Hugh Guthrie: The resolution to which my right hon. friend refers was not acted on, nothing came of it, no vote was taken. One or two years afterwards I was induced by the trades and labour congress to move the motion which was blocked by my right hon. friend by a motion to adjourn the debate, which sent my motion to the bottom of the list.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me read my hon. friend's words again:
When I moved for the first time-[DOT]
That was in 1907.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not quibbling about a word. My right hon. friend was not in the house then.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was not in the house when the motion was moved.


Hugh Guthrie: I mean the motion I moved when my right hon. friend was in the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am going to speak on that, too. Let me repeat his words:

when I moved for the first time in this parliament a quarter of a century ago for the appointment of a commission to inquire into technical education, my right hon. friend the present leader of the opposition was the one who moved a motion which killed mine, and I was the only one then on the Liberal side who voted in favour of such a commission.
The first motion was made in 1907. I was not a member of parliament at the time, and I did not kill his resolution. He goes on to say:
However, a year or so afterwards, he decided that the popular demand in favour of something being done by the federal government was so great that it was time to act, and my right hon. friend, who was then Minister of Labour in the Liberal administration of that day, did issue a commission for the purpose of inquiring into technical education, and that commission made a very valuable report to parliament.
There are two distinct statements there: one that I defeated the resolution of the present Minister of Justice when he first moved it.


Hugh Guthrie: Don't trouble about the
first.
fMr. Mackenzie King.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And that two years later, repenting of that act, as Minister of Labour I introduced the resolution that had to do with the appointment of the commission on technical education. Let me read what my hon. friend himself said in parliament with respect to the resolution which he alleges I killed. I think my hon. friend is on record as having been responsible for the defeat of his own motion. I have in my hand Hansard of December 6, 1909, page 1023, from which I am quoting:
Mr. Hugh Guthrie (South Wellington) moved:
Thait in the'opinion of this house it is advisable that a commission of inquiry be forthwith appointed to investigate the needs of Canada in respect to technical education and to report on ways and means by which these needs may be best met.
He said: During the Session of this house in 1907, I had the honour to move a motion framed in terms very similar to those of the motion whicih I have now the honour of bringing to the attention of the house. But on that occasion the motion oame up for discussion at a very late hour of the evening, and before a very thin attendance of members; the discussion was exceedingly limited, and the subject did not, I think, receive the attention which its importance deserved. I do not think that upon that occasion I was able to impress either the house or the government with the soundness of my argument, or with the propriety or necessity for the motion, strongly as I was able to impress myself.
That was .the reason why my hon. friend's first resolution was defeated-the resolution which he said I killed in 1907-his own inability to impress either the house or the government!


Hugh Guthrie: My right hon. friend is quibbling over the first or second resolution. What I referred to was the motion I moved when my right hon. friend was Minister of Labour and when he moved adjournment of the debate, which was in December, 1909; not the one I moved when he was not in the house at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am coming to that. I am referring to the resolution which he said I killed. But now, confronted with his own words, he ought .to admit that since he himself was unable to impress the house in regard to the importance of the matter, the resolution was withdrawn. The other resolution was the one he brought in two years later and which I may say was withdrawn not in order that it might be killed but in order to ensure the appointment of a commission.


Hugh Guthrie: It was not withdrawn;
it was voted on, and voted down.

Vocational Education


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was voted down or rather not accepted, in order to enable the government to make the necessary inquiries of the provinces to ensure the speedy appointment of the technical education commission.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the excuse you gave.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all, as I can show from my hon. friend's own words I am now going to read what my hon. friend at the time said was the attitude of the government of the day. He said he accepted the government's action in good faith, and more than that, at the time he congratulated me very warmly not only on the speech I made but for cooperating with him in seeing that a commission on technical education was appointed.


Hugh Guthrie: Subsequently I approved
it, yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me quote from the debate. As reported in Hansard of December 6, 1909, at page 10612, I spoke, as follows. This was not a year or so after but at the very time the motion was introduced:
Mr. Mackenzie King (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I feel that I am only voicing the opinion of every member of this house when I say that our thanks are due to the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) for having brought this important subject to the attention of parliament and for the exceptionally able, forceful and comprehensive manner in which he introduced his resolution. I think, too, sir, the house is to be congratulated on the very full discussion which has taken place on this resolution, to be congratulated because the subject is one which, no matter what view we may take as to the jurisdiction of this government or a provincial government to deal with it, cannot be viewed other than as one of great national concern.
Then a little further on, having pointed out the importance of the subject as one of national concern, I continued as follows as reported at page 1076:
I think, the risk should not be run of raising a great constitutional question in a matter of such great national importance until at least the exact position of this government with regard to this question is fully and rightly understood by the different provinces and by the people in the country.
Then a little further on I said:
But I am not so sure that the exclusive right to make laws with regard to education means the right to exclude the Dominion from gathering information on any subject which may be deemed a subject of national importance. However, that may be a debatable constitutional question, and in view of the importance of the subject of this discussion, I think it would be well if the mover of this resolution would allow the government a further opportunity to consider the question from this point of view, and not press it to a division to-night.
Then a little later:
I hope that one of the results of this debate will be that the true relationship of the provinces to the Dominion on this question of great national concern will be brought out in bolder and clearer relief than ever before, and if the subject be brought up again, as I hope it will be, there will be no doubt in the mind of any member of this house, or in any group of responsible persons outside, as to whether or not the Dominion would be trespassing in endeavouring to cooperate with the provinces 

for it is cooperation alone that would be expected-to the extent the mover of this resolution would desire. I would beg to move therefore the adjournment of the debate.
The purpose of the adjournment of the debate, as is shown clearly there, was to get over any constitutional difficulty and to enable the government of the day to communicate rvith the governments of the several provinces with respect to the commission that was to be appointed.
Now, what did my hon. friend himself say in regard to my attitude? Before I quote his words I might quote those of the late Right Hon. Mr. Fielding, who also stated the government's purpose in asking for the adjournment of the debate. On December 6, 1909, at page 1089 of Hansard, Mr. Fielding is reported as having said:
I must take exception entirely to the observation of an hon. gentleman opposite that the motion to adjourn is a motion to side-track this resolution. . . .
Speaking on the resolution the other day, the present Minister of Justice spoke of Mr. Fielding as one: who understood what the position of the Liberal government was and what its intention was with respect to this question of technical education. I am now giving him the words which he himself heard and accepted in the House of Commons at the time:
.... and while I propose to vote for the motion to adjourn, I do so on altogether a different ground. After the discussion we have had, after the abundance of information brought before the house, showing the great need of this movement in Canada, it would indeed be strange if nothing further should be done. We are all of the opinion that something should be done, and the only question is what is the better way of doing it.
Then a little further on he said:
I do not say that the Dominion parliament should not step in and assist them. 1 am going to vote for the adjournment of the debate, not for the purpose of side-tracking the matter, but that we may have further opportunity of considering. not the wdsdom of doing something, but the best way in which to do it.	*
Mr. Fielding concluded:
.... and in voting for the motion to adjourn I do so in order that we may have the oppor-
Vocational Education

government that is responsible for the services and for the raising of the money.
We have progressed very far in Canada in some fields of our industrial development and the time has now come to consider carefully, if we are going to continue, as I hope we are, the expenditure on technical education and industrial research, just how far the provincial and Dominion governments respectively should go. When some years ago the government of the day introduced an act making a contribution in the form of grants to the provinces, they fixed upon a period of ten years. At that time the industrial research work that was being carried on at Ottawa was comparatively limited. No provision was made for it by any special act of parliament, but in the course of years there were persistent representations from industrial and labour organizations in Canada, from manufacturers' associations and from departments of government, regarding the need of more highly developed research work on the part of the Dominion government. When the Liberal government was in office we were faced with the question how best that additional demand could be met. We considered that the act fixing the period of ten years had been framed expressly to enable the provinces to get on their feet. Very little had been done up to the time the act was passed and the purpose of the act was to give, the provinces a real start in technical education. We understood and the report of the commission and of the debate will show that the intention was to allow for a period during which buildings might be erected and equipped, teachers trained, staffs organized, and the work advanced to some extent. We did not believe it was intended by the parliament that enacted the measure that the grant for a period of ten years, made in that way, should be permitted to become a perpetual thing. We did feel, on the other hand, that the necessity for doing more at Ottawa in the way of providing facilities for technical and scientific research was becoming more and more apparent every day. Therefore, some years before the act expired, we notified the provinces that at the end of the ten years they must not expect the grant to be continued but must make provision for providing in their entirety the services which they had themselves started. We required additional money for federal purposes. It was because we had cut off the grant in one direction, that we felt justified in coming before this parliament and asking for a very large expenditure to develop allied research work on a scale theretofore never undertaken in Canada by the national research

council which had come into being in the intervening years. We not only asked parliament to give increased votes to the national research council, but we asked for a vote which I think amounts altogether to something like $3,000,000 for the erection in the capital of Canada of the finest industrial research building to be found anywhere. That building will later be still further equipped for scientific research work.
That phase of the work, we thought, the federal parliament should engage upon. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice, speaking the other day, said quite truly:
Technical education has become associated rather with work of a scientific or investigational nature and work of university grade.
It was with regard to technical education that this commission was appointed; it was with regard to technical education that the grants were being made by parliament. And, as my hon. friend has said, technical education is now being associated rather with work of a technical nature and work of university grade. That is exactly the class of work done under the national research council; it is work of that kind that is being carried on in the laboratories here. So that, instead of impeding the work on technical education, the late Liberal administration did more to advance technical education in Canada than had been accomplished by all previous efforts put together. Not only was this building erected as I have said, but additional appropriations were made for research purposes.
I have in my hand the Research Council Act passed on August 27, 1917. This act had not been passed at the time the royal commission of inquiry into technical education was appointed; it was some seven years later. Under this act a new body was formed under which industrial research was to be carried on by a federal advisory council for scientific and industrial research under the control of a committee of the privy council on scientific and industrial research. Let me read a paragraph of the act which deals with the duties of this council. Section 6 reads as follows:
The council shall have charge of all matters affecting scientific and industrial research in Canada which may be assigned to it by the committee, and shall also nave the duty of advising the committee on questions of scientific and technological methods affecting the expansion of Canadian industries or the utilization of the natural resources of Canada.
That is precisely the work described by the Minister of Justice as constituting technical education, namely, work of scientific or investigational nature and of university grade.

Vocational Education
Section 10 which covers the powers of the council reads as follows:
Without thereby limiting the general powers of the council conferred upon or vested in it by this act, it is hereby declared that the council may exercise the following powers, namely:-
(c) To undertake in such way as may be deemed advisable-
(i)	to promote the utilization of the natural
resources of Canada.
(ii)	researches with the object of improving the technical processes and methods used in the industries of Canada, and of discovering processes and methods which may promote the expansion of existing or the development of new industries,
(vi)	the investigation and standardization, at the request of any of the industries of Canada, of the materials which are or may be used in, or of the products of, the industries making such a request,
(vii)	researches, the object of which is to improve conditions in agriculture;
(g) Subject to the approval of the chairman, to publish, from time to time, such scientific and technical information as the council may deem necessary.
Subsection 2 of section 11 reads as follows:
The council, with the approval of the governor in council, may pay to its technical -officers and to others working under its auspices who have made valuable discoveries, inventions or improvements in processes, apparatus and machines such bonuses or royalties as in its opinion may be warranted.
Here we have a statute of Canada, now known as the Research Council Act, 1924, which makes provision for the federal government going into the whole work of technical research -and investigation on a scale never before contemplated. In discontinuing the grants to the provinces the Liberal government had in mind the increase of the work to be carried on by this industrial research council. What has been done in that regard is best shown by a reference to the estimates which this house has been considering this year. In the estimates of this year for the Department of Trade and Commerce, there appears on page 71, an item of $500,000 to cover the work of this research council. Last year there was an item of $500,000, making $1,000,000 in two years. This money was not being expended prior to 1917, nor was it being expended at the time a previous administration made the grants in aid of technical education to the provinces for a period of ten years. We are now committed to an annual expenditure of at least half a million dollars to carry on research work right here in the capital. As I pointed out the other day, the estimates of the Public Works department show an item of $2,000,000 for laboratories and equipment for the
national research council, while in the previous year an amount of $1,541,330 was voted for this purpose. Taking all amounts, within the last two years we 'have spent between four and five million dollars on scientific and industrial research. When the estimates were before the committee the other evening the minister was asked whether or not scholarships could be granted in the universities to promising students to enable them to engage in industrial and scientific research, and the minister replied that that was what was being done under this very act. At the present time this parliament is voting money for scholarships for industrial and scientific research and making payments out of federal funds for the training of young men and women in colleges and universities. However, we are controlling our own expenditures; we are using them in connection with our own sphere of work.
When the estimates of the Department of Mines were being considered the minister asked for something like $750,000 for research work. I asked the minister if that work was all in the nature of industrial research and technical work and he replied that it was. I drew attention to the fact that here again the federal government was expending large sums of money for the purposes of technical education and industrial research.
It has not been with any desire to restrict industrial training or technical education that I have questioned the wisdom of continuing these grants. The truth is quite the opposite. I see the extreme necessity of our own federal government raising increasingly large sums of money for work in the federal sphere. I am anxious that that work shall be carried on in as large a way as may be possible. It cannot be so carried on unless we have the necessary funds, and funds are becoming more and more difficult to provide.
There is another point, one which I have mentioned at different times. It is not wise from the point of view of principle for one government to raise taxes and pass them over to other governments to be expended. The government which raises the taxes ought to control their expenditure. I believe that was the principle laid down at the time of confederation. It was recognized that the provinces would need something in the way of subsidies to supplement their sources of income, but I contend that one of the bases of the confederation act was the idea that the federal and provincial governments would have certain definite fields of services assigned to them, that they should have complete control
Vocational Education

over those services, that they would raise the moneys necessary and see to their expenditure. If for any reason the division is not fair, then adjustments should be made by the paying of additional or altered subsidies.
I have no objection to any just increase which might result from proper revision of the subsidies, but I would point out to my hon. friend that before having the country go further into debt, before imposing more in the way of taxation upon the people, it would be advisable for the government to call a dominion-provincial conference and review the different services which are being carried on by the different administrations, take into account all grants which have been made in the past and are now being made to the provinces by the federal administration and see if it is not possible to make some definite arrangement Whereby the provinces on their part and the Dominion on its part will themselves thereafter raise all that is necessary for the carrying out of the particular services which may be assigned to them. If the provinces have not a sufficient latitude in the way of fields of taxation, then more latitude should be given. I think it will be found with respect to taxation that the provinces have been finding new avenues for raising revenue at a time when the federal government, although it has been making much larger expenditures, is finding it increasingly difficult to obtain revenue. For example, the provinces derive a large revenue from the control of the liquor traffic; they derive large revenues from the licensing of motors and the like; they derive revenues from other sources which were not thought of at the time of confederation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Beauharnois.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member says the provinces have derived revenue from Beauharnods. Does he mean to say that that is the way Beauharnois has been spending its money, by paying it to the province of Ontario? I am quite interested in hearing that from a Conservative member. I think the country will take note of that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Don't talk like that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister was not in his seat when I was interrupted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I heard the remark.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my right hon. friend would hardly approve of it. It was applied by one of his own supporters to the words I was using at the time I was

saying that the provinces had other sources of revenue to-day which they did not have at the. time of Confederation. I was interrupted by a Conservative member who called out "Beauharnois". I said that I was rather surprised that should come from Conservative sources at this time, and I am. On the other hand may I say that the federal government has been losing certain sources of revenue. The federal government has turned over to the provinces the natural resources, which had constituted a source of revenue. Therefore, on the one. hand the provinces are getting new sources of revenue and we as a Dominion are losing others.
I do not wish to take more than a few minutes more, but in order that I may press home an argument of which I think full account ought to be taken at the moment, may I give, to my hon. friends opposite, not the views solely of those on this side of the house, but the views of members of the administration itself in regard to what is wise with respect to these grants. I wish to quote from what the present Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) said on the subject when speaking of grants in aid to the provinces for the old age pensions. He was speaking in reference to grants from the federal treasury, to the provinces, but this applies equally to grants in connection with vocational training. It is wholly applicable to the very bill which we had before us the other day increasing the grants to the provinces in regard to old age pensions. This is what the Secretary of State in the present administration had to say on April 15, 1926, as reported in Hansard, page 2472 of that date:
Furthermore, this scheme contemplates that in its operation there shall be cooperation between the provincial governments and the federal government. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in the recent political history of this country we have proceeded altogether too far in the way of cooperation between the federal government and the provincial governments, in respect, for instance, to road appropriations, which are within the proper jurisdiction and control of local legislatures. The same refers also to certain building schemes in which there was cooperation, but in respect of which the federal treasury, which provided the money, really had little or no control over the management of the funds and little or no supervision over the actual expenditures made. I do not want to stress the matter, but I went through for several weeks, as counsel, an investigation in my native province of Nova Scotia which clearly disclosed to me that 'when provincial governments or provincial legislatures are expending moneys which are not raised on their own credit and responsibility, and in respect to which their sole responsibility is that of expenditure, it leads to wasteful expenditure and very wide latitude indeed in the making of those expenditures.

Vocational Education
That is a member of the present administration speaking. The Prime Minister also gave his views with respect to these matters and in particular in regafd to binding one parliament by the action of a previous parliament. When we were speaking the other day on the tariff board bill, my right hon. friend said that I was stretching his point a little in applying it to appointments of officials to the tariff board. He said that he had been talking about money grants which would bind one parliament following another, and he took strong exception to that on the score of principle. This legislation which we have before us involves the expenditure of something like $750,000 a year for a period of fifteen years, so that if we pass it we shall be binding at least three or four subsequent parliaments, as may happen to be the case. What did my right hon. friend say? He was speaking in the house on April 24, 1928, the debate at the time being in reference to moneys appropriated for the Federal District Commission. This is what he said as reported in Hansard of that date at page 2352:
Five years is the life of a parliament, and I cannot think it quite consonant with the ideas of the right hon. gentleman as heretofore expressed that this parliament should bind the hands of future parliaments.
A little further on the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) moved an amendment to the third reading of the bill and he used the following words in reference to it:
My chief objection to the bill is _ that this parliament, through a commission, is making commitments for fifteen years, which in the ordinary course of events will cover the lifetime of possibly three, if not four, parliaments. I think the principle is wrong, and I am surprised that it should be seriously proposed, especially after what the Prime Minister said in this house when in opposition and since he became head of the government. To give to a commission the expenditure of moneys over a period of fifteen year's is to my mind preposterous, and to take away from future parliaments the right to say how that money shall he spent, I think is also preposterous.


Peter McGibbon: Was that not my right
bon. friend's own proposal?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not in relation to special aid grants, I discussed that the other day. I have been quite consistent in the matter of special aid grants. I did not renew the old act but extended its provisions for five years. There is still $1,500,000 to be paid under it.


Peter McGibbon: But the right hon.
gentleman is willing to bind future parliaments?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not in relation to this particular subject.


Hugh Guthrie: The right hon. gentleman has bound us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The present
Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), as reported in Hansard of April 26, 1928, had this to say on that date:
Personally I have held a very strong' view for some considerable time as to the undesirability of any legislature or parliament tying the hands of succeeding legislatures or parliaments with respect to annual expenditures. That idea may or may not be sound, but I do not think that when matters of policy are affected-and matters of policy always are affected in relation to grants of public moneys-this parliament should tie the hands of two or three succeeding parliaments. Not denying that parliament has always the right to repeal legislation, I submit that it is undesirable to create vested rights with respect to legislation; and the undesirability of such a policy can never be more apparent than it is in this particular measure.
May I go a step further? My right hon. friend made a reference specifically to technical education. He continued:
I cannot but think that the principle involved -the principle which the right hon. gentleman when in opposition always contended should be applied-is the soundest possible principle with respect to the expenditure of public money. No parliament should create a condition which leaves a succeeding parliament under the necessity of either repealing existing legislation with respect to which vested interests or rights may have _ arisen, or of carrying on regardless of the views of that succeeding parliament, simply because the preceding government has done what is being done in this case. The cases which have been referred to, with respect to technical education-
The very question we are discussing, highways and matters of that kind, in my judgment, stand in exactly the same position, unless there are very extraordinary conditions which can be submitted to parliament, and without those very extraordinary conditions, which might arise on questions touching the public debt and the necessity of liquidating it. one parliament should not say that in its wisdom it ^ has placed upon its successors a burden which they must respect because of the interest which may have grown up under it. . . .
As I say. jt is with regret that one has to deal with this matter as a matter of principle with respect to this particular legislation.
All I say to my right hon. friend is that that argument is as strong and effective today as applied to technical education and grants of this kind as it was on the day when he made the pronouncement.
I might go on to quote what he said on a previous occasion on another important aspect of these grants. As reported in Han-
Vocational Education

sard of February 18, 1927, at page 481, my right hon. friend had this to say:
Now it might be well to look on the political side of the matter. You know what took place in Australia under conditions such as these. You are going ,to have a system that is not contributory. An election is coming on. They go out and say that more money should be given, that $20 is not enough. "Well, we will give them $25 if we get into power". ... I was simply pointing out what might be said with respect to such a matter as this. That is the position. That is what happened in Australia. . . . The contending parties, the government and the opposition, were endeavouring to outbid each other in the matter of old age pensions. . . . The contending leaders were intending to secure the popular vote by promising to make an increase in old age pensions. Those are the facts. Consider what would happen in Canada.
And so forth. These are all principles that are worth keeping in mind, and all that I suggest to my right hon. friend is this:	Since
those very admirable principles were stated, conditions have become such not only in this country but throughout the world that governments are required to consider more than ever where they can best economize, where they can avoid increasing burdens on municipalities and provinces-that is one of the indirect effects of making these conditional grants-and how they can manage to keep down the public debt. I would suggest to the administration that they seriously consider whether the time has not arrived when they might well call a Dominion-provincial conference and discuss with the provinces the whole question of readjustment of finances as between the Dominion and the provinces before proceeding to bind future parliaments for a period of fifteen years. I do not say to do away entirely with this legislation, but I do say that it might be well to postpone it to another session holding in the interval the Dominion-provincial conference to which I have referred. This is a great bargaining instrument which the government will have in making its adjustments with the provinces, just as the old age pension grants and grants for highways, and as will be the grants for unemployment relief. The government in the interests of the country as a whole ought not lightly to disregard these important considerations in arriving at an adjustment which sooner or later will have to be made.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I ask what
the right hon. gentleman means when he says that this legislation will place heavier burdens on the municipalities? I do not quite follow him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad the hon. member has asked the question. The 
municipalities are saying to-day that the provinces have been passing on to them-they did with respect to old age pensions-the obligation of raising a certain amount of the money, that the provinces have not been meeting the expenditure themselves, and more than one municipality has stated that it has been driven into bankruptcy because of the contributions that the province is compelling it to make in order that the province may get i'ts full share of the grant.


Mr. PRICE:: Take a seat.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my
hon. friend, if he is controlling the house-


Mr. SPEAKER:: It being six o'clock-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the right hon. gentleman going on after eight o'clock?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not after that remark.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not notice that.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties that one has to contend with in parliamentary government is that frequently he finds leaders of parties relying upon the statements of their opponents when they were in opposition for the purpose of justifying the action which they now take. Now, either my right hon. friend apposite was right a few years ago when he contended that parliament was following the correct course in permitting grants to be made payable beyond the term of the parliament which was making them, or he was not. He convinced at least a majority of the House of Commons of that day that he was right, and the majority of the House of Commons so decided. It therefore follows that at that particular time at least the party to the left of the Speaker was wrong, and the party to his right was correct in the view which it took.
This afternoon the right hon. gentleman relied upon certain statements made by myself when in opposition as to the unsoundness of making grants of money that extended beyond the life of the parliament that was making them. He referred to my observations on the Old Age Pensions Bill when it was being considered by parliament. He also referred to certain observations I made in connection with the Technical Education

Vocational Education
Act and the Canada Highways Act. But I observed as he read, as doubtless the house did, that I said "except in very extraordinary circumstances or conditions." Now when this bill was considered by the government it was realized that something should be done for technical education by the federal authorities, and as education is primarily a matter for consideration by the provinces it was felt that we would do well to follow the course adopted in 1919. In that year parliament appropriated a very large sum of money, amounting in the aggregate to $10,000,000, for the purposes of technical education.
Now, I submit to this house that technical education is a matter in which the Dominion has a very great interest and a very great stake. Apart altogether from trade and commerce and all that is implied in that, it also has an interest in technical education as distinguished from the narrower interest of the provinces to deal with education as such. We have the interest of the nation, a concern in the ability of our people to meet competition and to carry our wares, our goods, our merchandise successfully into every part of the world. Believing that, we determined, after the commission made a report many years ago, to make an annual grant. This year, however, confronted with extraordinary economic conditions, instead of making a lump sum grant, or a grant which would expire with the life of this parliament, we realized that we must cut our garment according to our cloth-to use an old saying-and therefore we have appropriated a smaller sum of $750,000 to be granted annually for the next fifteen years. It is true that that period of time is far beyond the life of this parliament. It well may be-although there are no indications that warrant such a conclusion just now- beyond the lifetime of the present party in office as a government. But, as I say, there is no likelihood of that being so judging from present appearances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Don't be too sure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rely largely on the Toronto Globe in that respect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Read it to-night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Fixed up, is it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a correct report this evening.


Robert James Manion: The editorial is pretty
strong.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Other
things may have been fixed up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think if I
were sitting for Vancouver Centre I would make any statement of that kind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You would not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I just think I would not 

there are some reasons why, too.
As I was pointing out, with the economic conditions prevailing in this country at the moment, it was concluded that it would be desirable, as I say, to cut our garment according to our cloth, and therefore we make a grant of $750,000 per annum extending over fifteen years. We come exactly within the terms of the observations I made from which the right hon. gentleman quoted. The extraordinary circumstances and conditions which I then had in mind now obtain, and there is nothing left for us to do but to take one of two courses, either discontinue this aid altogether, or continue it for a longer period with a smaller annual payment. We have chosen the latter course, and have continued assistance to technical education on a smaller annual grant, extending over a longer period of time.
That is all I have to say on the reasons that have governed us in the action we have taken. But once more I desire to direct attention to the strange anomaly of the right hon. gentleman relying on statements I made while in opposition, which the house did not then adopt, and which he says now should be adopted, and that the advice which he then tendered to the house should not have been so tendered. On that ground he asks the house to reject this measure. I do not think the house will conclude that that is a sound reason, but will conclude that if the right hon. gentleman was right on that occasion, he at least is not right in saying that the extraordinary circumstances to which I alluded on the former occasion do not now prevail. The principle I believed in then I believe in still, I think it should have application, and now is the opportunity to make it applicable to the purposes intended,


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief observations on this bill. If the federal government is in a position financially to make grants to the provinces I do not think it should tie any strings to those grants. If a member on this side of the house ventures to criticize this measure the impression is conveyed to the country by some members on the opposite side that we are against technical education
*1106
Vocational Education

As far as I am concerned, I am not against technical education. But I think the most important part of education to-day, especially under the conditions now prevailing, is primary education. I am going to confine my remarks mainly to Manitoba, because I am more familiar with matters concerning education in that province than with such matters in the other provinces.
In Manitoba, primary education is supported by the municipalities. We have a law under which the municipal authorities contribute S3.60 for every school day in the year -two hundred days-for every school teacher in the municipality, or an annual contribution of S720. Under present economic conditions in western Canada I do not know how we are going to keep our primary schools open. I am not trying to exaggerate the economic conditions, but judging from the latest reports I have-and I think every member from western Canada has been similarly advised-* taxes are not being paid. This being the case, where are we going to find money to keep our primary schools open? Under this proposed legislation we are forcing the provinces to come to an agreement with the federal government in regard to expenditures for technical education. When the federal government votes certain grants to the provinces for education the provinces make every effort possible to comply with the conditions surrounding such grants. It will be so under this bill. What benefit is a child going to get from technical education if he is not able to receive a primary education? In the rural parts of Canada how many of our children take advantage of technical education? Very few of them I venture to say. The reason is that very few pass the higher grades in our primary schools to enable them to take advantage of technical education. If the federal government is in a position to grant moneys to the provinces for educational purposes, let the provinces administer the grants for the benefit of all those under their jurisdiction. I repeat, I am opposed to this proposed legislation-I am not opposed to technical education when it is possible, but I am opposed to this bill because it ties the hands of the provinces-forces them to make certain expenditures which under present conditions they can ill afford to make.
Mr. .D. B. PLUNKETT (Victoria):	Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a word or two on vocational training, because to my mind it concerns the city which I represent and many other cities throughout Canada. Sometimes I think, in legislating for dominion affairs, we altogether forget the provincial side of the

question, so to-night I am going to lay before this house some foots in regard to the tremendous cost entailed to the government of British Columbia in social legislation for which they must tax the people.
In the social legislation of this country I think there are many departments which might well be condensed and a saving made, and I am going to enumerate some of those which affect British Columbia, my own province. Social legislation in British Columbia is becoming more expensive each year, and the burden of taxation has become extremely heavy. Social legislation in British Columbia comes under several headings, and I should like hon. members to listen to this list, because they may be surprised to know that a provincial government should have to carry such a load. Here is the list: conduct of the Labour department; mothers' pensions; old age pensions; home for incurables; charitable institutions; the aid of the destitute; the burial of indigent persons; Tranquil sanatorium for tuberculosis patients; superannuation; health; provincial home; grants to hospitals; the Infants' Act; care of the poor and sick; mental hospitals; industrial schools and unemployment and destitutional relief. That may seem a startling list, and perhaps British Columbia is a little ahead of some of the other provinces in social legislation; as a matter of fact I think it is the leading province in Canada.
What does this mean to the people who have to bear the burden? It will be admitted by every hon. member of this house that federal taxation is a little more indirect than provincial taxation, so the people of the provinces feel this provincial taxation far more than they feel the federal taxation. In the year 1916-17 grants by the province of British Columbia to provide for this work totalled $963,049.03; in 1922-23 the total was $2,447,666; in 1928-29 the amount had increased to $4,099,654.84, while the estimates passed by the British Columbia provincial legislature at the recent session for 1931-32, for those services, totalled $4,466,515.35. It will be seen that the increase from 1916 to 1931 amounts to over $3,500,000.
With regard to education the amount provided by the department in 1916-17, exclusive of the amounts provided by the municipalities, was $1,806,311.76, while last year the vote for education amounted to $4,787,912 or an increase between the years mentioned of over $2,981,600. In passing I might recall to the minds of hon. members that the population of British Columbia is about equal to that of the city of Toronto, while I believe it is the second or third largest province in

Vocational Education
Canada in area. We have a tremendous difficulty in carrying on educational work in the mountainous districts where the lumber interests are centered, and this entails an added expense to the Department of Education in providing schools for those districts; some of them may be only temporary, but they must be provided for the children.
We must look at this measure in two ways. If we are going to have trained mechanics in order to compete in the commerce of the world we must have training schools in which they may obtain a knowledge of their business. It is no use trying to build up an export trade in manufactured goods if we do not build up the knowledge of our citizens in order to produce those goods. I quite agree with what the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) said to-day with regard to the money voted for the national research council; I believe he mentioned two years in each of which $500,000 was voted. But I would ask this question. What good is that national research council to the citizens of my city or to the citizens of Prince Rupert if there should be a young man who wants to learn a trade and acquire technical knowledge at the same time? Is it not necessary to have some of these schools in the larger cities? Unfortunately it is true that a technical school is the most costly of all our institutions of this kind; the machinery and equipment require a great deal of money, and I think the government might go further and give some allowance to the provinces to help maintain these schools after they are established.
I commend the action of the government in this regard; I think money could not be spent in a better way., Some time there will come a readjustment of the taxation system of this country, and our taxes will be rearranged as between the province and the Dominion. At the present time I feel that the provinces have too heavy a burden, and therefore I am pleased to support the action of this government in voting money for this purpose.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose if I say a word I will close the debate.


Charles Marcil: Before the minister closes the debate I should like him to explain whether the benefits of this legislation will extend to the rural municipalities. At the present time in Quebec we have splendid technical schools in Montreal, 22110-261
Quebec, Three Rivers and other larger cities, but there are no schools of this kind in the rural constituencies, which include about half the population of the province. I should like to know also what is meant by this word "vocational." Will this include farming, fishing and other occupations which may be taken up in the country districts?


John Livingstone Brown: Perhaps before the minister replies I may be permitted to say a word. I should like to make it clear at the outset that I am heartily in sympathy with the principle of vocational training. It was my honour and privilege for a time to be president of the school trustees' association of Manitoba, and on one occasion I chose . vocational training as the theme of a presidential address. Undoubtedly in the past our school curricula have tended more to produce professional men than men who will take part in the ordinary business of life. Perhaps two years ago I would not have had the slightest hesitation in heartily endorsing this bill, even though there may be involved such constitutional questions as jurisdiction and the rights of the provinces and the Dominion.
I have not usually attached undue importance to these questions. But according to the reports that come to us from the west, those provinces-I know this for a fact-not only this year but for some years to come will find it very difficult indeed to support the primary schools. There can be no question about that. Someone foolishly made the statement the other day in a newspaper interview that one good crop would bring Saskatchewan back. That is absolute folly. Debts have been piling up during the last two or three years and obligations have been incurred from which the provinces, either as governments or as individuals, will be unalble to escape for many years. In the face of this fact it seems to me that it would be well for us to go slowly. I believe in vocational training with all my heart, but as things are in our western provinces I believe the government would be wise not to ask the provinces just now to assume obligations which they will not be able to discharge. It is quite possible that Ontario and Quebec, these central wealthy provinces, will be able to fulfil the conditions imposed by this bill. I am quite satisfied that the prairie provinces will not be able to take advantage of the opportunities here offered for technical education, and possibly what is true of those provinces is true also to some extent of the maritimes. Of the maritime provinces, however, I cannot speak. That is my attitude to this bill; not one of opposition

Vocational Education

but a firm conviction that under the present circumstances it woudl be well for the government not to pass this legislation inviting the provinces to take on responsibilities which I am sure they will not be in a position to bear.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: In Saskatchewan we have already assumed all these obligations; we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the building of technical schools. Does my hon. friend want to drop all this? Does he want us to abandon all that we have done, or shall we continue?


Hugh Guthrie: I have just a word to say at this point in the debate. The questions asked by my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and by my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) I should prefer to discuss when the bill is in committee; we shall have wider scope then.
I do not know that I should have risen to say anything now had it not been for the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon, when he tried to take me to task for certain statements I have made in this house at various times with reference to his own record upon technical education. I do not want to quibble with my right hon. friend as to whether I mentioned the "first occasion" or the "second occasion" when I spoke upon the introduction of the bill. I realize that the first occasion on which the question was brought to the attention of this parliament, and by myself, was in 1907. My right hon. friend was not then a member of the House of Commons and therefore I could not have made any reference to him in regard to that first occasion in 1907.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend's words were that I killed his first resolution.


Hugh Guthrie: There is the quibble on
the word "first." I meant the first time I moved the resolution, when the right hon. gentleman was present. Is that clear? I am not referring to the occasion two years previously, before he was a member. Let us fix the occasion definitely, whether you call it first or second: It was in December, 1909. My right hon. friend was Minister of Labour; I was a humble member supporting the Liberal party and the government of which he was a member. And at the instance of very important bodies in this country, notably the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, and various similar organizations, I brought forward a resolution for the appointment of a
IMr. Brown.]
commission to inquire into questions relating to technical education. The right hon. gentleman, as Minister of Labour, discussed my motion in an elaborate and very interesting speech. The whole temper of the house was distinctly in favour of my resolution, but unfortunately for it my right hott. friend saw fit to move the adjournment of my motion, though he knew, as I knew, and every other member in the house knew, that should his motion of adjournment carry my motion would be relegated to the foot of the list. And under the rules of the house in those days my motion would not be reached again. He knew that; the whole house knew it. When he moved the adjournment of my motion the opposition of the day immediately challenged him upon the ground that he was trying to sidetrack the whole question-that was the word used in the debate. It was assumed by the opposition, of course, that the move of my right hon. friend as Minister of Labour was for the purpose of killing my motion, or postponing it, or, as was said on that occasion, sidetracking it. That was why Mr. Fielding got up and explained that the government did not intend to sidetrack it: he knew what the house believed. Well, the matter was put to the vote, the majority prevailed, and my right hon. friend's motion to kill my motion carried. And on that occasion I voted for the first time with the Conservative party. That vote constitutes one important milestone in my career.
My motion having been adjourned, or abandoned, or sidetracked, whichever way my right hon. friend wishes me to refer to it, considerable agitation arose throughout Canada among the parties interested; and if my right hon. friend will turn up the Toronto Globe of the day following he will see how strong was the protestation against the abandonment of the matter. At any rate, as I remember well, after the Christmas adjournment I was one of a deputation that waited upon Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In that deputation, I think, were Mr. Draper of Ottawa, Mr. O'Donoghue of Toronto, Mr. James Simpson of Toronto, a gentleman from my own riding and myself, and we urged upon the Prime Minister that the matter should not be dropped. These people were serious; they insisted that a commission should be appointed. Later on in that spring the then Minister of Labour, now leader of the opposition, did communicate, as he says, with the various provinces and did appoint a commission. The appointment was made in June 1910. Then ended the first step in the matter.

Vocational Education
My right hon. friend in the speech which he made on my motion expressed the warmest sympathy with the subject of technical education.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend said it was later on in the spring, but the communications I read this afternoon were dated December 30, 1909.


Hugh Guthrie: The commission was not
appointed until June.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The communications with the provinces were immediately after.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the end of the
first period. Those expressions of sympathy which permeated his address were couched in the beautiful language in which he always expresses such sentiments in this house. What the men who were earnest and interested in this matter wanted was not sympathy, but action, and the only action taken, and that under a certain amount of pressure, was when in June the commission was appointed.
When the commission made its report, a long and very interesting one, the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was out of office and the government of Sir Robert Borden was in office. No further practical step was taken in the matter until 1919. The war intervened. I was a member of the government in 1919 but I do not think my right hon. friend was a member of the house at that time. The government of that day brought in a bill to grant $1,000,000 per year for ten years to the various provinces in aid of technical education. It is interesting to note that the late hon. Mr. Fielding was in the house in 1919. I believe I placed on record the statement which he made in the house in the session of 1919 in regard to the bill, but I will mention it again just to emphasize what Mr. Fielding said. The following appears on page 3796 of Hansard of June 20, 1919:
As regards technical education, it is worth remembering that this grant, although it is late in coming, is the outcome of a policy which the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier took up some years ago.
The money grant by this parliament was the outcome of the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in whose government my right hon. friend was Minister of Labour. The grant of 1919 was the outcome of the policy of the government in which my right hon. friend sat. Mr. Fielding also said:
When the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier appointed that commission, headed by Professor Robertson and including a number of able men,
22110-261}
we certainly created the impression that in some degree the matter was a dominion one, and I look upon this movement as a belated endeavour on the part of the government to carry out the intentions which the Liberal government had in mind when they appointed that commission.
That is a very clear and distinct statement from an able and prominent member of the Liberal administration, the late Bon. Mr. Fielding. When the bill passed the house in 1919 I do not think my right hon. friend was in the house. No further action wa3 taken until 19129 when my right hon. friend was Prime Minister of Canada. The matter came up again at the instance of the opposition. The ten years period had expired, some of the provinces had received almost their whole allotment of money while other provinces had a considerable balance yet to be received. The question was: would the grants lapse or would they be continued? When the matter was brought to the attention of the house on that occasion, my right hon. friend used the following language:
There was no thought at the outset that the federal government would be called upon to go further than simply to supply the information to the provinces which would enable them to develop their educational systems along lines of industrial training and technical education.
My right hon. friend stated there was no thought that the government should do more than gather information. Mr. Fielding stated that the grant of 1919 was the outcome of a Laurier policy. I think Mr. Fielding was correct notwithstanding the statements made in this house in 1929 by my right hon. friend, as I have just quoted them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What about the letter addressed to the premiers of the provinces, and the replies thereto?


Hugh Guthrie: Which letter is that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The letter which
stated what the commission was for and asking the consent of the provinces to the appointment of such a commission.


Hugh Guthrie: In answer to that, I will read from the report of the commission appointed by my right hon. friend. The following appears on page 26 of the report:
5. The very considerable increase in the population of Canada by immigration is throwing additional burdens for elementary education upon the communities and the provinces. The enhanced public revenues due to growth by immigration goes in a large measure into the Dominion exchequer. The increase of the volume of trade brings in larger amounts through the customs offices. This would indicate that the new financial responsibility and burdens for industrial training and technical
4110	COMMONS
Vocational Education
education, on a scale large enough and generous enough to be available to all the people between the ages of 14 and 18, should be sustained an large measure by funds from the Dominion government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What date is that?


Hugh Guthrie: That is the report of the commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Which was made in 1014. My remarks had reference to what took place at the outset in 1909.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not interrupt my right hon. friend and he should not interrupt me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my hon. friend wishes to state matters accurately.


Hugh Guthrie: I am reading from the report of the commission -appointed by my right hon. friend. I quoted the statement made in this house by the Hon. Mr. Fielding, and I continued with the statement made in 1929 fey my right hon. friend that the government had no thought of anything like financial responsibility in connection with this scheme. In 1929, my right hon. friend told the provinces and told this house that he did not approve of grants from the Dominion in aid of technical education, but his government passed -an act to continue those grants for a further period of five years in so far as the unexpended balances were concerned and to the provinces which were entitled to receive such balances, but provided that such grants should lapse in the year 1934. My right hon. friend made a contract to run until 1934 and to provide for payments by a government other than his own. He tied the hands of that government in respect of these payments for another five years, and now he objects to that government following out the same principle and making grants for the next fifteen years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those were not new payments, they were extensions of the old grants.


Hugh Guthrie: As a result of the legislation sponsored by the then Minister of Labour, the government made future contracts with all provinces entitled to participate on a five-year basis, whereas all previous contracts had been made from year to year. That is the information which came to me this evening from the Department of Labour.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend say that a new contract was made with the province of Ontario?
(Mr. Guthrie.]


Hugh Guthrie: No, because that province had received its full allotment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon,. friend has just stated that new contracts were made with all provinces, and that is not true.


Hugh Guthrie: All provinces entitled to unexpended balances. That is the position as I see it, and I think I have stated it correctly. There has never been a time when my right hon. friend has not poured out his heart in sympathy over the cause of technical education and vocational training. His sympathy has been abundant but that is not what the provinces want. They want practical assistance in this great work. Whenever the question of giving practical -assistance has come up my right hon. friend has merely extended his sympathy and has refused financial support from the Dominion treasury.
I do not know that I should go any further into this matter at this stage. I shall have to f-urnish considerable information during the committee stage, and I think for convenience and expedition the bill had better be permitted- to go into committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house -went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
On section 4-Agreement with province.
Charles Marcil: The minister might explain what the government have in view in regard to the application of this grant,


Hugh Guthrie: It is not proposed under
the present bill to limit or restrict the application of these moneys as was done under the former bill, and should provinces so desire, such portion of the grant going to them may be used, for instance, in agricultural education or training. This was not permitted under the former bill. The reason for the exclusion of agriculture under the former bill was that another act had been passed by parliament in 1919 or 1920 providing for a specific grant in aid of agricultural education. That state of affairs continued until 1928 or 1929 when the Duncan report was made in regard to the maritime provinces, after which a change was made in the regulations allowing provinces if they so desired, to utilize their grants in agricultural education.


Mr. VENIOT:: Was that not applicable
only to Prince Edward Island?


Hugh Guthrie: I think it was applicable
only to Prince Edward Island, as all the other provinces had availed themselves of

Vocational Education
Jill
the grant for the purpose of what we understand as technical education or vocational training schools. "Technical education," as defined by the department, is as follows:
"Technical education," as defined in section 2 of the act, means and includes any form of vocational, technical or industrial education or instruction approved by agreement between the minister and the government of any province as being necessary or desirable to aid in promoting industry and the mechanical trades, and to increase the earning capacity, efficiency and productive power of those employed therein.


John Livingstone Brown: Does that definition appear in the bill?


Hugh Guthrie: No, that is a definition
made by regulation under the bill, and it is, I think, broad enough to include almost anything that the provinces desire in regard to special training that will promote industry or increase the welfare of any particular class in any province. Experience has shown that there is a good deal of diversity between the various provinces concerning what they desire to teach. In the past the wishes of the various provinces have been met in this respect. The federal department which has had charge of the administration of this fund has, I think, in every case been able to come to agreeable terms with the provincial authorities, so that there has been no clash, no hitch, no disagreement as to the application of the grants that were made to the different provinces, while the act of 1919 remained in force. The extent to which advantage has been taken in the various provinces of that enactment has been marked. It may be interesting to know, if I can give it in brief form, just what has been accomplished in that respect. For instance, in the report made to the department on June 30, 1930, we find that the attendance at the vocational school classes in Canada amounted last year to 127,873, while the total attendance in 1919, when the act came into force, was 60,546. During that period the attendance at those classes has been doubled and as divided amongst the provinces, the showing is particularly good. The number of pupils attending these classes in the different provinces is as follows:
British Columbia	 11,778
Alberta	 4,844
Saskatchewan	 2,845
Manitoba	 6,984
Quebec	 19,893
Ontario	 57,321
New Brunswick	 3,158
Nova Scotia	 6,725
Prince Edward Island	 1,094
Or a total of 127,873 attending these special courses or classes.


Charles Marcil: I understand these pupils
all atend these schools in the large cities or towns, but I should like to know the present policy of the government. Do they intend to come to an arrangement with the provinces whereby the benefits of this legislation may be extended to the rural districts? In Quebec we have industries in Montreal, Quebec, Sherbrooke, Three Rivers and so on, but in the rural districts the vocations are limited to farming, fishing, lumbering. Is any of this grant to be extended to the rural parts?


Hugh Guthrie: I fancy that if any province concerned were to make a reasonable proposal for any special section of its territory or in regard to any special class of its people, it would be favourably considered if it were for the purpose of vocational education or training. My attention has been drawn to the fact that without exception the provinces have endorsed this scheme and have asked for these grants in a definite way. Letters have, been received during the present year,1 bin at the meeting that was convened in Ottawa by the government of my right hon. friend in 1927, all the provinces were represented and all the resolutions passed there were tcu the same effect, commending the system as' inaugurated by the government of the Dominion of Canada, commending the operation of the plan in the various provinces and asking for renewals of the grants. At that time of course they were in some doubt whether the act would be renewed or not, but the scheme has so far been commended by all the provinces. If they desire any special treatment or arrangements of their grants or to apply them in any particular way which still brings them, within the general scope of the term "vocational training" or "technical education," there will not be the slightest difficulty in having the money applied in the way the provinces desire.


Mr. RHODES:: With respect to the question just submitted by the hon. member for Bonaventure, as I understand it there never has been any limitation imposed as to the method employed by the several provinces so long as they come within the terms of the act. Speaking for Nova Scotia, a very important branch of the system there is the conducting of schools in the far-flung sections of the province through the correspondence school section of the provincial technical education college, and there is no reason in the world, so far as I understand it, why the same method could not be employed in the province from which my hon. friend comes..
Vocational Education


Mr. HEENAN:: I take it for granted that the government contemplate making similar agreements under the act to the ones now in existence. If so, the Dominion government will have very little to say as to where the schools shall be established. The provincial law will obtain in that regard, and the provinces require the municipalities, through their taxation, to take the initial step. I take it that that is right.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that is correct.


Peter Heenan: So my hon. friend from Bonaventure is right in saying that schools would not 'be established in the isolated rural districts unless the province makes arrangements to that effect. Take, for instance, towns like Ken ora or Fort Frances; they are probably three hundred miles away from a large city, yet they are the centre of a large and important section of the country. The young men and the young women from that part of the country would of necessity have to travel as far as Fort William in order to obtain the benefit of technical education. I was wondering if the minister would not think it advisable to make provision in the agreements to be entered into with the provinces to assist those distant localities to a greater extent, so that the benefits of technical -education will not all be concentrated in large cities like Fort William, Winnipeg, Toronto ;and Montreal. I think the point raised by my hon. friend from Bonaventure is very well taken. It is one that I was going to suggest to the minister, and I commend it tp him because the people in the distant rural parts -this is the least important factor-are paying their share of the cost of technical education through taxation, yet they are unable to secure any of the benefits of it because of the fact that they live in scattered rural districts, where taxation is already very high. Kenora, with a population of 8,000 thought of establishing a 'technical school, but when the Ontario government sent their inspector up there to inquire into the situation, they determined that the school would hardly fit in with the taxation of the town and everything else connected with it. I would suggest to the minister that it might be well to take into consideration ways and means of assisting these localities through the agreements. As the agreements read at the present time-I have a copy of them here-we have very little to say except in the matetr of assisting the provinces with a grant. They themselves determine where the technical schools shall be established, and they spend the grant that we give them.
JMr. Rhodes.]


Hugh Guthrie: That is the principle of
the act, that this government does not carry' on the work of education. It supplies the money, and the province works out all the details. I should have thought that as good a town as Kenora, with 8.000 people would probably have some kind of vocational school now. I think it ought to have, but that is a matter for the residents of Kenora and the government of the province. It would be fatal to the whole scheme if this government were to start to intimate what should be done and what should not be done. That should be left exclusively to the provinces and the municipalities concerned.


John Livingstone Brown: How will the existing
agreements extended up to 1934 be affected under this legislation?


Hugh Guthrie: They will not be adversely affected. The provinces will receive the amounts to which they are entitled notwithstanding this legislation. The legislation of 1929 had application only in respect of unexpended money's under the former vote The amount unexpended at the present time is 81,152,165.26.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: What is it by provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: The table I have here
shows the amounts available for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1930, as follows:
British Columbia	$ 68,563 73
Alberta	
21,779	82Saskatchewan	
695,054	99Manitoba	
528,340	07Quebec	
125,302	35Ontario	New Brunswick	
106,768	60Nova Scotia	
363,067	89Prince Edward Island	
126,522	07
Those amounts have been further reduced by pay'ments since March 31, 1930. The total amount on hand on March 31, 1931, was $1,230,715.58. There are only' five provinces now entitled to anything, as follows:
Saskatchewan	$436,259	15Manitoba	
448,177	12New Brunswick	
4,791	68Nova Scotia	
267,873	20Prince Edward Island	
73,614	43


John Livingstone Brown: With the inclusion of agricultural training in the definition of vocational training, the provinces will be enabled more quickly to take advantage of the grant?


Hugh Guthrie: I expect they will.


Peter John Veniot: They cannot take advantage of the amount unexpended for agricultural instruction. The minister meant under this bill?

Vocational Education


Hugh Guthrie: Except in the case of
Prince Edward Island, but as far as this bill is concerned all of the grant can be expended, if they so desire, for agricultural instruction.


Peter John Veniot: Saskatchewan has an unexpended balance of $436,000 over a period of eleven years, Manitoba an unexpended balance of $448,000 over a period of eleven years, and Nova Scotia, which the Minister of Fisheries said was taking such advantage of the grants and desired to have them continued, has an unexpended balance of $267,000 over a period of eleven years. There is proof positive that those three provinces at least are not so very anxious that these amounts be voted to them, because they have not been taking advantage of the amounts hitherto available. Here we have over $1,000,000 in three provinces unexpended after eleven years' operation of the act, and in order to give them further time to take'advantage of the grant we had in 1929 to extend for a further five years the term during which the unexpended balance might be spent. Two years afterwards we find that Saskatchewan has reduced its unexpended balance by only $200,000, and Manitoba has reduced its unexpended balance by less than $80,000, and Nova Scotia has reduced its unexpended balance by only $93,000. Yet we are told that these provinces are appealing to the government to vote this $750,000 a year for fifteen years. The facts as laid before the committee by the hon. Minister of Justice certainly do not show that Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia are anxious to take advantage of even what has been granted to theta since 1919.


John Livingstone Brown: Unless the act of 1929 be
amended to allow the unappropriated balance to be spent on agricultural training, I am afraid the western provinces will not be able to take very much advantage of this legislation. Is it possible for the Minister of Justice to take that course?


Hugh Guthrie: I would have to have
some request from the province before any arrangement of that kind could be made. All the provinces have approved the scheme. Speaking for myself, I may say that if Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta desired to divert any considerable amount of the unexpended balance still due them, and they made representations to that effect, I think it. might be very favourably considered. They have not made such representations.


John Livingstone Brown: Does the minister mean
that all the provinces have approved the scheme within recent times, or is he referring to the general approval given as far back as 1927?


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, no, within the last
few months.


Peter John Veniot: Do I understand the
minister to say that should Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta or even Nova Scotia, wish to divert the unexpended balances for agricultural purposes, the proposal would be favourably considered?


Hugh Guthrie: If the provinces asked
for such diversion.


Peter John Veniot: You could not grant that
diversion.


Hugh Guthrie: I could, by an amendment to the bill. But that is what was suggested by my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown); he asked me if we would consider an amendment to the bill for that purpose. I said no, unless the provinces themselves take the initiative in the matter.


John Livingstone Brown: I think there can be no
question of the attitude of the western provinces in regard to the matter. Would it not be possible to amend the legislation in that way so that the provinces can take advantage of it?


Hugh Guthrie: No request has been received in that respect yet, and I do not know whether my hon. friend speaks for all the western provinces or not.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: What is the total amount *that Manitoba has received under the scheme introduced in 1919?


Hugh Guthrie: The total amount we
have paid Manitoba for the ten years from 1919 to 1927 is $191,406.49.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: What is still unappropriated?


Hugh Guthrie: The unexpended balance
amounts to $448,177.12.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: My contention is that
the province of Manitoba, for which I spoke, has received only $191,000 in ten years out of a total of around $700,000. Unless the western provinces use the unexpended balance under the aat of 1919 for agricultural purposes, I do not see how they are ever going to spend the $448,000, to say nothing of the money to be voted under this legislation. I desire to impress on the minister that if he is going to give the western provinces any grant for education, he should certainly not put any strings on it because those provinces are going to have the hardest time of their life keeping their primary schools open, and I doubt if all of them will open this fall.
Vocational Education


Charles Marcil: The greatest problem we have in Canada to-day is to keep our people on the land. The majority now live in the towns and cities. It was not so in former years. The riding I have the honour to represent is 300 miles from the nearest city, Quebec. The young people scattered over this riding, 250 miles long, have to leave home and go either to Quebec or to Montreal, and many go to the United States to get this education. Under section 4 the federal government is authorized to come to an agreement with the provinces. Would it not 'be possible for the minister to give a very valuable service to the rural districts by making the grant conditional on the provinces extending the benefit of this education to the rural districts? I am not speaking merely for my own constituency, but for the rural districts generally. The minister will realize what an immense service he would render to the whole of Canada by adopting my suggestion.


Hugh Guthrie: I may state quite candidly to my hon. friend that if he means the money should 'be applied to primary education or to ordinary scholastic training in rural districts, that is not the purpose of this bill. Its purpose is to provide vocational and technical training.


Charles Marcil: Supposing a farmer's son wants to remain on the farm and to learn something connected with agriculture?


Hugh Guthrie: Agricultural courses might be provided at the agricultural colleges; but for primary education this grant is not intended.


John Livingstone Brown: I am quite satisfied that the scheme would be much more useful in Manitoba if agricultural .training were included1. Would it be possible to have two agreements running side by side? For instance, take [DOT] Manitoba, would it be possible for the province to make an agreement with this government to get a part of the fund applied to agricultural education, so the twlo agreements might run side by side?


Hugh Guthrie: An agreement was made in 1929 which continues for five years; that is not in any way involved in the present bill. That was a restricted agreement under the former act, under which I do not think agricultural education would be included. But a new agreement now will be made, if this bill is passed, and in the new agreement it will be possible to divert to the purposes of agriculture such portion of the money as the governments of the provinces may desire.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Of the unexpended
money?


Hugh Guthrie: No, that is subject to the agreement made by the former government, which I suppose will be carried out.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Has there been any request from the province of Manitoba to include agricultural expenditures in connection with the agreement made in 1929?


Hugh Guthrie: For the unexpended
balance? No, none has come to my notice.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: That was done for Prince Edward Island?


Hugh Guthrie: That was done because of the report of the commission on maritime rights.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I should like to suggest one point to the minister. I notice that the amount which would come to Alberta would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $45,000 per year. The technical institutions, I think, are wholly in two of the cities, but in all the rural districts the pupils are taught practical agriculture, and to some extent text books are supplied on this subject. Would the minister consider an arrangement by which text books or supplies used for teaching practical agriculture in rural schools could be paid for out of this money?


Hugh Guthrie: If it is technical agriculture, properly so called, and it is requested by the province, under the present act there will be no difficulty in arranging to supply those books out of this money.


Michael Luchkovich: I think the allocation of this money in the rural districts would be a matter for the Department of Education of the province.


Hugh Guthrie: And the municipalities.


Michael Luchkovich: Yes. At the present time they teach only a little theory; very little practical work is done, so that it would be difficult to allocate any sum to the boys and girls taking up technical subjects in the public schools. I understand this grant is handed over to the province for technical education, and if they have a school in Edmonton or in Calgary naturally a certain portion of the money goes to that school. Is that it?


Hugh Guthrie: The money is handed to the provincial government under the terms of an agreement, and it is expended by the provincial government as that government sees fit, in compliance with the terms of the agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.
Bill reported.

Vocational Education
Mr. GUTHRIE moved the third reading of the bill.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on tlie second reading of the bill my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) in closing the debate, said he would not have spoken but for the remarks of the leader of the opposition. May I say that I had no intention of speaking on the third reading, but I am doing so now in virtue of the speech made by the Minister of Justice.
In his speech my hon. friend repeated what he had previously said anti what after the quotations I gave this afternoon from his own speeches I thought perhaps he would correct when he came to speak to-night. His statement was to the effect that I had been responsible for killing his motion at the time it was introduced. I think even to my hon. friend himself it is now quite clear that his first motion was killed by himself; for in the speech he made in the house on a subsequent occasion with regard to it he said that his own words had not been effective. enough to convince the house. But with regard to the second motion, so that there may be no possibility of any quibbling about the matter, my hon. friend said that unfortunately my motion, as Minister of Labour, was made to kill his motion. In other words, he repeated what he previously said, that in 1909 when I moved the adjournment of the debate it was to kill his motion.


Hugh Guthrie: It had that effect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said this
afternoon that my purpose in moving the adjournment of the debate was to enable the government to make progress in appointing a commission, and that the whole purpose was to get the consent of the governments of the provinces so that there would be no question of jurisdiction raised to embarrass the work of the commission, and to get the commission appointed at the earliest possible date. Now I wish to repeat what my hon. friend then said with respect to my motion for adjournment, in order to show what -was his view at that time, and I would ask the committee to judge for themselves whether these words sound as though my motion, in his estimation, was killing his motion. I refer to page 1096 of Hansard for December 6, 1909:
As mover of the resolution I may say a word on the motion to adjourn. After dealing with the question somewhat fully this afternoon, and endeavouring to impress upon the government the propriety of the motion, and also the expediency of appointing a commission forthwith, I hardly think it would be consistent for me now to vote for the postponement of my own motion. However, I accept in absolute
good faith the statement made by the Minister of Labour in asking for an adjournment of this debate in order to give the government further time to consider the question. If I thought there was the slightest foundation for the statement of the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) ....
Who, by the way, had said that the motion was in order to sidetrack the whole matter. Then my hon. friend goes on to say:
.... I would be the more inclined to press the matter with all the resources at my command. But I accept the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Labour, and the positive assurance given to this house by the Minister of Finance that the government does feel in sympathy with the main purpose of this resolution, but requires further time for consideration.
Then a little later on he said:
However, as I feel satisfied that the government has evidently the intention of going ahead on this matter and desires only time for consideration, I do not ask anyone to support what may be my vote if a division is taken.
Those are my hon. friend's words in reference to two persons, myself, and the late Right Hon. W. S. Fielding, who is no longer here to speak for himself. I propose to say a word on my own behalf, and I also propose to say a word with respect to the late Right Hon. Mr. Fielding, who is no longer in this parliament to answer my hon. friend. With regard to myself, and to show that my motion was simply to enable the government of the day to get some information that we might proceed with the speedy appointment of a commission, my hon. friend said:
However, I accept in absolute good faith the statement made by the Minister of Labour in asking for an adjournment of this debate in order to give the government further time to consider the question.
When my hon. friend said he accepted my w-ord in absolute good faith he was speaking as one gentleman to another, in the presence of gentlemen in the House of Commons. He was doing more than that; he was then, as he described himself this evening, a humble member of parliament speaking to a minister of the 'crown. To-day he is speaking as a minister of the crown to a humble member of the opposition, and what my hon. friend in 1909 said he was prepared to accept in good faith as a gentleman, and as a member of the House of Commons, to-day as a minister of the crown he says is a matter of bad faith. I am sorry for the changes the years have brought in the attitude of my hon. friend. I thought the present Minister of Justice was a man of his word; I thought that the present Minister of Justice, when he said to anyone, "I will accept your statement in good faith", would, so long as he
Vocational Education

lived, remain true to his word. I can only regret that hereafter I shall not be able to feel that, when Minister of Justice in the government of another party, he was as true to his word as he was when a humble member of the. Liberal party.
May I say a word on behalf of the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding? The present Minister of Justice has brought into this debate the name of a gentleman than which none is more honoured in the parliament of Canada. The hon. member has cited Mr. Fielding because of his known integrity, because of the type of man he was, a gentleman whose word he knew would weigh with all hon. members of this House of Commons. This evening he has given to the house, from the speech made by Mr. Fielding in 1909, certain citations which he says confirm the view that my motion made in that year was intended to kill his and that what was being done by the government in 1919 was in furtherance of the original intention of the Laurier administration, and that this original intention was not to gather information as I have said. Let me read what the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding said, and let me lend to his words the added emphasis of one who is not here to speak for himself but whose name is revered even by the present Minister 'of Justice. This is what Mr. Fielding said, as reported in Hansard of December 6, page 1089:
I must take exception entirely to the observation of an hon. gentleman opposite, that the motion to adjourn is a motion to side-track this resolution.
That was what Mr. Fielding said regarding the comment that had been made by Doctor Reid, who was member for Grenville, that the motion was to sidetrack the resolution. The Minister of Justice tried to convey to the house to-night the impression that in Mr. Fielding's opinion there was an attempt through my motion to sidetrack the resolution, and these are the words of Mr. Fielding:
I must take exception entirely to the observation of an hon. gentleman opposite, that the motion to adjourn is a motion to side-track this resolution; and while I propose to vote for the motion to adjourn, I do so on altogether a different ground. After the discussion we have had. after the abundance of information brought before the house, showing the great need of this movement in Canada, it would indeed be strange if nothing further should be done. We are 'all of the opinion that something should be done, and the only question is what is the better way of doing it.
Then further on:
I am going to vote for the adjournment of the debate, not for the purpose of sidetracking

the matter, but that we may have further opportunity of considering, not the wisdom of doing something, but the best way in which to do it.
And finally:
I do so in order that we may have the opportunity of considering further' what is the best way to aid a movement which seems to have received the favour of the whole house.
I do not believe there is a single member who will not accept, verbatim et literatim, every word uttered by the late Mr. Fielding at that time. I could wish for the Minister of Justice that when he has passed away, and when his words are being quoted in this parliament in years to come, they might be received as unreservedly as the words of Mr. Fielding have been accepted by himself.
I was a little over generous when I said a moment ago to my hon. friend that the letter which I sent out immediately after the debate in question was dated December 30. I find fiat the letter was sent on December 13, the 30th being the date of one of the replies. That was not as he said a year or so after my hon. friend's motion was voted down. My hon. friend made his speech in the House of Commons on December 6. He knows, as hon. gentlemen do, all that is involved in departmental correspondence, the preparation of communications, and so on. I ask whether much time was lost in carrying out the promise of the then administration given by myself as Minister of Labour to take steps immediately to appoint a commission. That promise was made on December 6, 1909, and on December 13, 1909, the following letter was sent to each of the premiers of the different provinces:
Department of Labour, Canada.
Ottawa, December 13, 1909. Dear Sir:	_	...
The Dominion government is considering the advisability of appointing a royal commission to inquire into the needs and present equipment of the Dominion as respects industrial training and technical education, and into the systems and methods of technical instruction _ obtaining in other countries, particularly in Great Britain, France, Germany and the _ United States. It is intended that the commission shall he solely for the purpose of gathering information, the information when obtained to be published in a suitable report to be at the disposal of the provinces and available for general distribution.
I may say that the view of the government is that a commission of the kind suggested might render valuable services to the _ Dominion as a whole, since it would be m a position to conduct an inquiry on a wider and more comprehensive scale than might be considered desirable or possible in _ the ease of the different provinces, and which if undertaken by the provinces individually must lead inevitably to the duplication and reduplication of energy and expense.

Vocational Education
It is recognized, however, that the work of such a commission, to be of national service, should have the hearty endorsation of the governments of the several provinces of the Dominion, and I am. therefore, writing to ask if the appointment by the federal authorities of a commission of the character and scope suggested would meet with the approval of your government, and to inquire, in particular, inasmuch as some doubt has bean expressed on the point, whether exception to such a course would be taken on any ground of jurisdiction.
Yours faithfully,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
Then the replies came from the different premiers. I read some of them this afternoon, but inasmuch as my hon. friend this evening sought to have the committee believe that I was stating something that was not correct, when I said that the original purpose of the commission was solely that of gathering information, that tha.t was the ground on which the commission was appointed, let me read again a paragraph or two from some of the replies. Here is a communication from Sir James Whitney:
Office of the Prime Minister and President of the Council, Ontario
Toronto, December 16, 1909. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:
I have your letter of the 13th instant.
I understand the object of the proposed commission, to inquire into the needs and present equipment of the Dominion as respects training and technical education and into the system of methods for technical instruction obtaining in other countries, will be solely for the purpose of gathering information. This being so, I see no objection to the creation of the commission, and no exception will be taken to it on the part of the province of Ontario.
Yours very truly,
J. P. Whitney.
I will give one other letter-reference to others will be found in the speech I made this afternon on the second reading. This letter is from the premier of the province of Quebec. It will be seen that I have taken the two largest and most important provinces.
Office of tlie Prime Minister, Province of Quebec
Quebec, December- 30, 1909. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir:
I have submitted to my colleagues of the executive council the letter you were kind enough to write to me on the 13th inst., asking me whether the government of the province of Quebec would approve the appointment by the federal authorities of a commission to make an
investigation concerning technical instruction in this country.
We are of the opinion, my colleagues and myself, that anything pertaining to public education-whether the subject be special teaching or general teaching-belongs to the provinces exclusively, and I want to write you so, in order that there may be no misunderstanding on that point. As, on the other hand, you give me the assurance that the federal authorities, in instituting a commission of investigation, would simply do it with a view to help the provincial governments, by having collected information which they would later on put at the disposal of the latter, we see no objection to the appointment of such a commission.
Please accept, sir, the expression of my highest regard.
Lomer Gouin,
Prime Minister.
These letters I have quoted will show the reason for my repeated statement that the original intention in appointing the commission was solely that it should gather information to be placed at the disposal of the provinces, so that there should be no question of invasion by the Dominion of provincial jurisdiction in the matter of education. Having been responsible for the appointment of the commission, I have ever since felt responsible to the provinces for maintaining the position which I then took. I have before me a copy of the order in council which covered the appointment of the commission. It reads:
Certified copy of a report of the committee of the privy council approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 1st June, 1910.
Let me direct attention to the date of that recommendation. As hon. members know, while parliament is in session ministers find it very difficult to arrange the personnel of commissions and the like. The last replies received from the different provinces came in around January or February, and in May of the same year, as Minister of Labour I made my recommendation to the cabinet for the appointment of the commission. The order in council reads as follows:
On a memorandum dated May 28, 1910, from the Minister of Labour stating that industrial efficiency is all important to the development of the Dominion and to the promotion of the home and foreign trade in competition with other nations-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are functions of
the Dominion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is why I was citing them. It was my duty as Minister of Labour to state why the Dominion government should appoint a commission to inquire into this matter. May I read again without interruption?
Vocational Education


Richard Bedford Bennett: I extend my regrets for
having interrupted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure my right Iron, friend meant no impoliteness, but three very insulting interruptions occurred this afternoon from the other side of the house. As my right hon. friend leads the house I have a right to expect him to set an example to his followers. That is why I took exception to his interruption. I do not believe the Prime Minister meant anything discourteous, but the interruptions this afternoon were most discourteous; they were entirely uncalled for and insolent; I venture to say the Prime Minister would not have supported them. I take the position in this parliament that while speaking in opposition I am as much entitled to a respectful hearing as is the Prime Minister, and I will look to you, Mr. Speaker, to see that during the rest of the sessions of this parliament a fair hearing is given to myself and to all hon. members on this side of the house. If we cannot get that hearing in the parliament of Canada, we will be heard somewhere else. The order in council reads:
Certified copy of a report of the committee of the privy council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 1st June, 1910.	,
On a memorandum dated May 28, 1910, from the Minister of Labour, stating that industrial efficiency is all important to the development of the Dominion and to the promotion of the home and foreign trade of Canada in competition with other nations and can be best promoted by the adoption in Canada of the most advanced systems and methods of industrial training and technical education.
May I ask, Mr. Speaker, that order be maintained in the chamber?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Hon. members will kindly desist from loud conversation while the right hon. gentleman is speaking.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The order in
council continues:
The minister further states that the premiers of the several provinces of the Dominion have expressed on behalf of the governments of their respective provinces, approval of the appointment bv the federal authorities of a Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education.	.
The minister recommends that authority be granted for the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the needs and present equipment of the Dominion as respects industrial training and technical education, and into the systems and methods of technical instruction obtaining in other countries; the said commission to be appointed pursuant to vote No. 477 of the supplementary estimates for the fiscal period ending March 31, 1910, and to consist of the following gentlemen, viz.:-

James W. Robertson, Esq., C.M.G., LL.D., of Montreal. Que., Chairman.
Hon. John N. Armstrong, Esq., of North Sydney, N.S.
George Bryce, Esq., LL.D., F.R.S.C., of Winnipeg, Man.
M. Gaspard DeSerres, of Montreal, Que. Gilbert M. Murray, Esq., B.A., of Toronto, Ont.
David Forsyth, Esq., M.A., of Berlin, Ont. James Simpson, Esq., of Toronto, Ont.
The minister further recommends that the said commissioners be instructed and empowered to pursue their investigations at such localities as may appear necessary, in the Dominion of Canada, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the United States of America, France, Germany, and, subject to the approval of the minister, elsewhere on the continent of Europe; also that the purpose of the commission shall be that of gathering information, the information when obtained to be carefully compiled, and together with such recommendations as it may seem expedient to the commission to make, published in a suitable report to be at the disposal of the provinces and available for general distribution.
The minister further recommends that the commissioners be appointed under the provisions of the statute respecting inquiries concerning public matters, and report the results of their investigations together with their recommendations to the Minister of Labour.
The minister further recommends that Mr. Thomas Bengough, of Toronto, be appointed secretary and reporter to the said commission. The committee submit the same for approval.
(Sgd.) F. K. Bennetts,
Asst. Clerk of the Privy Council.
That is the story. On December 6, the government of the day promised that it would take immediate steps to appoint a commission, but it desired first to communicate with the premiers of the different provinces to make sure that no question of jurisdiction would be raised. On December 13, 1909, communications were sent to the premiers of the provinces and replies were received during the balance of that year and extending into the next. One was dated Victoria, January 15, which would reach Ottawa the latter part of the month. On March 13, 1910, an amount appeared in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1910, as an appropriation for the commission. That amount was not included in the estimates for the following year but in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1910. This was done so that the commission could ibe speedily appointed. The recommendation to the council was made by the Minister of Labour on May 28, 1910, and the authority for the appointment was dated June 1, 1910.
The commission then started on its duties and visited different parts of this country.

Vocational Education
It made several interim reports but it was not until 1913 that the final report came in. My hon. friend has said that they acted on the final report the next year, but let me read what the commission said.


Hugh Guthrie: I said that the government of which I was a member took action in 1919.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In 1919 the
government took action upon the report which had been brought in in 1913. Let me read one paragraph of the report, as follows:
The commission recommends that the sum of $3,000,000 be provided annually for a period of ten years by the parliament of Canada and paid annually into a Dominion development fund.
Did the government of the day aot on that recommendation? Instead of acting on it and making an annual grant of $3,000,000 for ten years, it passed an act to provide for the annual payment of $1,000,000 spread over a period of ten years. It gave less than one-third of the amount suggested by the commission as being necessary as a development fund.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend must not forget that a war had occurred in the meantime.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: There was a
war in the meantime and ever since this country has been endeavouring to pay for that war but has not succeeded. While that war was proceeding every dollar of the finances required on war account was money borrowed by the government then in office, and it was left to subsequent governments to meet the expenses. We have to-day a condition in this country which, considered from the point of view of its possible effect upon trade and industry, is almost as serious as periods of war have been in different countries at different times. We have at the present time a condition in Canada to meet which the Prime Minister intends to announce to-morrow night, I do not know what measure of relief. I shall be very much surprised if this parliament is not asked to vote some such sum as $50,000,000, $75,000,000 or $100,000,000 to relieve the present situation. Many men and women have no work, they have no food to eat, some no clothing to wear, and are unable to pay their bills. Is this a time for the government to be asking the people to spend additional amounts of money in grants to the provinces, when, as has been pointed out to-night, some of the provinces have not been able to use the total amount of grants that have been
made to them; when in addition to that, municipality after municipality has been communicating to the provinces its inability to carry the burden resulting from the provinces passing on to the municipalities the raising of amounts equivalent to some of the grants which the Dominion has furnished for certain purposes? I am as strongly in favour of promoting technical education and vocational training and I have done as much in regard to getting industrial training developed as any other man in the country. I was responsible for the appointment of the commission the report of which lies at the basis of this whole matter. I was the one who brought into parliament the recommendation for the appointment of a commission to study the question of technical education when the present Minister of Justice says himself that he could not have his voice heard in the matter of getting support for his proposals. This commission made its report and my hon. friend tells us to-night that on the basis of this report the governments of the day have since acted. Yet he would seek to deny the administration of which I was a member any credit for any part in this matter, and particularly in regard to myself he would seek to make out that I had killed his motion, citing in a manner wholly misleading in support of his statement the words of one who is no longer here to speak for himself. I do not wonder hon. gentlemen opposite sigh. After all, there are some things that are befitting even in parliamentary debate.
When this afternoon I spoke on the second reading I pointed out that within the last two years this very parliament of which we are members at the present time will have voted -if we include what is in the estimates today, has already passed the house and will shortly receive His Excellency's assent-the sum of $1,000,000 for industrial research work, which is part of the technical education work of the country, to be given to the industrial research council that was not in existence at the time the technical education act was first passed. May I point out that in addition to that the house will have voted within the past two years something approaching another $3,000,000 for the construction in this very' city of Ottawa of the finest research laboratory on the continent; that this house has voted another $750,000 for further research work in connection with the Department of Mines. According to the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) the other evening the national research council itself has been awarding scholarships to
Vocational Education

young men and women throughout the country to go into the universities, technical colleges and elsewhere in order to qualify as experts in matters of industrial and technical research. I have supported all these measures, and been 'largely responsible for some of them. I have pointed this out to make clear that I am not opposing any aid to industrial and technical education. I have shown that inside two years something like $5,000,000 has been voted for this purpose. This measure calls now in addition for the expenditure of a sum of $750,000 a year for a period of fifteen years.
Surely these are things of which account ought to be taken, and I again appeal to the ministry, although I know my words will not he harkened to, to consider whether the time has not come when we ought to call the provinces into conference to find out, where there is any doubt, what services should be carried on by the provinces, what services should be carried on by the Dominion, what is a fair adjustment of financial arrangements between them, what are the sources of revenue and taxation for each of them to have. If as a result of that conference it is decided that the British North America Act should be amended so that the federal parliament shall take over in its entirety the work of industrial and technical education in all parts of Canada, -1 shall be prepared to support a recommendation of that kind. If, on the other hand, it is decided that the provinces shall do the work of vocational training and that the Dominion government shall do that of higher industrial research work of the type in which the universities are engaged, I shall be prepared to support that. If it is decided that the Dominion should take over tihe old age pensions scheme and administer it in its entirety, I shall support that gladly and I say here and now that is what I think ought to be immediately done. If, further, it is decided with respect to unemployment and other matters there is to be a division whereby the Dominion will assume certain Obligations and the provinces other obligations, I shall be prepared to consider favourably recommendations that are made along those lines.
What I submit, howeveT, is this; whether we have made mistakes in the past-and I was frank enough the other evening to say that with respect to some of those grants I did make the mistake of countenancing contributions to the provinces, but I thought experience had shown that was not wise

if as a result of a conference of that kind, we come to the conclusion that these different grants should not be continued, but that larger subsidies should be given to the

provinces; that the provinces should be allowed certain fields of taxation which are not used by them at the present time, I shall be prepared to consider all these things on their merits. The constitution of this country was framed by men who gave the matter very serious thought, who were very careful in outlining respective spheres of action for the provinces and the Dominion, and who showed, that by making provision for the adjustment of accounts through subsidies,, they felt that any money that went from the federal treasury should go to the provinces to be dealt with by the provinces as they might deem best, -but not that provincial jurisdiction should be invaded by the Dominion nor that the Dominion should seek to put pressure on' the provinces.
The Minister of Justice said the other day that this legislation would give more power to the provinces, and he supported it on that ground. Is not that an extraordinary position for the Minister of Justice of the federal government to take? More power to the provinces where federal finances are involved means less power to the Dominion. The-Minister of Justice is here to maintain the power of the Dominion. One thing which we as members of the federal House of Commons have to safeguard is the rights of the Dominion. In this house many speeches have been made, to which no exception can be taken in any particular, about the needs of provinces and what the provinces should do; but this is the parliament in which to discuss the needs and taxation of the Dominion, and this is -the place where primarily matters of federal and not of provincial obligation must be settled.
May I conclude with this word: I remember very well when in 1916 this parliament was discussing the question whether it w-ould without sanction of the electorate extend the term of parliament for one year, when under the constitution it had not the -authority so to do. I was not a member of parliament at the time, but I was in very close association with the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier who honoured me with his confidence in matters -of the kind, and I know something of the discussions which took place. I remember very well Sir WTlfrid Laurier saying at that time: Once wre trifle with the constitution and seek to do things which by the constitution were never intended, we put profane hands upon the ark of the covenant and no one can say how far the resultant injury is likely to extend. That is a very sound doctrine. If the constitution is not right, amend it; make it as it should be; but as

long as we have a constitution setting forth certain powers for the Dominion and certain powers for the provinces, we shall not err very much but will rather be doing our duty as members of the federal parliament if we adhere to that constitution in spirit as well as in letter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. Ill, to amend the customs tariff.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: All the sections, Mr. Chairman, have been considered in committee on the resolutions. They have been very carefully compared and reprinted, and I think they are wholly in order.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 4-Powers of governor in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice that one of the principal changes in this section is the adding of the words "from time to time" in various places. May I ask my right hon. friend whether those words either add to or take from the previous section in any material particular?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of them add to; others are as they were. This makes them uniform and confers upon the governor in council the power from time to time to exercise the authority mentioned, namely, to extend or withdraw the British preference or intermediate tariff, as the case may be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend to indicate the sections that give additional power to the governor in council?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (h) the underlined words "from time to time" are new; in paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) the words were already there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me understand this. I would gather that for purposes of uniformity the insertion of the words may have some advantage, but do the sections as sections of a statute change in any particular the powers that are given by the act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The words "from time to time" were added to make dear what had been taken to be an inference of law from the
Customs Tariff
language, to remove any doubt with respect to the matter. Paragraph (e) of section 4 is new, giving the governor in council power from time to time to extend to any British country the benefit of rates of customs duties more favourable than those of the British preferential tariff.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is very desirable, I think.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The next paragraph, it will be observed, is the complement of that, and paragraphs (g) and (h) are really complementary, the one authorizing the granting of an extension, and the other its withdrawal.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Undervaluation.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I trust that the committee observes that midway in the section are the words "under the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1925, the said special duty shall not exceed 15 per cent ad valorem in any case." That will not apply when the new treaty comes into force, but it is left in because if anything should happen by which that treaty did not come into' force we would be without the provision to which the hon. member for Sherbrooke referred last night, namely the dumping provision.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the Australian treaty come into force when it is passed by Australia?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It comes into force on proclamation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Fish caught in Canadian vessels to be free.
Peter John Veniot: Is that sufficiently clear,
"domiciled in Canada?"


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Gloucester will remember that when the resolutions were before the committee some discussion took place with respect to this matter. It is as clear as under the circumstances it can be made, having regard to the difficulties of Canadian nationality and matters cognate thereto as explained by the Secretary of State. It will be observed that it says, "Fish caught by fishermen in vessels registered in Canada." That is the first thing. Then it says, "or owned by any person domiciled in. Canada."
[DOT]1122
Customs Tariff


Peter John Veniot: Although registered elsewhere; that is what it means?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. That is as clear as it was thought desirable to put it having regard to the conditions referred to when the resolutions were before the house.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
On the schedules:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I promised my hon. friends opposite that ample opportunity would be afforded on the schedules for discussion, and I suggested last night that if they desired to discuss the September legislation they might do so now or later, as they preferred. We will proceed with the schedule and they may speak at the end of it or as they may be advised.
Customs tariff-76. Seeds, viz.: Cauliflower, celery, onion, pepper and tomato, when in packages weighing more than one pound each, per pound: British preferential tariff, free: intermediate tariff, 25 cents; general tariff, 25 cents.
The first change is No. 76, page 14. It will be observed that in 76d the word "celery" is the third word. It is a typographical change. The hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) will move the amendment. It has been checked up very carefully.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move:
That item 76 be amended by striking thereout the word "celery."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-184e. Magazines in which the advertising matter does not exceed twenty per centum of tile total space: general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The next item is 184c. During the discussion the other day in committee the question was raised as to the sufficiency of the language to make clear that religious, educational, scientific philanthropic, agricultural, labour or fraternal publications should be free. This amendment will make it abundantly clear:
Magazines maintained by and in tile interests of religious, educational, scientific, philanthropic, agricultural, labour or fraternal organizations or associations not organized for profit and none of the net income of which inures for the benefit of any private individual.
Those are the words used in other countries, and we have followed them here, so that no

question will arise as to the reciprocal character of our operations. I was struck with the way in which the question was put the other day; hence this takes the place of the language employed.
Mr. RHODES; I move the amendment accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-184d. Periodicals or portions of newspapers consisting largely of fiction and/ or feature stories or articles and/or comic supplements, per pound:	general tariff, 15
cents.
Provided, that the duty under this tariff item shall be not less than per copy: general tariff, 15 cents.
Provided, that nothing in tariff items 184, 184a, 184b, 184c or 184d shall affect in any way the provisions of item 1201 of schedule C to the customs tariff.
Provided, further, that the governor in council may make such regulations as are deemed necessary to carry out the provisions of tariff items 184, 184a, 184b, 184c and 184d.
Provided, further, that the rates of duty specified in tariff items 184b and 184d shall be effective on and after the first day of September, 1931.
Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to this item it is proposed that after the words "September, 1931," the following words be added:
-except as regards the portions of newspapers, ineludig comic supplements, referred to in tariff item 184d, in respect of which newspapers and/or supplements the rates of duty specified in said item shall become effective upon proclamation by the governor in council.
I need hardly point out to the committee that possibly some members knew what had not clearly been made known before, that there are contracts outstanding in these matters, the breaking of which would very seriously embarrass financially the people who are parties to the contracts, and in addition (he effect would be to establish a monopoly in Canada with respect to some of these comic supplements about which I spoke the other day. The only way in which it can be met involves the consideration of very complex problems, some of a postal character and some otherwise. So it is proposed to defer operation of that portion of item 184c until proclamation by the governor in council.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment accordingly.


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

Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-438d. Horns, distributors, instrument board lamps, oil gauges, gasoline gauges, thermostats, oil filters, carburetors, purifiers for oil, purifiers for air, annular ball bearings and parts thereof, lock washers, speedometers and parts thereof, vacuum tanks, composite gaskets of copper and asbestos, steering wheels_ and rims therefor, one piece welded axle housings, machined or not, instrument bezel assemblies, dash heat indicators, electric ignition locks, cylinder lock barrels and keys, bearing spring shackles and automatic radiator shutter assemblies, ammeters, radiator shells, body cowls and body stampings of metal, including front, rear, side, door and seat stampings, not welded or riveted, nor further manufactured than as stampings, all of a class or kind not made in Canada, when imported by manufacturers of goods enumerated in tariff items 438a, 438b, 438c and 438e for use only as original equipment in the manufacture of motor vehicles enumerated in tariff items 438a, 438b and 438c: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The next item is 438d. It is only a question of making clear a matter about which the persons concerned think there might be some doubt. If the committee will be good enough to turn to page 20 and look at the fifteenth line from the bottom they will find these words:
-body stampings of metal, including front, rear, side door and seat stampings, not welded or ri vetted, nor further manufactured than as stampings, all of a class or kind not made in Canada.
The trade were fearful that a wrong construction might be placed upon these words, because it was only intended to meet cases in which stampings were not further manufactured than welded or rivetted for shipping purposes. In order that that may be cleared up the item will read now as follows:
438d. Horns, distributors, instrument board lamps, oil gauges, gasoline gauges, thermostats, oil filters, carburetors, purifiers for oil, purifiers for air, annular ball bearings and parts thereof, lock washers, speedometers and parts thereof, vacuum tanks, composite gaskets of copper and asbestos, steering wheels and rims therefor, one piece welded axle housings, machined or not, instrument bezel assemblies, dash heat indicators. electric ignition locks, cylinder lock barrels and keys, bearing spring shackles and automatic radiator shutter assemblies, ammeters. radiator shells, body cowls, and body stamping of metal, including front, rear, side and door stampings, not further manufactured than welded or rivetted for shipping purposes, all of a class or kind not made in Canada, when imported by manufacturers of goods enumerated in tariff items 438a, 438b, 438e and 438e for use only as original equipment in the manufacture of motor vehicles enumerated in tariff items 438a, 438b, and 438c.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I so move.


Mr. EULER:: Are these necessarily of metal?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, they are all of metal.


Mr. YOUNG:: Mr. Chairman, the other night when we were dealing with items 438 and 438a I made a statement to the effect that whenever the minister under the. authority of an order in council-which order in council would be issued under the authority of t)he customs act passed at the special session-placed an arbitrary valuation on goods for duty purposes, the valuation invariably would be above the invoice value, that this always tended to induce the importer to pay a higher price for the goods to the foreign producer than he would otherwise pay, and that if he did not do so the customs department would impose a fine on him in the form of a dumping duty equal to the excess price he might pay. I stated further that the importer because of that condition would always be tempted to pay a foreign manufacturer more than was necessary, thus transferring to the coffers of foreign producers money that otherwise might come into the treasury of the Dominion. I mentioned automobiles. The minister at the time informed me that that could not happen. My purpose in speaking to-night is to show that it can happen, tlhat it does happen, and that it is inevitable that it should happen.
It will be recalled that in 1922 the government of the day passed an amendment to the customs act known as 47a. That amendment gave the minister power to place an arbitrary valuation on natural products coming into the country, which valuation should be the value for duty. That amendment remained a dead letter on the statute books until 1926, when my hon. friends opposite were in power. They enforced the act; they passed an order in council giving the minister power to place this arbitrary valuation ' on certain natural products.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Fruits and vegetables.
Mr. Y'OUNG: Yes, fruits and vegetables. Not only did the minister fix this valuation and thereby increase the duty, but the officials of the department took that arbitrary valuation as a basis for accusing the importer of dumping, and they added the dumping duty. When we discovered that this was being done we protested to the departmental officials. They insisted on their right to charge that dumping duty; we insisted they had no such right, until finally they consented to appeal to the Department of Justice for an opinion. The Department of Justice declared they had no right to impose a dumping duty because of the arbitrary valuation which had been placed on the article. In spite of that they continued for a time to

Customs Tariff

collect that dumping duty until finally an appeal was taken to the governor in council and the orders in council were rescinded.
Matters remained in that state until the September session of the present parliament, when amendments were passed to the Customs Act which gave the minister power to place an arbitrary valuation not only on natural products but on almost anything coming into this country, such valuation to be the value for duty. Those were the amendments to the Customs Act, and having done that an amendment was passed to the customs tariff. That is section 6 of the customs tariff, which was the dumping clause, and I wish to read that section as it was amended last fall:
In the case of articles exported to Canada of a class or kind made or produced in Canada, if the export or actual selling price to an importer in Canada is less than the fair market value of the same article when sold for home consumption in the usual and ordinary course in the country whence exported to Canada at the time of its exportation to Canada, or is less than the fair market value or value for duty thereof as determined under the provisions of section thirty-six of the Customs Act, or is less than the fair market value thereof as fixed by the governor in council under the provisions of section thirty-seven of the Customs Act, or is less than the value for duty thereof as determined by the minister under the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (e) of section forty-one of the Customs Act, or is less than the fair market value thereof as fixed by the minister under the provisions of section forty-three of the Customs Act, there shall, in addition to the duties otherwise established, be levied, collected and paid on such article, on its importation into Canada, a special or dumping duty, equal to the difference between the said selling price of the article for export and the said fair market value thereof or value for duty thereof; and such special or dumping duty shall be levied, collected and paid on such article although it is not otherwise dutiable.
This is the meaning of that amendment: Where the minister has exercised his power of fixing a value for duty on almost any goods-since the power goes that far now- if that value is higher than the price the man actually paid for the goods then the man shall be charged a dumping duty .equal to the difference between the price so fixed by the minister and the price he pays. The other day my contention was that the man was thereby tempted to pay a higher price to the foreign canufacturer, with whom very often he is friendly, rather than pay the dumping duty, and that the effect of this legislation is to force Canadians to pay higher prices to foreign producers than those producers receive from their own people, and higher prices than it is necessary for the Canadian to pay. The minister said such

a thing could not happen, but I have here three letters which I think will convince him that it not only can but does happen. Here is a letter from the Edgerton Manufacturing Company, Plymouth, Indiana, who I believe manufacture baskets for packing fruit. The letter is addressed to the Norfolk Fruit Growers' Association of Simcoe, Ontario, and the paragraph I desire to read is as follows:
You may be interested in knowing that the freight rate on the cars we shipped you during the 1930 season averaged 17-6 cents per dozen packages. This amount added to the price of $1.80 per dozen as fixed by the Dominion government would result in a cost to you of $1-976 per dozen without taking into consideration the duty. The action of the Dominion government would increase your delivered price approximately 25 cents per dozen and, likewise, would result in a profit to us of about 20 cents per dozen higher than that which we enjoy on sales made in the states. We feel that our profit on Canadian business should be approximately the same as that received in connection with business done in the states.
Here is a firm which frankly states that because of the action of the customs department they are compelled to charge Canadians 20 cents a dozen more than they charge Americans for the same goods. I also have a letter from the Western Cartridge Company of East Alton, Illinois, dated May 6, 1931:
On January 3rd this year we reduced ammunition prices to all of our customers in the United States by 10 per cent, and we extended the same discount at the same time to our customers in Canada. The Canadian commissioner of customs has refused to accept this extra discount of 10 per cent on shipments of our goods into Canada, and has threatened to charge dumping duty against our goods so invoiced; and, based on this decision of the commissioner, we have been obliged to withdraw these reduced prices from our Canadian customers and are now invoicing them at a price 10 per cent higher than we charge any of our domestic jobbing trade. This additional 10 per cent is, of course, in the last analysis, paid by the consumer of Western ammunition in the Dominion, and we regard it as distinctly unfair to him and his interests.
We have been told that the commissioner's decision was based on a brief presented to the Dominion government in Ottawa by the Dominion Cartridge Company, in which brief they indicated their reasons for protesting the reduction in price of American-made ammunition. We should like to obtain a copy of this Dominion Cartridge Company brief as presented to the government, in order to be in a position to present, if advisable, our answer to it.
I might say that I asked for a copy of that brief in order that we might find out vhat the cartridge company asked for and whether or not their claims were proper and sound, but the government saw fit not to grant that request.

Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: To whom is that letter
addressed?


Edward James Young: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: It is disturbing to find the hon. gentleman so inaccurate. The first case, the Edgerton case, is one in which the goods were being sold at less than cost of production, and the minister had nothing to do with it. It is covered by a statute of this parliament. That statute was not enacted by this government; in the form to which I have directed attention it has existed for many years. When it is suggested that the dumping duty was treated in the manner indicated, I recall that when the Minister of Customs of that day, Mr. Bureau, introduced the legislation in question he indicated that the dumping duty would apply, and it was subsequently discovered, as the hon. gentleman knows, that that was not the case. But inasmuch as it was the intention of parliament that it should, when this government did legislate it legislated to give effect to the intention of parliament as Mr. Bureau had then stated it, and as parliament understood it, although it was opposed by my hon. friends opposite and to the right, and supported by the Conservative party of that day. So that the legislation as it now stands means exactly what the Minister of Customs of that day said it was intended that it should mean, and what it was regarded as meaning. Now keeping that in mind and the fact that the Johnson case-the fruit baskets-is one that oomes within the letter of the law and in which the minister had nothing to do with fixing either values or prices, but which automatically involved the application of the duties to which the hon. gentleman has referred, I think he will agree with me that that passes out of the picture. That is No. 1. No. 2, the cartridge case, considerably intrigued me when I heard my hon. friend refer to it the other day. I took the trouble to investigate it. The truth is that that American cartridge company for whom apparently the gentleman named has 'been so solicitous was selling cartridges in this country at what was represented to be a price less than cost of production.
Mr. Y'OUNG: By whom was it so represented?


Richard Bedford Bennett: By the manufacturers of cartridges and by others in this country, the merchants who were dealing in Canadian-made products in competition with the American product. The result was that the minister directed an investigation tr be held-not the
Customs Tariff

minister but the administrative 'branch of the Department of National Revenue. I need hardly point out to so well-informed a gentleman as my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) that these investigations are being held continuously. Investigations are proceeding every day of the year with respect to this much-vexed question of the prices at which goods are being sold, thereby displacing Canadian goods in our markets. This is nothing new. It is not the caprice of a minister; it is a well-established principle of our customs law. Nor has it been in force only since a new government came into being; it was in force during the long years from 1896 to 1911. In fact, it was during those years that it developed, because during the years of the war very little attention was paid to that sort of thing. But since then, with the lowering of currencies in continental Europe, with costs of production fluctuating as they did, it became essential to apply this statute to which I have just referred, based as it is upon the domestic cost and the selling price of the commodity in the country of origin. Bearing that in mind, I am sure the hon. gentleman will realize that there is nothing new in investigations being carried on. In this case the order was issued that pending investigation certain rates of duty should be applied, which involved, of course, the application of the clauses of the statute to which the hon. gentleman has just referred. The result of the investigations was unfavourable to the importer. The dumping duty was removed and the circular went to the customs houses accordingly. Thus vanishes case No. 2. Case No. 3 will also vanish when I tell the hon. gentleman that the automobile interests concerned have decided to establish agencies for the sale of their product in Canada. They have done so, and up to the present time there is no evidence that the conditions to which the hon. gentleman has called attention prevail.
Now I wish to tell the hon. gentleman the principle upon which this administrative action was taken. In a falling market, with surplus production, dealers will offer their commodities for export consumption at a discount which they will not accord to their home consumers. A few months ago my attention was drawn to a particular case in which a Canadian merchant in the city of New York inquired the price at which he could secure silk hose. He was told the price; it was the domestic price. He was then asked where they were to be sold and he replied, in Canada; whereupon a much lower price was quoted. Now to meet that situation is not always easy. On the
IMr. Bennett.]
one hand the ultimate consumer says, "I should be permitted to acquire these goods at the lowest possible price, and if I am fortunate enough, because of surplus production, to acquire that surplus at a lower price than prevails in the country of production, that is all to my advantage." On the other hand, there is the class of Canadian who believes that you cannot maintain industry without variety; for variety is essential to national development. The population cannot all be fishermen or lumbermen or wheat growers; and if variety is necessary there must foe some stability in our industrial life. That stability is predicated upon a fair return to the producer, whoever ho may be. We should try to see that the farmer, who is the ultimate creator of most of our wealth, receives a fair return. We should try to have the lumberman and the miner, or anyone else engaged in any form of industry, given a fair return. If he does not get a fair return bankruptcy is inevitable; for no man should be in business without some profit, whether it be farming or lumbering or mining or anything else. Under these circumstances I think the committee will agree that some action had to be taken by this country. You could not deal by legislation with every specific case as it arose, and I may assure the committee that the action taken last fall was not taken without much consideration. I leave it to the committee, as I have left it on other occasions, to say how otherwise the situation could be met. A tariff would meet it within bounds, but to meet the extreme cases which I have put to the committee would involve a tariff so high as to make it ridiculous; it would amount in some instances to several hundred per cent. On the other hand I think it is fair to say that notwithstanding occasional outbursts to the contrary there is no hon. member of the committee who does not believe in a tariff of some kind. Certainly I do not think there is any hon. member in my sight who does.
The extent of the tariff depends on what you are endeavouring to do with it. If you seek to use a tariff merely for exploitation, to use the word "protection" in the large sense in which it is sometimes used, then you are wrong. If it is used to give the Canadian an even chance with those who are trying to take his market away from him, then I submit, as I have so often done, that no man properly can urge anything against it. We have endeavoured to meet the class of case where a reasonable rate of tariff fails to accomplish the purpose aimed at, where free-

Customs Tariff
dom of trade is impossible. We have been compelled to put a value for duty purposes upon that commodity in order that there may be some sort of protection to the Canadian engaged in that industry.
I shall not take up the time of the committee in explaining again the circumstances under which we fixed the rate of discount upon motor cars. It was bound to work some hardship on those who were willing to give any rate of discount in order to get rid of their product. If a man is quoting a rate of discount far beyond what may be regarded as reasonable, something should be done to protect the Canadian against such a practice. We fixed 20 per cent as the arbitrary rate of discount which should be allowed with respect to importations. I agree with the hon. member for Weyburn that in some instances higher discounts have been quoted, but a decision has to be made and a line has to be drawn. I think it is regarded by those who have studied the question that the rate we decided on is a fair one. I regret that at the present time most businesses are not making money; at any rate we fixed it at 20 per cent. I appreciate the point raised by the hon. member, but I think he will be able to ascertain that those who are interested have' established Canadian selling agencies to meet the situation. The effect of the new tariff on the higher priced cars may be such as to prove a strong case for an increase of the discount, but that matter will have to be considered on its merits. This is all I have to say regarding the three cases presented to the house by the hon. member. I think he will agree that two have disappeared entirely, and in respect to the third, the producer in the foreign country has met the situation by providing selling agencies in Canada.
Mr. Y'OUNG: I am not as much alarmed as my right hon. friend over imports at a time when most of our people cannot buy the clothing they need, the boots and shoes they need, the fuel they need or the hundred and one other things they require. I think it little short of a crime that they should be denied the opportunity to buy those things where they can.


Mr. MORAND:: Why can they not buy
them?


Edward James Young: Largely because of the
tariff. -


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Because they have no
work and have no money.


Edward James Young: And one of the principal reasons why they have no work is the tariff.


An hon. MEMBER:: If it were not for the tariff there would not be any work.


Edward James Young: I am not alarmed at these things coming into the country. The more goods that come into the country, the more goods will be available for the use of our people. However, if our people were to be given the opportunity to get these goods for nothing, my right hon. friend would not allow them to come in. If our neighbours to the south offered to feed us, clothe us and house us for nothing, the right hon. gentleman would not have it.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: That would be dumping.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Our self .respect probably would rebel.


Edward James Young: We get the sunlight free and we do not rebel against that.


James Dew Chaplin: There is no dumping there.


Edward James Young: No country is going to send goods in here for nothing. When we take the goods that are sent in we must produce others to send out to pay for them, so that the more goods we take the more employment there will be at home to produce the goods with which to make payment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward James Young: My hon. friends may laugh, but let one of them get up and disprove that statement. I am delighted to learn that the one instance has been eliminated, that an investigation was made and it was discovered that the charge that these people were dumping cartridges was unfounded and the dump duty is not being collected.
Speaking about baskets, my right hon. friend tells the committee that they were being sold at less than cost. I do not know whether or not his investigators were accurate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The cost to the domestic consumer in the country of origin.


Edward James Young: This company was selling these baskets in the United States, the country of production, at the same price as they were selling them to us. The American government was quite willing that that company should go on and operate, whether at a profit or loss. However, our government, taking a benevolent interest in the American manufacturer, say to him: You are not making enough profit, so you must charge Canadians more in order to make more profit. Can you conceive of anything more ridiculous.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No
Customs Tariff


Edward James Young: The tariff law of this country is 'being set up and enforced for the sole purpose of guaranteeing profits to American manufacturers. Can you conceive of anything quite so ridiculous?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edward James Young: Hon. members cannot, neither can I.


Mr. PORTEOUS:: Did not the hon. member give his support to the Dunning budget?


Edward James Young: There were no dumping
duties in the Dunning budget. What I am referring to is the amendments to the tariff which wrere not touched by the Dunning budget.


Victor Clarence Porteous: The hon. member is talking as a free trader; he never talked as a free trader when a member of the government.


Edward James Young: The hon. member was not here at the time, so he does not know what I talked about.


An hon. MEMBER:: But he is going to be here for a long time.


Edward James Young: With regard to automobiles, my right hon. friend says that the difficulty has been overcome by the American manufacturers establishing agencies in Canada. That may be true as applied to automobiles, but every exporter of goods to this country cannot establish agencies here. A manufacturer of a small article cannot come over here and establish selling agencies in order to function in such a way as to escape the duty. The only remedy is to amend the act so that this cannot occur.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, it is not my desire to delay the committee, but one point has been brought out in the debate, especially in the remarks of the hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Young), to which I would like to refer. I think the committee is aware that I have no objection to a reasonable dumping law; in fact I applied it myself when I was at the head of the department. I do not intend to deal with the application of the dump where goods are brought into Canada to be sold at less than the cost of production, but I should like to refer to what might be termed a typical case, that of automibiles. I am speaking of the importation of automobiles at normal prices and in normal times, not in times of over-production or slaughter conditions in the country of origin. As explained by the hon. member for Weyburn and referred to by myself the other day, suppose an automobile is invoiced at a list price of $1,000. With a bona fide discount of

30 per cent the car will be billed at $700 net to the dealer in Canada. But the Dominion government or the Department of National Revenue has decided that the fixed discount for purposes of duty shall be only 20 per cent. That means that the discount allowable for duty purposes is only $200 although the actual discount to the Canadian dealer is $300. In other words, although the price at which the automobile enters Canada is really $700, the Department of National Revenue applies the tariff on the sum of $800. That makes the duty higher. I have no fault to find with the fixing of the discount at 20 per cent, but it seems to me that it is going far enough to collect an additional duty on the extra $100, the result of the reduction of the discount from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. The point I want to make particularly is that made by the hon. member for Weyburn. It surely would be a pity if the Canadian dealer, in order to escape paying the dumping duty of $100, the difference between the actual price of $700 and the amount of $800 fixed by the department as the value for duty were to pay that extra $100 to the United States dealer, who does not really want it because he is getting sufficient profit when he sells the car at $700. Surely some other means could be found to serve the purpose the government has in view. The Minister of Finance says that what is suggested does not happen; that the United States automobile manufacturers will overcome that by establishing their own branches in Canada. That may be true in a practical sense.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean sales branches.


William Daum Euler: The dumping duty of which I have spoken may never have been applied; I do not know. But I doubt whether every automobile manufacturer in the United States would or could establish or find it worth while to establish his own branch in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I meant was not manufacturing branches but sales branches.


William Daum Euler: I understand. The manufacturer in the United States must of necessity be the proprietor of that branch and, I suppose, take a loss in his Canadian branch because he can only get a 30 per cent discount by establishing his own branch.
The same principle will apply not only to automobiles bu,t to any other commodity. In September last 'the government did two things affecting the importation of automobiles. By order in council they gave authority to the Minister of National Revenue to fix any value for duty on any commodity

Customs Tariff
imported, and on automobiles they fixed the discount at 20 per cent. I think the minister will agree that if in regard not only to automobiles but to other commodities as well that heavy dumping duty is charged as a result of fixing an arbitrary value, it will indeed be unfortunate, particularly if the money goes into the pocket of the foreign manufacturer rather than into the treasury of Canada. It occurs to me, that since the government have taken the power to fix values they might say this: We will fix values of automobiles, if you like, at such a sum that when the regular tariff rate is applied it will serve our purpose without our having to apply the dumping duty. I was going to make this suggestion for the consideration of the minister, that where an arbitrary value has already been fixed at a point sufficiently high for all practical purposes, the dumping duty should not apply. That would avoid all possibility of those moneys going into the pockets of the United States manufacturer rather than into the Dominion treasury, and would at the same time serve the purpose of protecting the Canadian manufacturer of automobiles or of any other commodity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend remembers the difficulty he had in dealing with fruits and vegetables, a difficulty which he overcame practically by utilizing the dumping duty-although he called it by another name. Fruits and vegetables cannot be successfully dealt with unless recourse is had to the principle involved in the dumping duty. What the hon. member has said relates to a matter that has seriously engaged the attention of the government, as to just how it can be met and made of universal application, which is what one should endeavour to attain. Except in the manner I have indicated, we have not yet been able to discover a more suitable method.


William Daum Euler: I quite appreciate the difficulties that arise in the administration of the act-


Richard Bedford Bennett: These are emergent conditions.


William Daum Euler: -but there should be no great difficulty-if there is an emergency or if it is desired to give protection without raising the tariff rate-in fixing the value at such a figure that the purpose will 'be served without the necessity of applying that excessive- for it is excessive-dumping duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Automobiles happen to be a commodity in regard to which there are serious difficulties, because they are charged on a list price, and you cannot very well fix for duty, as you can in connection with other commodities, a price at variance with the list price. My hon. friend is quite familiar with the difficulty, and I do not in any sense minimize it. But I know of no method of universal application of dealing with it except that which I indicated last fall, again a few days ago, and again to-night.


Edward James Young: The Minister of Finance
spoke of United States manufacturers of automobiles establishing their own sales agencies in Canada. I suppose when they did that they dismissed all their Canadian agents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was for the purpose
of giving them employment, according to the letters they gave -to me. Many of them owned agencies here anyway through stock control, and they said they wanted to continue their organizations. They did not care to drop the Canadian market with all that was involved and to permit the organizations which they had built up during the years to perish simply because we are living in times of great economic stress. Two or three sent communications of that kind.


Edward James Young: I refer to a Canadian dealer in automobiles having the agency for two or three makes in the United States. Was he notified that his services would no longer be required because they were now going to open branches of their own?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Owing to the date the
duties become effective it is thought desirable to adopt the language in connection with the duty payments that was adopted by the late Mr. Fielding in 1906, which is the standard clause. The one originally in the bill was one of ten years previous. The amendment I desire to have moved is to meet the situation as it is to-day.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move to substitute the
following for subsection 5 on page 27 of the bill:
5. This act shall be deemed to have come into force on the second day of June, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the preceding sections imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that date and to have applied to goods previously imported for consumption for which no entry for consumption was made before that date.
Customs Tariff

Provided, that goods which were imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption, and on which duty was paid, on and after the second day of June, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, in accordance with the rates of duty set forth as payable on such goods in the resolutions respecting the customs tariff introduced in the House of Commons on the first day of the said month, shall not be subject to further payment of duty, by reason of such rate of duty having been increased by any resolution introduced subsequent to that in accordance with which such duty was paid.
' Amendment agreed to.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the schedules
carry, as amended?
Schedules as amended, agreed to on division.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: There is one item in
connection with the tariff schedules of last September on which I wish to speak. Will an opportunity be given for that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will defer the third
reading to afford my hon. friend the opportunity.


Peter Heenan: I move to amend the bill by adding the following as section 18:
The governor in council may direct from time to time that any industry, the products of which receive protection under this act, 9hall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the governor in council that freedom of association for employees for all lawful purposes is permitted in the operation of such industry, and that the hours of labour and rates of wages are observed consistent with the provisions of the labour pairt of the treaty of Versailles concluded at Paris, France, on June 28, 1919.
I discussed this amendment on a previous occasion and I will not discuss it further tonight.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I stated previously
to the committee, inasmuch as the tariff board is authorized to deal with these matters this bill is not the place for such an amendment, and we cannot accept it as an amendment to this measure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The tariff
board gets a chance to deal with it only if the Minister of Finance asks them so to do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the same as this. The governor in council has to do it, and that is the minister.


Peter Heenan: Of course, I am not in
a position to have the amendment carried if the Prime Minister says no. I wish, however, to discuss it briefly on the third reading.
I would ask the Prime Minister if he has not some statement to make to clear up a misunderstanding in connection with a state-

ment I made in the house when I quoted from a paper called Labor, printed in Washington. I have copies of certain correspondence in connection with the matter, and I would ask the Prime Minister if he wishes to make a statement with respect to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no statement to
make. I merely read the memorandum that was submitted to me.


Peter Heenan: I mean a statement in
rebuttal from a Canadian source.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I received a letter this
morning from the president of the company enclosing a letter from Washington dealing with the matter, the details of which I do not carry in my head at the moment.
Amendment (Mr. Heenan) negatived, on division.
Bill reported.


Thomas Reid: Will an opportunity be given
to discuss the tariff items of last September?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I promised that facilities would be afforded hon. gentlemen to discuss the September items. I thought they were going to do it to-night. I thought that was what the hon. member for Weyburn was doing. I understand, however, that the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) desires to add to the gaiety of nations by a few observations on one item, and that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) also desires to speak, so on the third reading that opportunity could be afforded if that is satisfactory to hon. gentlemen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That will
furnish the opportunity that is desired with regard to this measure?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, only this, of course


Mr. NEILL:: There would not be opportunity for debate on the third reading?
Mr, BENNETT:	If I had known that an
opportunity for debate was desired I would have left the bill in committee, but it has now been reported and the amendments have been concurred in.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister has spoken about giving an opportunity to discuss certain items of the tariff of last September. When that opportunity is afforded, might not these other matters be also discussed?

Criminal Code


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no objection. I tried to explain. The committee will realize that it is not my fault because I did state twice that hon. gentlemen had an opportunity to speak this evening, and I thought they had carried out their intention to speak. I see, however, that I did them an injustice. I suggest that on one of the items in the estimates of the Minister of Finance facilities be afforded for unlimited speech, just as long as hon. gentlemen desire to continue it. I agree to that, if it is satisfactory to my hon. friends.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, July 24, 1931.