1931-06-08

QUESTIONS

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

*Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What firms and persons imported butter from, (a) New Zealand, and (b) Australia, in May, June and July, 1930?
2.	What quantity was imported by each firm and person?


Mr. BENNETT:: It is not customary to
give the names of firms who import goods into this country. This has never been done; it has always been held as something that should not be done inasmuch as it is private business. In making this answer, I am but following the practice which has heretofore obtained in all departments.


Mr. POULIOT:: I am always satisfied with the answers of the right hon. gentleman, provided he says something.
Question dropped.


PACIFIC SALVAGE COMPANY
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	Was a contract recently awarded to the Pacific Salvage Company by the Vancouver board of harbour commissioners for dredging in the vicinity of Lapointe pier, Vancouver?
2.	Were tenders called for?
3.	Did the contract go to the lowest tenderer?
4.	Were the fair wage clause and the hours of labour clause observed in connection with this work?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The following answers have been furnished by the Vancouver harbour commissioners:
1.	Yes.

2.	Bids were invited
3.	The lowest bid accepted.
4.	Fair wage clause in contract


TAXATION OF INDIANS
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	Has the government received a request from the government of British Columbia in regard to taxing Indians employed in industry in that province?
2.	Have any protests been received?
3.	Will the government see that the rights of Indians as the wards of the parliament of Canada are safeguarded?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.


TUBERCULIN TEST FOR CATTLE
Mr. GOULET:: 1.	On what dates did the Department of Agriculture start to submit cattle to the tuberculin test: (a) in the township of Cambridge, county of Russell, (b) in the township of Russell, county of Russell?
2.	On what dates, in each of these townships, was the test interrupted or started again, and at whose request?
3.	For what reasons was said test interrupted?
4.	Did Mr. C. A. Seguin, member of the legislative assembly, ask the department to discontinue said test, and what reasons did he give for the interruption or discontinuance of same?
5.	How many residents of these two townships submitted their cattle to the test, and how many of them refused to submit them to the test?
6.	What is the cost to date of the test in each one of these two townships, and how much did the test cost in the township of Clarence, and the township of Cumberland?
7.	Is the department aware that some of the residents who refused to submit their cattle to the test are now supplying milk for the use of pupils at the provincial government school of Embrun?
8.	Did the department give instructions to have the test completed by the inspection of all cattle (subject to be tested) of these two townships, in compliance with the regulations regarding the establishment of reserve zones?
9.	If not, why?
10.	Will the department require, according to the rules governing the establishment of reserve zones, that the cattle of these two townships be submitted to the test?
11.	If so, when will the department complete this work?


Mr. WEIR (Melifont):: 1.	(a) January 22, 1931; (b) October 16, 1930.
2.	October 16, 1930, testing started in Russell township; November 5, 1930, testing started south of Castor river in Russell township; November 12, 1930, testing stopped south of

Questions
Castor river in Russell township; December 16, 1930, testing started in vicinity of Embrun in Russell township; January 22, 1931, testing started south and east of Nation river in Cambridge township; February 18, 1931, testing started in Cambridge township in vicinity of Limoges. Action was taken alt the request of cattle owners made in some cases by petitions, in others through verbal representations.
3.	At the request of cattle owners in the townships concerned.
4.	Mr. Seguin introduced to the Minister of Agriculture a number of delegations from the affected townships, some of which were opposed to the carrying on of the test, and some of which were in favour of the test being proceeded with at once. Mr. Goulet, M.P., also accompanied a delegation to the department in this connection.
5.	Russell township: 320 herds tested, 42 owners refused test; Cambridge township: 286 herds tested, 4 owners east of South Nation river refused test. No information with respect to balance of township.
6.	Russell township: compensation awarded
to daite, $33,133; Cambridge township: compensation awarded to date, SL.612; Clarence towmship:	compensation awarded to date,
$22,864; Cumberland township: compensation awarded to date, $17,843.
7.	No information.
8.	No.	_
9.	Not considered advisable in view of the opposition of a number of cattle owners.
10.	The matter is Still under consideration.
11.	Answered by No. 10.


MOUNTED POLICE, PRINCE ALBERT
Mr. VALLANCE:: 1.	Were tenders called for for supplying drugs to the mounted police, Prince Albert, during the present year?
2.	If so, who sent in tenders and what was the amount of the tender in each case?
3.	Were all the tenders sent in within the specified time?
4.	Who received the contract?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes, under the following restrictions: For the supply of standard drugs and prescriptions, tenders are to be used on cost, plus a percentage for handling. For the dispensing of prescriptions, tenders were requested on a basis of a fixed price for each of the following quantities: -J-, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 ounces, irrespective of what ingredients are contained in the various prescriptions.
The lowest or any tender not necessarily accepted.
2.	Two tenders received as follows: Duncan's drug store, rate on drugs and medicines 10 per cent on cost; Mitchell's drug store, rate on drugs and medicines 10 per cent on cost.
3.	No. As the total consideration during the year 1930 only amounted to approximately $300, it was decided to ask another drug store to tender, with the view of distributing the business.
4.	The offer of Mitchell's drug store was accepted.


TORONTO FAIRS
Mr. LUCHKO VICH:: 1.	What were the net earnings and profits of the two Toronto fairs?
2.	What were the net earnings and profits of the class A fairs in Canada?
3.	What were the net earnings and profits of the class B fairs in Canada?
4.	What grants are the Toronto fairs now receiving?
5.	What grants are the A class and B class fairs receiving?
6.	Where are the A class and B class fairs situated?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	No information.
2.	No information.
3.	No information.
4.	'Canadian National exhibition, $5,000; Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, $60,000.
5.	"A" class fairs (each), $5,000, regular grant, plus special building grants as follow: Quebec exhibition, $3,000; Ottawa exhibition, $3,500; "B" class fairs (each), $1,500, regular grant.
6.	British Columbia:	"A" Victoria, "A"
Vancouver, "B" Armstrong, "B" Chilliwack; Alberta: "A" Calgary, "A" Edmonton, "B' Camrose, "B" Lethbridge, "B" Red Deer, "B" Vegreville, "B" Vermilion, "B" Stettler; Saskatchewan: "A" Saskatoon, "A" Regina, "B" Lloydminster, "B" Assiniboia, "B" Melfort, "B" North Battleford, "B" Prince Albert, "B" Weyburn, "B" Yorkton, "B" Estevan; Manitoba: "A" Brandon, "B" Portage la Prairie, "B" Dauphin, "B" Carman; Ontario: "A" London, "A" Ottawa, "A" Canadian National Exhibition, Toronto, "B" Peterboro; Quebec: "A" Sherbrooke, "A" Quebec, "A" Three Rivers, "A" Valleyfield, "B" St. Scholastique, "B" Waterloo, "B" Lachute; New Brunswick: "A" Saint John and Fredericton receive each one-half of the aggregate of an "A" grant of $5,000 and a "B" grant of $1,500, "B" Woodstock, "B" Chatham; Nova Scotia, "A" Halifax; Prince Edward Island, "A" Charlottetown.
Note: These grants apply to the fiscal year 1930-31, as no fairs have received grants for the current fiscal year.
Questions


ADVERTISING OF MAIL CONTRACTS
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	In what papers in the province of Quebec are the various calls for tenders of mail contracts advertised by the Post Office Department in said province?
2.	By whom were these papers recommended to the Post Office Department?
3.	What were the papers in which these various calls for tenders by the Post Office Department were published last year up to July 28th?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Le Courrier, Berthierville; The Gleaner, Huntingdon; L'Etoile du Nord, Joliette; I'Echo de Frontenac, Lac Megantic; The Gazette, Louiseville; The Watchman, Lachute; Le Peuple, Montmagny, The Monitor, Montreal; Le Devoir, Montreal; The Gazette, Montreal; The Star, Montreal; Le Petit Journal, Montreal; Le Bulletin des Agricul-teurs, Montreal; L'lllustration, Montreal; The Bulletin, Ormstown; La Semaine Com-merciale, Quebec; Le Franc Parlor, Quebec; Le Journal, Quebec; L'Action Criholique, Quebec; The Chronicle-Telegraph, Quebec; Le Saint-Laurent, Riviere du Loup; The Equity, Shawville; Le Courrier de St. Hya-cinthe, St. Hyacipthe; La Terre de Chez Nous, St. Jerome; Le Guide, Ste. Marie Beauce; Le Canadien, Thetford Mines; Le Drapeau, Trois Rivieres.
2.	By order of the Postmaster General.
3.	The Watchman, Lachute; L'Eclaireur, Beauceville Est; L'Avenir, Beauceville Est.; The Spotlight, Beauceville Est.; Le Progres, Valleyfield; The South Shore Press, St. Lambert; L'Opinion Publique, Grand Mere; The Bulletin, Ormstown; The Gleaner, Huntingdon; Le Courrier du Nord, La Malbaie; Le Progres du Saguenay, Chicoutimi; L'Echo de Frontenac, Lac Megantic; Le Colon, Roberval; LTJnion des Cantons de l'Est, Arthabaska; The Spokeman, Drummond-ville East; Pulp & Paper Magazine, Garden-vale; Journal of Commerce, Gardenvale; Canadian Mining Journal, Gardenvale; L'Action Populaire, Joliette; L'Etoile du Nord, Joliette; Le Quotidien, Levis; L'Hebdomodaire, Levis; La Gazette du Nord, Levis; Le Canadien, Thetford Mines; Le Megantic, Thetford Mines; Le Courrier-Sentinelle, Montmagny; Le Canada, Montreal; Le Moniteur de Commerce, Montreal; La Patrie, Montreal; Le Petit Journal, Montreal; La Presse, Montreal; Golf, Montreal; Le Bulletin, Montreal; The Daily Star, Montreal; The Gazette, Montreal; Le Devoir Montreal; The Herald, Montreal; Le Mederic, Montreal; Le Quartier Latin, Montreal; II Cittadino, Montreal; The Mining News,

Montreal; Canadian Mining Reporter, Montreal; Le Mirroir, Montreal; The Montreal Beacon, Montreal; Canada News, Montreal; Der Kamf, Montreal; The West End News, Westmount; Rouyn News, Rouyn; The Twin City Star, Rouyn; Le Soleil, Quebec; La Semaine Commerciale, Quebec; l'Evenement, Quebec; Le Bulletin de la Ferine, Quebec; Le Beret, Quebec; Le Cri de Quebec, Quebec; The Chronicle-Telegraph, Quebec; Au Grand Air, Lac Edouard; La Courrier de Sorel, Sorel; La Vie Paroissiale, Mont Joli; Le Clairon, St. Hyacinthe; Le Courrier de St. Hyacin-the, St. Hyacinthe; Le Canada Frantjais, St. Jean; Le Journal de Waterloo, Waterloo; Le Revue de Granby, Granby; La Tribune, Sherbrooke ; Daily Record, Sherbrooke; Le Saint-Laurent, Riviere du Loup; L'avenir du Nord, St. Jerome; La Terre de Chez Nous, St. Jerome; L'Echo de St. Maurice, Shawinigan Falls; Le Nouvelliste, Trois Rivieres; The St. Maurice Valley Chronicle, Trois Rivieres; La Gazette de Maniwaki, Maniwaki; La Voix des Bois Francs, St. Justin; L'Etoile de L'Est, Coaticook.


PORT LATOUR BUOY SERVICE
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Have instructions been given that the buoy service at Port LaTour, Shelburne county, is to be taken over by Lewis Crowell on the 2nd July next?
2.	If so, on whose recommendation were such instructions given?
3.	Is it not the custom to put such services up for tender ?
4.	Was this practice followed in this case?
5.	At what rate of pay is Lewis Crowell to perform the service?
6.	Has he entered into any contract; if so, will a copy of the contract be produced with the answer to this question?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: Questions

term of this contract desires to consider a call made by the said department for new tenders.
(10)	The contractor shall transfer as directed at the termination of the contract the entire number of buoys, their moorings and fittings in good condition, or make good any loss or deficiency.
(10a) Should the contractor not transfer at the termination of the contract all the wooden buoys and their moorings in good condition the cost of supplying, renewing or repairing any of such buoys or their moorings then missing or unfit for service will be deducted from any portion of the contract price due the contractor.
(11)	The said Minister shall have the option of renewing the contract for a further term of three years at the contract rate.
(12)	The acceptance of this tender by the said department will constitute a contract for the faithful performance of the work.
In witness whereof the contractor hath set his hand:
(Contractor sign here in the presence of a witness.)
(Sgd) Lewis Crowell
P.O. address:
Port La Tour
Witness's signature:
(Sgd) J. H. Nickerson
Dated May 13th, 1931.
(Do not write in this space).
Accepted on behalf of the Department of Marine, Canada.
(.Sped) J. G. Macphail, Commissioner of Lights.
Witness's signature:
(Sgd) C. Macdonald
Ottawa, Canada.
fred Roger Latour, Hector Richer, Allan McGregor, Sam Grant, Wm. Stanley Smith, James Morgan Lewis; four other returned soldiers tried the examinations, but 'two secured employment elsewhere and were unable to accept enumerator's positions, and two failed on the examinations; (b) Ten of the returned soldiers employed were without work of any kind; one had prospects of temporary employment after enumeration.
4.	Fdfity-ithree.
5.	Thirty-one.
6.	(a) Four widows are employed as enumerators, two with families and two supporting themselves:	Mrs. Mary Rurns, Mrs. Ada
Flawes, Mrs. Mabel McKibbon, Mrs. Florence McMullen; (b) dependent children.
7.	Six married women are enumerators whose husbands are out of work. Forty single men and women with dependents are enumerating.


KEMPT ROAD HILL, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Did Mr. Gagnon, advocate, of Rimouski,
hold an investigation into the Kempt Road Hill post office, Bonaventure county, Quebec, and what was the result?	,
2.	If the postmaster has been dismissed, who was appointed in his stead, and on whose recommendation ?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


OTTAWA CENSUS ENUMERATORS
Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Who appointed the census enumerators for the city of Ottawa?
2.	U.pon whose recommendation were they so appointed?
3.	How many of the appointees a.re returned soldiers, and: (a) what are their names; and (b) how many were out of work at the time of such appointment?
4.	How many of the men appointees were civilians out of work at the time of their appointment?
5.	How many are married men with dependents and in need of said work?
6.	How many among the women appointed are widows with dependents, and (a) what are their names: (b) what is the relationship between those dependents and the appointee in each case?
7.	How many are married women whose husbands are living and out of work?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1 and 2. The hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce, upon written examination of applicants.
3.	Eleven, as follows:	(a) Strachan F.
Wright, Walter Gilliis, W. I. Thrope, Jerrold Leonard Avard, Norman Eldred Cahoon, Wil-



ESCUMINAC MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. MARGIL:: 1.	To whom was the contract for the carrying of the mail between Escuminae and Escuminac North, Bonaventure county, Quebec, granted, and at what price?
2.	Who were the tenderers, and what was the amount of each tender?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Abraham Flanagan at S255 per annum.
2.	John MoNeil, S255 per annum; Abraham Flanagan, $256 per annum; John Forbes, $275 per annum.



RIVIERE DU LOUP WHARF

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	When were the last soundings taken at the northeast end of the wharf at Riviere du Loup, Quebec?
2.	Were those soundings taken before or after dredging ivas done there in the fall of 1929?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	October 30, 1929.
2.	After.

Questions as Orders for Returns



GRANDBOIS, QUE., POST OFFICE

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What salary is paid to Felix Tardif as postmaster of a post office on the 8th and 9th back settlement of the township of Viger, in the county of Temiseouata?
2.	What is the name of that post office?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	$109.
2.	Grandlbois.



PUBLIC WORKS IN QUEBEC

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What was the original amount of tender sent by each tenderer to the Department of Public Works in 1930 for works: (a) at Mont Louis, Quebec; (b) at Ruisseau-a-la-Loutre, Quebec; and (c) at St. Iloch des Aulnaies, Quebec?
2.	What tender was accepted in each case?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1. (a)-
Total as per unit prices quoted in form of
tender
John J. Leblanc and Capt. J.
A- Allard	
$27,049	60Dumont & Damours, Enrg..	..	28,590	40Ludger Lemieux Limitee	
28,590	40J. J. Lederc	
30,987	20Charles H. Nadeau	
31,072	80J. Antonio Landry	
31,672	00Arthur Nadeau	
32,442	40Lewis Maloney & Alfred Maloney.	35,010 40J. E. Dussault & A. Guay	$11,277	50J. A. Landry	
13,352	56Bouchard & Rouleau	
13,538	00Dumont & Damours Enrg..	..	13,583	00J. J. Leclerc	
13'66S	35John J. Leblanc	
13,938	99Ludger Lemieux, Limitee	
14,390	09
(c)-
J- H. Laberge	
$5,789	30Dumont & Damours, Enrg..	..	6,169	80Cloutier & Gaudreau	
6,459	45Onesime & Jos. Poliquin	
6,587	40J. N. Beaulieu & Adrien Journeault	
6,767	54Leclerc & Dube	
7,928	75Caron & Belanger	
7,818	00A. Lizotte	
9,416	34Lebeuf & Dore	
9,894	75La Compagnie de Laiterie..	..	12,104	452.	The lowest in each case.



RIVIERE DU LOUP WHARF-LABOURERS

Mr. POULIOT:: 1. Were the men employed on the Riviere du Loup wharf as foremen, carpenters, and labourers, in 1930, driven to their work?
. 2. If so: (a) by what means of transportation; (bj who drove them?
3.	What bill was presented to the Department of Public Works each month by each one of those who drove the said employees?
4.	What were the taxi, automobile or other conveyance bills approved by the foreman, Mr. Ovide Nadeau?
Mr. STEWART (Leeds);
1.	No information.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No accounts for transportation of men received or paid by the Department of Public Works.
4.	None.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	What are the names of all employees on the payroll of the Vancouver harbour commission during the month of May, 1930, and what was the salary paid each one, either on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis?
2.	What are the names of all employees on the payroll of the Vancouver harbour commission during the month of May, 1931, and wffiat is the salary paid each one, either on a weekly monthly or a yearly basis?


CENSUS ENUMERATORS
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What are the names of the census enumerators appointed for the various places in the counties of Montmorency, Charlevoix, Saguenay and the north shore of the St. Lawrence river?
2.	By whom were they recommended?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. ROSS:: I or a return showing the names, nomenclature of duties and salary of those appointed to Department of Agriculture in years 1929



CAS TALI A, N.B. PREVENTIVE OFFICER

Mr. VENIOT:: [DOT]
For a copy of all correspondence, report of investigation commissioner, with evidence taken, and all other documents, in connection with the dismissal of Hollis Richardson, preventive officer at Castalia, Grand Manan, Charlotte county, New Brunswick.

Unopposed Motions jor Papers



BARRE POSTMASTER

Mr. RHEAUME (for Mr. Boulanger):: For a. copy of all documents in connection with the charge of political partisanship against Absolou Nolet, postmaster at Barre, in the county of Dorchester, and the inquiry which was held in this case.



NORTH BATTLEFORD AGRICULTURAL STATION

Mr. McINTOSH:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, affidavits, investigations, documents and reports received and answered either directly or indirectly by the Minister of Agriculture or any of his officials, or on departmental files before the present Minister of Agriculture assumed responsibility for the department over which he presides, with regard to any recommendation made or conclusion arrived at in connection with the establishment of an agricultural illustration station in the northwestern part of the North Battle-ford federal constituency, either north or south of the Beaver river.



KHEDIVE, SASK., POSTMASTER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. VEiNIOT:
For a copy of all correspondence, reports and evidence in connection with the dismissal of Roy Muerhead, postmaster at Khedive, Saskatchewan.

Mr. BOUCHARD:: For a copy of all letters, copies of letters and communications written by Thomas McCabe, formerly employed on the Trent canal system at Peterborough, and between officers of the Department of Railways and Canals, during the year 1931.



CARLYLE, SASKATCHEWAN, POST OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MicKENZIE (Assiniboia):
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Post Office Department and any person or persons since July 28, 1930, with reference to the post office at Carlyle, Saskatchewan.

Mr. HEENAN:: For a copy of all correspondence between any member of the government and Colonel Webb, mayor of Winnipeg, since July. 1930, regarding the construction of the trans-Canada highway.



LEVIS STATION

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of order in council P.C. 2370, October 8, 1930, regarding orders for addition to station at Levis, Quebec.
[Mr. Veniot.l



MAGDALEN ISLANDS FISHERY INSPECTOR

Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all reports of the fishery inspector of the south district of Magdalen islands, Mr. William Arseneau, regarding prices on seawolves, during the season of 1930, and also a copy of all letters, recommendations, affidavits, and other documents, regarding claim of Frederic Yigneau of Magdalen islands, in connection with bounty on seawolves, during the said season of 1930.



STEAMER AMLA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MaoLEAN:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and requests in any form, passing between the Department of Fisheries or any other department of government, since July 26, 1930, relating to wages of men employed on the steamer Amla, owned by a man named Nordin who is now demanding compensation from the Department of Fisheries.

Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and documents of all kinds, exchanged between any person or persons and the Department of Public Works, relating to the sale of the Telegraph building in Peace River, in 1930.



PEACE RIVER ELECTION OFFICIALS

Donald MacBeth Kennedy: For a return showing the names of all election officials in the Peace River constituency in the general elections of: (a) 1925; (b) 1926; (c) 1930.



QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION DISMISSALS

Mr. POWER:: For a return showing the names, positions held and salaries paid, of all engineers, superintendents, foremen, assistant foremen, inspectors, assistant inspectors, timekeepers, timeeheckers, clerks, storekeepers, assistant storekeepers and watchmen, dismissed by the Quebec harbour commissioners, or by the Northern Construction Company, at the request of the harbour commissioners, during the period from September 1, 1930, to January 1, 1931, together with the names, former occupation and salaries of the persons appointed to the positions made vacant by these dismissals.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in dealing
with a motion such as tihiis one regard will have to be given to the fact that the government is not itself in possession of the information asked for anid to obtain the papers asked for it would be necessary to secure them from the commission itself. We can only consent to the motion passing on the understanding that we would be making such a request and the extent to which it may be complied with would be the extent to which

Motions jor Papers
we will be able to meeit the requirements of the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. YOUNG:: For a copy of all briefs, representations, correspondence and memoranda submitted to the government since July 28, 1930, in regard to tariffs affecting Canadian and foreign publications,


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I intimated the other day that it has not been the practice to bring down papers that are confidential in their character or to deal with the internal operation of enterprises and that principle will have to be adhered to as far as this motion is concerned. So far as it does not contravene that rule there is no reason why it should not be carried.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the motion is out of order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents in the possession of the authorities charged with the administration of farm loans, with regard to applications for loans made by virtue of the Farm Loan Act, in the counties of Montmorency, Charlevoix and Saguenay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This motion is covered
by my observations a few days ago with respect to a similar matter. Obviously the motion is an improper one and should be stricken out.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member is absent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman was here the other day when the others were dropped. This one might as well be stricken out.
Motion dropped.



RIVIERE DU GOUFFRE IMPROVEMENT WORKS

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents, report or reports made by the chief regional engineer of the Canadian National Railways, regarding certain improvement works to be done on the shores of Riviere-du-Gouffre, at Baie St. Paul, in the county of Charlevoix, for the protection of bridge piers, the property of the Canadian National Railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned the other
day that this motion would have to stand until the hon. member wTas present.
Motion stands.
With reference to motions numbers 9 to 42 inclusive and No. 44:


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker,
with regard to the motions standing in the name of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain), these will have to stand until the hon. member is in his place. No dates are mentioned in the motions and I feel that perhaps he might, limit the amount of work involved by stating a date beyond which he does not desire the department. to go in the production of these papers.
Motions numbers 9 to 42 inclusive stand.
Motion number 44 stands.



AUSTRALIAN TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask
the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) a question based upon a headline in this morning's press to the effect that a new pact with Australia has been concluded. My question is this:	Is that information
correct and if so when may we expect the terms of the new treaty to be divulged to the house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, all official
statements in connection with the Australian treaty will be made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in the course of a few days.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):	Mr. Speaker, arising out of a telegram which I hold in my hand, I would like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) or the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) a question. The telegram reads as follows:
Work suspended Canadian Pacific Railway Vanguard-Meyronne to-night after two days work outfit moving out. In desperate need of relief. Do what you can have this work continued. All local hell) employed to date which has been beneficial to us in relieving local distress.
H. L. Allingham.
I might say that this was a railroad which was being constructed under the relief measures. The Canadian Pacific Railway have suspended this work and it is entailing a lot of distress among the inhabitants. Will the minister look into this matter with a view to having this work continued?
Imperial Conference
Hon. W. A. GORDON (for Minister of Labour) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) is hardly correct when he says that this railroad is being built under the unemployment relief scheme. I understand this is a piece of work in which the government pays only the interest on any money which the company is expending and which it otherwise would not expend until probably next year. However, the matter in the form in which it has been presented or in any other form has not come officially to the notice of the Department of Labour. I will inquire into it during the course of this afternoon and to-morrow and probably will have something further to say.



SALES TAX COLLECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I was asked a question by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) as to the proposed method to be used in connection with the collection of the sales tax, and I now desire to make the following statement. A large number of communications have been received from merchants and others respecting the new method of collection. The officials of the department were and still are of the opinion that the method proposed in the resolution will be more effective than that now in use. However, the government is most anxious that the increased sales tax, as to the amount of which not a single complaint has been received, should foe collected with as little inconvenience as possible to the business community. Therefore, when the resolutions are in committee the government will propose an amendment to restore the old method of collecting this sales tax. As this does not affect the amount involved, no difficulty will be experienced in the meantime.


Mr. STEWART (Bdimonton):: Sinoe Monday last has the new method been in effect?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It is only a question of method and not of amount.


Charles A. Stewart: The question is: Has the new method been in effect sinoe the delivery of the budget speech last Monday?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I understand so.
Wr. Donnelly.]



IMPERIAL OIL COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: I have under my hand a statutory declaration from the president and general manager of Mercury Service Limited of Osihawa, Ontario, stating, among other things, that on the 16th May, 1931, the Imperial Oil, Limited, refused to sell or supply gasoline to the said company, and gave as a reason for such refusal that Mercury Service Limited were selling gas at cut prices. In view of the fact that the Imperial Oil, Limited, is apparently taking advantage of the protection given by the legislation of last session, will the government now remove the tariff then placed on gasoline?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Assertions do not constitute facts.
The hon. member should know, and I think
he does, that this is a matter which lies entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Whether or not any company or any individual owning anything shall or shall not sell to any person who desires to buy, is not a matter over which we have jurisdiction except with respelot to interprovinicial matters covered by the Combines Aict and other legislation of that character. If the hon. gentleman is as desirous of ascertaining what the jurisdiction is as he apparently is of making political capital, I think there will be no difficulty.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am just as much in
order as the hon. gentleman was.



IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Is the Prime Minister in a position to make to the house an official declaration with regard to the reported postponement of the Imperial conference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had intended, before the orders of the day were called, to make the following statement: In accordance with the resolution of the Imperial conference held at London in 1930, that the economic section of the conference be adjourned to meet at Ottawa on a date within the next twelve months to be

Trans-Canada Highway
mutually agreed upon, in order to resume examination of the various means by which interimperial trade may best be maintained and extended, the Canadian government some time ago proposed that the conference should meet at Ottawa in August of this year. This date was found generally acceptable.. The government of the Commonwealth of Australia have now informed us that in view of the uncertain position in Australia, and considering at the same time the importance of the conference and the desirability of full representation, they would therefore request postponement until next year. The government of New Zealand had previously indicated that in view of the fact that its parliament would be in session in August and of the possibility of general elections towards the end of the year, it was unlikely that New Zealand could be represented by a minister of the crown at a conference to be held in August or, in fact, before 1932. We have therefore brought this situation to the attention of His Majesty's governments in the United Kingdom, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland, as well as the government of India, which had all previously indicated their readiness to attend in August. In reply they have agreed to accept the proposal that the conference should foe postponed until 1932. The conference will therefore be postponed accordingly. At the same time the government avails itself of this opportunity to reaffirm its unquestionable belief in the soundness of the proposals made and the position taken at the conference in London last fall.



DOMINION CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward James Young: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). I have under my hand a letter from the west stating that large numbers of men, according to the letter, hundreds if not thousands, are tramping the highways out there and riding on freight trains in search of work. These men have no fixed abode. I would like to ask my hon. friend whether any provision is being made, in taking the census, for enumerating these men.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I do not think this is a question that should be asked on the orders of the day; it should be placed on the order paper.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing):: As reported in the Northern Tribune
of Kapuskasing of June 5, 1931, a statement was made by the Hon. William Finlayson, Minister of Lands and Forests of Ontario, at Kapuskasing on Tuesday of last week to the effect that an arrangement had been arrived at between the Ontario provincial government and the federal government that three survey parties would go over the ground this season to study the routing of the trans-Canada highway in northern Ontario. Will the Prime Minister corroborate this statement?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: This is not in order. Questions asked on the orders of the day should be matters of urgent public importance. This question should be put on the order paper.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On a question of privilege, I say that this is a very important matter in northern Ontario.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If I cannot get an
answer to my question, I will move the adjournment of the house.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: With the unanimous consent of the house, the hon. member may have his question answered on the orders of the day, but in my judgment this is a question that should be put on the order paper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what I
was going to observe when you anticipated me.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I move the adjournment of the house. I believe I am entitled to an answer from the Prime Minister.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: A motion to
adjourn the house is not debatable unless notice is given that it is for a special purpose.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is to discuss a question of national importance.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: A motion to
adjourn the house is not debatable unless notice has been given that the motion is to be made for a special purpose. Therefore the hon. member must have the unanimous consent of the house unless he wants a vote.
Trans-Canada Highway


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The motion is not debatable, but it is before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not seconded.


Ernest Lapointe: I second it as a protest.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired with the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.

Interim Supply Bill


Mr. COTNAM:: I was paired with the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Hurtubise). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. WEESE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Buckley). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the hon member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. FONTAINE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin), Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. THOMPSON (Simcoe):: I was paired with the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Robitaille). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BOYES:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Deslauriers). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. PARENT:: I was paired with the bon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Maurice Brasset: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. PERRAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BELL (St. John-Albert):: I was paired with	the	hon.	member for	Nicolet	(Mr. Dubois). Had I voted I would have voted
against the motion.


Mr. CHARTERS:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Blair). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: I was paired with	the	hon.	member for	Russell	(Mr. Goulet). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SIMPSON (Algoma):: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. McDADE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GAGNON (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for l'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DUPRE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Ferland). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.



GOVERNOR GENERAL-HALIFAX DELEGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Early in the session I asked
the following question:
What were the principal items and the total cost of the official delegation to Halifax to welcome the Governor General?
On April 29 this question was passed as an order for return. I would ask the hon. Secretary of State when we may expect the papers to be brought down.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: We have asked the Canadian National Railways to send in an account of their charges. Up until last Thursday, the last date on which I made inquiry, we had not obtained the accounts from the Canadian National Railways. As soon as they are obtained the return will be brought down.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, by uanimous consent we were to pass an interim supply bill to-day, and I move that you do now leave the chair for the purpose of the house resolving itself
Trans-Canada Highway

into committee of supply to pass the resolutions leading to the bill.
The resolutions cover one-twelfth of the amount as mentioned in the main estimates, and one-fourth with respect to the Interior department items and the unemployment relief item in the Pensions department; in other words, one-twelfth being $20,099,732.71, and one-fourth of the amount to be voted under civil government, Department of the Interior, topographical surveys, geodetic surveys, dominion lands and parks, and unemployment relief, as set forth in the main estimates, being $1,054,091.25; and one-twelfth of the amount provided for in the estimates for Canadian National Steamships and maritime freight rates, as set forth in the main estimates for the liscal year ending March 31, 1932.
The only reason one-fourth is asked for with respect to the Interior department is that large numbers of the staff of that department are still on full pay under their retirement right, and therefore it is necessary to provide for one-fourth of the amount mentioned in the estimates, or there would not be sufficient to meet these demands until the end of this month. This will enable us to carry on for another month.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the Prime Minister has intimated, speaking on behalf of the official opposition, I agreed with him that there would not be opposition to voting one-twelfth of the supply once the house was moved into committee for that purpose. I assume, of course, that the regular motion will be made for the house to go into committee of supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, I moved that motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is also understood that the same reservations are made which have been customary as to the full right of any member of the house to discuss any item and as regards other particulars.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.



SUPPLY-TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOSEPH A. BRADETTE (North Timiskaming): Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I want again to direct the attention of the house to a question of national importance, as I believe the Prime Minister will agree when I put the matter before him. Only last week I brought up a discussion of this question in the house, and not a single member can accuse me of having been a 
partisan. To-day there is a situation in northern Ontario which must be faced. Had the Prime Minister understood the question that I put before the house a few momenta ago, I believe he would have answered it. I want to place it again before the house. I refer to a statement made by the Hon. William Finlayson, Minister of Lands and Forests in the Ontario provincial government, at a meeting at Kapuskasing on Tuesday of last week, as reported in the Northern Tribune of Kapuskasing, of June 5, 1931. He made a statement to the effect that an arrangement had been arrived at between the Ontario provincial government and the federal government that three survey parties would go over the ground this season to study the routing of the trans-Canada highway in northern Ontario. Not only the citizens of northern Ontario but those of the whole of Canada are directly interested in the important matter which I have brought to the attention of the house. Again I ask the Prime Minister if really there has been anything done in cooperation with the Ontario government with a view to the construction of the transdUanada highway in northern Ontario. I believe my question is a fair one. I do not wish to delay the business o'f the house; I believe there is no hon. member on either side who will accuse me, either this session or in previous sessions, when I was sitting on the government benches, of taking up too much time. I repeat, however, that because of the unemployment situation in northern Ontario and the necessity of beginning the work this year, my right hon. friend should answer a question which to my mind is absolutely logical and fair.
Peter Heenan: I am sure the Prime Minister is
not deliberately withholding information from thie House of Commons. If the statement was made by the Minister of Lands and Forests for Ontario to the effect that three survey parties have been sent out, surely hon. members should have such information before them. The people of northern Ontario, irrespective of their political affiliations, are very much interested in the construction of the highway. During the last regular session of parliament the representation was made, when hon. members were discussing the resolution made by Mr. Kellner, that if the government would contribute something toward the construction of the highway thousands of men would receive work immediately and the unemployment situation would be appreciably .relieved. That statement was made by some

Trans-Canada Highway
hon. members of the presenlt government who last year were in opposition. One evening during the last week the present Minister of Railways and Oana-ls (Mr. Manion) stood in his place and said that the matter was still under consideration and that he had nothing definite to say in connection with it. Of course in his own way he endeavoured to ridicule my position. I wish to say to him and to his friends who may advise him that for the past twenty years my stand concerning the highway through northern Ontario has been well known and cannot be ridiculed by him or any other hon. member of the house. The position taken last year by members of the present government was that if the government would contribute money towards the building of a highway, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of men would be put to work during the winter. Yet only a few days ago the Minister of Railways and Canals admitted that there is unemployment in northern Ontario due in a large measure to conditions in the pulip and paper industry. I am not going to deliver a speech upon this question but when the Minister of Railways and Canals says the matter is under consideration and a minister of a provincial government, the Minister of Lands and Forests in Ontario, makes the statement that the dominion government has agreed, in cooperation with the provincial government to send out survey parties, I think an explanation should be made. If this government has agreed with the provincial government to survey three different routes, hon. members in the house want to know it and they have a right to know it. If such an arrangement has not been made we would like to know if Mr. Finlayson is up in northern Ontario telling them onie more of the poppycock stories he has been telling for many years. I am inclined to think that probably he is just telling another story. Every time he goes to northern Ontario he tells a different dtory with respect to intended procedure concerning the highway through that country During all this time there are hundreds and thousands of men unemployed through the northern section of Ontario.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Did my hon. friend say hundreds of thousands?


Peter Heenan: No, hundreds and thousands.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There is quite a difference.


Peter Heenan: Hon. members want to know what is being done. I would be inclined to move an amendment to the motion to go into supply in order to have an expression from the house in respect to this highway question. During the election campaign the present government stated that under their administration a national highway would be built. Mr. Ferguson made the statement that the building of such a highway was a national question and not one of provincial obligation. Mr. Finlayson said the question was national in obligation. However, at the present time we learn that although he is acting as if it is a provincial question and they are working in cooperation with the dominion government. With my hon friends from northern Ontario on this side of the house I want to know how long we are going to be kept in the position of playing politics in connection with the question of highways and byways through northern Ontario. An opportunity is now afforded the government to tell us whether or not they have an agreement with the provincial government to make surveys. If they have I would be quite agreeable; if a highway is going to be built through the efforts of the administration at Ottawa I would be satisfied. If it is to be built by contribution to the provincial government I would be satisfied. No matter what is going to be done, I would like to see some action taken. I do not however want to see one party saying the matter is under consideration and in the very next breath the minister of a provincial government saying there is an agreement to send out survey parties throughout northern Ontario.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to put on record a report in the Ottawa Journal concerning a statement made by the Hon. William Finlayson:
The Ontario government through the Department of Lands and Forests will undertake^ a complete survey of the various alternative routes, with a view to determining the cost of construction and value from settlement and tourist standpoints.
Three Surveys
This will entail at least three reconnaissance surveys, one to examine the proposed location west of Sault Ste. Marie, along the shore of lake Superior, another to examine the proposed northern route, from Nipigon east to Hearst and a third to give its attention to the proposed "compromise" route. Reconnaissance parties are being organized at the present time and surveys will be proceeded with at the earliest possible date.
This announcement was made here to-night by Hon. William Finlayson, Minister of Lands and Forests in the Ontario government, at the close of his annual tour of the north country.
In the report contained in the Journal the Hon. William Finlayson does not mention the federal government whatsoever.
Returns Ordered-Not Tabled


Peter Heenan: I have mistaken what the hon. member-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member has already spoken.



SUPPLY-RETURNS ORDERED BUT NOT YET TABLED

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say concerning orders for returns which have, been voted by the house and have not yet been answered. I have before me under date May 27, 1031, the following order:
By Mr. Pouliot: Order of the house for a copy of the letter, telegram or other document sent by the government to the Canadian National Railways to notify them that Department of Railways and Canals had refused to sanction the construction of a new station a-t Riviere du Loup.
This return involves the production of only one piece of paper, either in the form of a telegram, a letter or some other document. There are two other orders of the same day, to be found at page 251 of votes and proceedings, as follows:
By Mr. Pouliot:-Order of the house for a copy of (a) the application of the Canadian National for approval of the proposed new station at Riviere du Loup; (b) plans numbered P-1-12-179-2, 17105-1, 17105-2, and 17105-3, dated respectively January 31, 1930, July 15, 1930, and June 12, 1930, on file with the board under file No. 36455; (c) of the report and recommendation of the chief operating officer of the board as mentioned in Order No. 45205, dated August 9, 1930, of the Board of Railway Commissioners.
By Mr. Pouliot:-Order of the House for a copy of (a) Plan No. 17321-1, dated Moncton, March 31; (b) submissions filed on behalf of railway company, the board of trade of Riviere du Loup, the provincial hygiene service, and the city of Riviere du Loup; and (c) of report and recommendation of the chief officer of the board as mentioned in Order No. 46476. dated March 27, 1931, of the Board of Railway Commissioners.
At page 252 of votes and proceedings of the same day there are the following orders:
By Mr. Pouliot:-Order of the house for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Honourable Acting Minister of Railways and Canals, the deputy minister, their private secretaries and any other officer or employee of the department, Minister of Railways, and Mr. C. E. Dube and any other person, regarding the construction of a new Canadian National Railways station at Riviere du Loup, from August 7, 1930, to date.
This cannot be very long and would be very easy to answer.
By Mr. Pouliot:-Address to His Excellency the Governor General for a copy of the order in council appointing the Right Honourable Sir 
George Perley acting Minister of Railways and Canals, in October, 1930.
This is very short also.
i ^' I*oullot:-Address to His Excellency the Governor General for a copy of the order in council P.C. 2292, of September 30, 1930, by which the Honourable Minister of Labour was authorized to enter into an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways.
This order in council is referred to by the hon. Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) in the report of the director of unemployment. It should be very easy to get this information. The order also is very short to answer.
Then on page 259 of votes and proceedings of Thursday, May 28, 1931-
Armand Renaud La Vergne: All these matters have been dealt with by resolutions of which notice has been given by the hon. member; therefore they are not debatable on a motion to go into committee of supply-


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not debating them,
Mr. Speaker.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: -otherwise the house would be delayed unduly. My ruling is that t'he remarks of the hon. gentleman are out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I explain the situation briefly to Your Honour? I am not discussing these orders, I am merely quoting them because the orders for returns are not numbered. These returns having been delayed without any justification or reason, I have been Obliged to read the orders so that the government may know what I am speaking of.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I must refer
the hon. gentleman to Beauchesne's commentary on standing order 56, paragraph 488. The rule is very clear, and it is apparent that the hon. member is out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would Your Honour be
kind enough to read the rule?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am referring to the commentary contained in paragraph 488.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has nothing to do with this case at all, Mr. Speaker.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is my
ruling.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would Your Honour be
kind enough to read that commentary to the house?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I will read it
if the hon. member insists, although I am not bound to.

Returns Ordered-Not Tabled


Jean-François Pouliot: I am simply making the
request for my own information, Mr. Speaker, as I have not Beauchesne before me.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The effect of
the commerutary in paragraph 488 is that this discussion is out of order because the subject matter has already been placed on the order paper by the hon. member.


Mr. MEROIER (St. Henri):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Temiscouata is entitled to obtain from you the reasons why you have ruled him out of order. Mentioning only rule 488 does not suffice. You are bound to state the reasons so that every member of the house may hear and understand your decision and why it is given as stated.


Mr. RINFRET:: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the commentary that you have just mentioned? It reads thus:
Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolves itself into the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means,-
Which is the present situation.
-the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the chair" must be proposed, except in cases provided by standing order 28. When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance,-
The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is not discussing the orders for returns that have been passed by the house; he is asking for the redress of a grievance, that is, the delay in producing such returns. I submit that he is perfectly in order in so doing.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: So far, so good; but the commentary continues:
-and it is not necessary to move an amendment for that purpose; provided that the discussion and the amendment, if one is moved, shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But,
Mr. Speaker, the commentary in paragraph 488 refers only to what is now on the order paper. I understand the hon. member's grievance is the delay in the production of something that is now off the order paper. This is the very question which constitutes his grievance.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I agree with
the hon. gentleman that any British subject 1 has the right to ask for the redress of any grievance before a motion to go into supply; but the rule is very strict that the moment
a matter has been placed on the order paper it can no longer be discussed.


Ernest Lapointe: But the grievance of the hon. member for Temiscouata is the failure of the government to obey the order of the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If the
matter were on the order paper to-day, I agree that Your Honour's ruling would be quite correct; but I submit being off the order paper, the commentary cited does not apply.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The matter
having before been put on the order paper,
I must rule that any discussion of it now is out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: On behalf of my client,
the Riviere du Loup Station, I ask for a speedy trial.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: And I hope the hon. gentleman will get speedy justice.


Jean-François Pouliot: I appeal from the decision of the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, is not this
the rule? Orders of the day being called, it is open to any hon. member to inquire as to delay in connection with the production of papers ordered by the house, but not to debate the matter on going into supply. The hon. member for Temiscouata is making a speech in the course of which he is reading at some length the various orders made by this house for returns. I think that is highly improper for two reasons: first, it is not the method provided for by the rules; secondly, it means rehashing what has already been determined by the house and with respect to which it has already taken action, namely, by ordering production of the papers in question.


Ernest Lapointe: It is the government that has not taken action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The house has ordered-


Ernest Lapointe: Yes; the house has made an order and the government has not obeyed it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The house has made an order, and it is competent for the hon. gentleman or anyone else to inquire when the papers will be brought down. But most hon. members will agree, I think, if they will but consider the fact that twenty-five and thirty orders for returns are passed at the same time, that it is not quite easy to produce them all on the same day.


Ernest Lapointe: That is another question ; that may be a good answer.
23S2
Returns Ordered-Not Tabled


Richard Bedford Bennett: The custom always has been, just before the orders of the day are called, for hon. members to inquire respecting an}' delay in the production of papers, and if the answer is not adequate then, of course, there is a means of urging the matter by moving an amendment on going into supply.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In reply to the observations of the right hon. gentleman, may I point out that two questions were asked on the orders of the day. In regard to one of these the reply was that the question was prompted by political motives; as regards the other question, there was an absolute refusal to make repljr. I submit that the same remedj' is open to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) in regard to this question as applied in the other instance.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is the privilege of any hon. member to censure the government for not having produced papers asked for, and this may be done by proper procedure. My ruling, however-if I am wrong I am in the hands for the house-is that it is not permissible to rehash a debate that has already taken place. Under rule 488 I must declare out of order the discussion of any matter already on the order paper by resolution or otherwise.


Jean-François Pouliot: With all due respect to Your Honour, I have to appeal from your ruling, because the perpetual Conservative candidate for Temiscouata was here last week, to prevent the government from answering.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member needs five members to support his appeal. He has not had this support. When an appeal is made and a vote is asked for five members must rise at the same time to support the appeal.


Ernest Lapointe: Any member has a right to appeal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point
out, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition has been seeking to oblige the government in the matter, of granting interim supply. In our effort at accommodation we have been denied the most ordinary courtesies. It is a poor rule that does not work both ways. While we are prepared to uphold the rules, we shall expect the same degree of courtesy from the chair, when Your Honour is presiding, as the government expect in the way of courteous treatment from this side of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On a point of order, may I say that the right hon. gentleman is entirely in error when he suggests that he is obliging the government: he is obliging the people who are entitled to their pay. My duty is to lay the matter before the house, and this I did after having conferred with the right hon. gentleman. He has already intimated that he and his followers would offer no opposition. This may be his idea of refraining from opposition. While I am on my feet, may I avail myself of the opportunity to say that the reason the question was not answered with respect to Mr. Finlayson's alleged statement was this: I had no evidence that that statement was true, and an hon. member has now read something to the effect that the statement in question was not the one that had been made. Yet hon. gentlemen expect an answer to a question of that kind. It is to provide against that sort of thing that the rules have been drawn up. I have already told the house frankly and clearly that the question would be regarded as an order, and time after time I have seen the right hon. gentleman object because, under similar circumstances, notice had not been given. As a matter of fact, in England arrangements are made with respect to every question asked. Now the hon. member rises, without notice to anyone-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not
with respect to supplementaries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say anything: about supplementaries; I was speaking of questions. The hon. member stands in his place to-day and asks the government a question based on an assertion that a statement in a newspaper was true, in respect of which I had no knowledge. We learn a few minutes later that another newspaper, equally reputable, I take it, published a statement at variance with that one, omitting any mention of the federal government. I say that no leader of any government would undertake to answer such questions unless notice had been given; and the Speaker ruled the question out of order just as I was rising to say that we would take the statement as a notice of the question. Since then there has been a motion for adjournment, a discussion and a division, with a further threat of amendment and division. And this is the way consent is given to enable interim supply to be passed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has just said that we are not seeking to oblige the government in the matter of voting interim supply, but that we are facilitating the payment of salaries to people who are entitled to them. May I point out that

Returns Ordered-Not Tabled
those who are entitled to salaries had a right to expect this parliament to be called in sufficient time to enable the house to vote the necessary supply in the regular way. That has not been done, and the delay-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will Your Honour not grant me the same latitude as was allowed the Prime Minister?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I would point out that the right hon. member has already spoken to the motion for the. Speaker to leave the chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am asking only for the same liberty as the Prime Minister was granted in making observations in regard to this matter of interim supply before the house at the moment. I say that the reason why those who are entitled to salaries might have to wait for them, did the opposition not accede to the granting of interim supply, is that the government delayed so long a time in the calling of parliament and in bringing forward its legislation with the result that we are now in the month of June without the completion of any appreciable part of the work of the committee of supply and nothing thus far accomplished as respects ways and means.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whose fault is it? Look at Hansard.


Charles A. Stewart: Speaking on the motion, may I say that I have sat here and watched carefully the procedure in this house, and it seems to me that hon. gentlemen who ask any question based on a telegram or a statement in a newspaper are entitled to be told by the government-if this is the case that the information has not reached them but that when it does they will be prepared to reply. That would be satisfactory to any individual. But when the government take the position that they are not going to reply, and appear to wish to ride roughshod over the opposition, I am bound to say there is going to be some trouble.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is my
endeavour to apply the rules impartially and strictly. If I have inadvertently shown any want of courtesy, I regret the fact. At the same time, however, it is incumbent upon me to see that the rules are adhered to. Surely the right hon. member who leads the opposition realizes the necessity for this. Discussion of a motion already on the order paper is not permissible and I regret to say that the hon. member for Temiscouata is out of order. I have so ruled and I maintain that position.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member
for Temiscouata has appealed from the ruling.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: He was entitled to appeal if he so wished; that was his right. And the house might have decided against my ruling. But the hon. member had to have the support of five hon. gentlemen-


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The question was put.


Ernest Lapointe: Never.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If there is any misunderstanding in that regard, I will put the question again. The Speaker has ruled that the discussion raised by the hon. member for Temiscouata is out of order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The Speaker has ruled that the discussion raised by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is out of order. Those in favour of the Speaker's decision will say aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Jean-François Pouliot: No.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: In my opinion the nays have it. Call in the members.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the nays have it, I will go on.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER': I said to call in the members.


Richard Bedford Bennett: His Honour has not
yet asked for the yeas.


Jean-François Pouliot: According to Your Honour's ruling I will continue.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I ruled the
hon. member out of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The nays have it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Your Honour's ruling gives me-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I rise to a point of order. Your Honour put the question to the house as to whether or not your ruling was to be sustained, and later on Your Honour declared that the nays had it. Consequently your ruling has not been sustained and therefore the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is in order.


Jean-François Pouliot: The other side did not say yea; we said nay, and so we have it.
Trans-Canada Highway


Mr. EULER:: Mr. Speaker, I do not usually take part in these discussions but I would like to inquire of Your Honour whether you declared the nays or the yeas to have it. I understood Your Honour to say that nays had it, and if the nays have it the question is settled.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am sorry my accent is not better; the yeas have it.


William Daum Euler: There were no yeas.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, this house- An hon. MEMBER: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Shut up, root beer and
soft drinks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) has flouted all the rules of order of this house, and I suggest that that sort of remark either be withdrawn or he be named. I know something of my duties to this house.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the right hon. gentleman will tell me what he wishes me to withdraw I will withdraw it with pleasure.


An hon. MEMBER:: Withdraw yourself. Mr. POULIOT: I am here for good.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The expression used by the hon. member for Temiseouata is not parliamentary.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not apply the words "root beer" or "soft drinks" to anyone; I did not mention any name. I simply mentioned different articles, root beer and soft drinks.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I understand
the decision of the chair is sustained.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am ready to stand by the ruling.



SUPPLY-TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, as this discussion is closed, I would like to reply briefly to the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), who has placed on Hansard an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal. The hon. member stated that according to this article, which he read into Hansard, no mention was made of the fact that there was to be any federal cooperation in the building of the trans-Canada highway and that Mr. Finlayson did not so state. I desire to read into Hansard an article which appeared in the Northern Tribune of Kapus-kasing. This article deals with a visit of the Hon. Mr. Finlayson to Kapuskasing on June 5, and is headed as follows:
Hon. Wm. Finlayson Visits Town Critical of Land-Clearing Bonuses 
In the course of the article appears the following paragraph:
Concerning the trans-Canada highway, he said that the differences of opinion in the north as to the route had given pause to the government. By arrangement with the federal government, three survey parties would go over the ground this season and get all the reliable data they could.
That shows quite clearly that the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) was quite right in bringing up this question. In spite of what has been said by the hon. member for East Algoma and the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in his usual manner that the matter is now closed, I think we may take it that this article which was published in Kapuskasing gives the correct version of the whole matter.



SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the house but for a few minutes, and possibly I will not be allowed even that long. I am beginning to think that the feeling in the good city of Toronto against free speech is spreading to the House of Commons and I am beginning to wonder what limit will be placed upon the rights of private members. I desire to speak on a subject which I think will conform with the rules. Your Honour quoted standing order 56 in contradiction of the stand taken by my hon. friend from Riviere du Loup (Mr. Pouliot), which is the name I hear most frequently in his remarks. I have studied the. rule very carefully. The matter to which I intend to refer does not relate to any decision of the house given during the current session, if it did I would not be introducing it. It does not relate to any item in the estimates, if it did I would not be introducing it, nor does it relate to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
The matter I desire to discuss has been mentioned already without result, it is the question of unemployment. This is a seasonable question at any time in the house under the present situation. I desire to put before the house some new data which I have obtained since this question was up before. The only information this house has before it after being in session three months as to the government's intention to deal with unemployment is a statement made the other day by one of the cabinet ministers that the government had dealt with it satisfactorily last September and could be trusted to deal with it in the months that are to come. That is not sufficient because to-day conditions are

Unemployment-Mr. Neill
different. Does the government propose to call a special session of the house in September ? If they do not, where is the money to come from? It will not be possible or it should not be logical to obtain governor general's warrants because they are granted only on occasions of unforeseen emergency. This emergency is not unforeseen because it is now before the house and the government.
I desire to present further evidences of the feeling existing, particularly in the west. I notice that the hon. Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) is starting shortly on a trip to the west in order to observe conditions for himself. When he returns he will then go to the east, and when he has completed these trips he will make a report to the government but ^ at that time the house will not be in session. What the country wants is some definite understanding of what the government intends to do, not only in the immediate future but this coming fall. Here is some evidence-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Alan Webster Neill: I thought it would not be
long.
Mr. DEPUT1 SPEAKER:	According to
standing order 41, the question raised by the hon. member has been mentioned already in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston).


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member is discussing a proposed visit of the Minister of Labour to the west and to the east.
_ Mr. NEILL: Do I take it that Your Honour is ruling that I am raising a question which has been decided already?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The matter is covered by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston).


Alan Webster Neill: The rule is that the matter
shall not relate to any decision of the house. Has this matter been decided? Has the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth anything to do with a past decision of the house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The amendment to the address dealt with it.


Alan Webster Neill: It was not decided.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The subject
matter of this discussion has been dealt with already by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth.


Alan Webster Neill: It has not been dealt with
because I intend to produce evidence of something that has happened since then. I am going to give the house information which did not exist at the time and so long as I confine myself to what has happened within recent times, I believe I am in order. Supposing I had absolute knowledge that a red revolution was going to break out in Winnipeg, would that have anything to do with a discussion which had taken place two or three months ago?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is in connection with the motion to go into supply.


Alan Webster Neill: It has nothing to do with the subject I am discussing. I am seeking to lay before the house definite information received during the last few days, which information has nothing to with the amendment to the motion to go into supply. I will ask your decision. I do not want to play politics and appeal from it; that has been done so much, but what is going to happen in a case of this kind? What is going into supply for but to state one's grievances? A year or two ago I had before the house in writing a resolution dealing with the New Zealand treaty and it had been before the house for days and weeks when the leader of the present government (Mr. Bennett), on a motion to go into supply, moved an amendment dealing with precisely the same subject. It was somewhat amended in a hurry at the last minute to make it differ slightly from my notice on the order paper and when I raised a point of order it^ was held that the right of redress of grievances was too sacred to be set aside by a petty rule like that. This position was taken _ by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), the Prime Minister and half a dozen of his best debaters. It was decided that the right of redress of grievances must not be interfered with, although I cited this very rule, and pointed out that the amendment related to something that already appeared on the order paper. I do not remember whether a vote was taken or not, but at any rate the decision was given against me. This is a far less closely, related subject. It is not on the order paper. It is only hinted at.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: My hon.
friend is quite right.-


Alan Webster Neill: I know I am right.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: -but the subject we are discussing now has been put in so many words in the amendment of the

Unemployment-Mr. Neill

hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth. It is already before the house and has been discussed. So that it cannot be discussed again in another debate.


Alan Webster Neill: This is a separate subject.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What rule are you citing?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Rule 41, page
95.


Alan Webster Neill: In order to vindicate the
rights of the common people, I am going to appeal from your decision.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the question as follows:	On the motion that the house go
into supply, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni tMr. Neill) started discussing the question of unemployment. The chair ruled that the discussion was out of order because the subject was already before the house in the motion of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni appeals from the decision of the chair.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Bouchard,
Ralston,
Resroehers,
Lacroix,
Taylor,
Sanderson,
Fraser
(Northumberland),
Hepburn,
Malcolm,
Hall,
Weir (Macdonald), Brasset,
Dumaine,
Robitaille,
St-Pere,
Buckley,
Gershaw,
Vallance,
Brown.
was paired with the hon.
member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Maurice Brasset: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling.


Edward James Young: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: I
was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling.


Thomas Edward Simpson: I was
paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


John Aaron Weese: I was paired with the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Buckley). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peteiborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling.


Fizalam-William Perras: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Haekett). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling.


Frank Boyes: I -was paired with the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Deslauriers). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Louis-Étienne Parent: I was paired with the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling.


Mr. BOWEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.	.


William Daum Euler: I was paired with the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling.


Mr. SENN:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.
, Mr. MATTHEWS: I was paired with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Ahearn). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: I was paired with the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Thomas Cantley: I was paired with the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling.


Onésime Gagnon: I was paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Joseph-Théophile-Adélard Fontaine: I was paired with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling.


Alan Webster Neill: I bow to the ruling of the
house-such as it is-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is highly out of
order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to intervene, but the hon. gentleman must not reflect upon the judgment of the house, and plainly that was an innuendo that he should not have used.


Alan Webster Neill: Am I to say, such as it is not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That makes it worse.
Unemployment-Mr. Neill


Alan Webster Neill: I think I was straining politeness when I said what I did. However, for the present, I shall not allude further to the banned question of unemployment. I will leave it to the judgment of the country.
I now wish to call the attention of the house to a growing serious public sentiment in certain sections of the west, which if not paid attention to and guarded against, so to speak, will possibly, and I believe quite credibly, threaten civil riot and possibly social revolution in the near future. I can perhaps best illustrate that sentiment by reading a letter that I received the other day from a man whom I know to be of high character and high attainments. He has two professions at least at his finger ends. He writes me as follows from Vancouver:
I noted your speech regarding the conditions in Nanaimo, and from the first hand information of my own, I can fully confirm all you said.
Your speech has caused me to wonder if you are as well informed as to what is being said and felt in Vancouver, and perhaps the following may interest you somewhat. I may say I have been living here since November, and my work has brought me in daily contact with all classes and conditions of people; further, during this time I have been consistently sounding people's opinions and feelings about the present and the future.
May I interject here that this man is a professional man, and is therefore naturally associating with people of that class, and the remarks he cites are not those of the logger or longshoreman, but those of people in a ' position to judge, and not at all likely to run away with bolshevik ideas. He continues:
Several features of these expressions of opinion are most arresting. The most startling and common one expressed is a deep-seated and genuine fear that we will never come out of the present impasse without disturbances which will probably be the beginning of a real civil war between the "haves" and the "have liots." I want to emphasize that this is not from the "down and outs" but comes just as frequently from business people.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have ruled
before that, aocording to rule 306, articles anid letters emanating from people outside the house commenting upon a debate are not to be quoted in the house. Such letters may be interesting to the hon. member, but they cannot be read.


Alan Webster Neill: What rule is that, Mr. Speaker?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Commentary
306.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May I call to your
attention Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you allowed the hon. member for East Algoma

(Mr. Nicholson) to read an article from the Ottawa Journal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That had nothing to do
with the present point.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I remind the
hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay that the article read by the hon. member for East Algoma was in the nature of news, and did not constitute a reflection upon debate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was the report of a
speech.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would ask you to read the paragraph you are citing. It is as follows:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings *within the house.
I have not transgressed this paragraph, and it will be time enough to rule against me when I do. I am not reflecting upon or denying any statement by an hon. member of the house, and for that reason I submit the paragraph does not apply. I should think that Mr. Deputy Speaker would have to wait until he heard the letter before he could decide whether or not it was proper.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have heard
part of the letter, and my hon. friend will undoubtedly admit it comments and reflects upon matters in debate.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, I shall put my statement in another way. I have information that the spirit of a large number of people is represented by expressions such as those contained in this letter. We are living on the edge of a volcano; something is going to snap.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order, order.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member is
reading.


Alan Webster Neill: I am afraid I shall have
nervous prostration soon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.


An hon. MEMBER:: Make it as soon as
possible.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Surely the hon. member will not continue to read when the chair has declared he is out of order.


Alan Webster Neill: I am reading from my notes now.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon.
member is not allowed to read his speech.


Alan Webster Neill: I am merely quoting. Such
conditions cannot continue; something is go-

Interim Sup-ply Bill
ing to snap. A big change is coming. The Russians are not such fools as we thought.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Alan Webster Neill: These sentiments are common among educated, business and professional men. There are many more such statements I could quote, if my memory allowed. When we find business and commercial men, men who have a stake in the country, men who are not animated by political motives, using expressions such as that, there is some reason to reflect on what lies behind their statements. I think hon. members will admit that bishops, generally speaking, are not inclined to be bolshevik or communistic. We find one bishop however telling his clergy to take care, and go down and visit the jungles. Do you know what a jungle is, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I do not think you do; as a matter of fact I do not think many hon. members do.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member is
going too far.


Alan Webster Neill: A few days ago I had a resolution forwarded to me from the synod meeting of a church. May I add that in the dictionary sense of the word, the church is a conservative body. They forwarded a resolution saying that we must do something to meet social conditions or we cannot adhere to the doctrines of Christ, or words to that effect. I would refer hon. members to the statement of a well known man in the city of Vancouver who said, "Why not get down to a coalition government such as we had during the war. Why not get down to business, without scrapping about politics while people are starving." In reply to those queries that gentleman received the fallowing answer:
Unless the government do something there will be chaos this winter, or something worse.
That man, an alderman of the city of Vancouver, was not playing up to bolsheviks. I feel I must warn the government indirectly, if not directly, that some action ought to be taken to deal with conditions which are continually getting worse.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: Why not get down to business?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Are hon. members ready for the question that the Speaker do now leave the chair?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: By all means, do.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think the remark by the hon. member for Charlevoix-
Saguenay is out of place, and I ask him to withdraw it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Nonsense.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I just echoed the remark which was passed around among hon. members on this side of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.

Richard Bedford Bennett: Resolved,	that	a	sum	not	exceeding
$20,099,723.71 being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1932, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1932.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Resolved,	that	a	sum	not	exceeding
$1,154,091.25 being one-fourth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, namely, votes No. 80, Civil government, Department of the Interior; No. 232, Topographical Surveys; No. 233, Geodetic Survey; No. 280, Dominion Lands and Parks; and No. 284, Unemployment Relief, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1932, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1932.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $943,832.33, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted for Canadian National Steamships and Maritime Freight Rates Act, as set forth in estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1932, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1932.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: At this time I would ask .the Prime Minister for some information. He is asking for a certain amount of money in connection with the Maritime Freight Rates Act. A few days ago a discussion arose in committee, and hon. members did not know where we stood in the matter. On the order paper there is a resolution providing for $68,-
500,000.	We understood that the Minister of Railways and Canals had introduced a bill to float the necessary loans to provide for the $68,500,000. Hon. members understood that on the resolution the Prime Minister has already introduced was to be introduced another bill, and that the bill introduced by the Minister of Railways and Canals did not deal with the S68,500,000 of which notice appears on the
Interim Supply Bill

order paper. Would the Prime Minister please explain what he means?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would ask my -hon.
friend to look at items 379, 380, 381, 382 of the estimates; No. 379 referring to loan to Canadian Government Merchant Marine; No. 380 to loan to Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships and Nos. 381 and 382 to the Maritime Freight Rates Act-the first to differentiate between tariff tolls and normal tolls, and the other to pay for an increased deficit over what was contemplated for 1931.


Eugène Fiset: I suppose my hon. friend is reading from the bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I am referring to the main estimates as tabled-379, 380, 381 and 382.


Eugène Fiset: We have not got
them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, my hon. friend has them. This is entirely separate.


Eugène Fiset: This is an entirely new procedure. That is why we want to know about it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend is right
as to that. The bill authorizing the company to create an issue of securities for 868,000,000 odd, or of such other sum as may be recommended by the committee, also provides, as he will recall, for the guaranteeing of those securities. I took the view when I was in opposition, and I take it now, that moneys thus obtained cannot be said to be supply voted to His Majesty, but are moneys which the company are obtaining on the guarantee of the country, the securities being floated by the company on the security of the governor in council. That is the distinction. The one is by supply bill, the other by a bill the same as by any other company, with the guarantee of the country attached.


Eugène Fiset: The Minister of
Railways (Mr. Manion) misled the committee to a certain extent, or perhaps he misunderstood the circumstances. He informed the committee first of all that the resolution on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) to provide for
868,000,000 odd was to be discussed and a bill based on that resolution would then be introduced by the Minister of Finance himself. Then he informed us that Bill No. 79 was in lieu of the estimates of the capital expenditure for last year of the Canadian National Railways. If this is correct, the title would indicate that the Minister of Railways should have preceded the bill by a resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was introduced by a
resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Eugène Fiset: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yours has not come before us yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I moved the resolution.


Eugène Fiset: Would the resolution introduced by the Minister of Finance apply to the bill introduced by the Minister of Railways and Canals?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps my hon. friend
will follow me in this explanation. 1. The railway company, as such, introduces a bill which requires no resolution. If is a private corporation introducing its bill. 2. The Minister of Finance has introduced a resolution, which resolution has received the approval of His Excellency and is now upon the order paper. That resolution provides for a guarantee being given to the securities of the Canadian National Railways, and if my hon. friend will be good enough to look at the estimates he will see that the four items to which reference is made do not in any sense deal with the matters dealt with by the bill. The matters referred to in the four items are: Loan to the Canadian National Steamships; loan to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships; amount required to meet difference between tariff tolls and normal tolls under the Maritime Freight Rates Act; amount required to provide for the payment from time to time, to the Canadian National Railway Company of the deficit in receipts and revenues, occurring during the year 1931, of the eastern lines, as provided by the Maritime Freight Rates Act.


Eugène Fiset: I am sorry to worry the Prime Minister but I am seeking information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Eugène Fiset: I was surprised myself when the Minister of Railways stated in committee that Bill No. 79 took the place of the estimates of the Canadian National Railways of capital expenditure for last year. He said that this was not a money bill. If you look at the title of the bill you will see that it is:
An act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1931.
Surely, sir, that is a money bill.

Interim, Supply Bill


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. My hon. friend is
quite right in thinking that we have entirely departed from the practice heretofore prevailing. If he wild look at the explanatory note he will find it is in these words:
The object of this bill is to authorize the Canadian National Railways Company to issue securities to the extent of $68,500,000 for the purpose, during the year 1931, of financing where the amounts available from net operating income or investments may be insufficient.
That is not a money bill any more than a bill for the issue of securities by the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other railway company is a money bill. It puts the Canadian National Railway Company in exactly the same position as any other railway company. The Canadian National Railway Company seeks the authority of this parliament to issue securities to the extent of $68,500,000, just as the Minister of Railways said, or such lesser sums as the special committee may conclude, after its investigations are completed, would be adequate, having regard to the services to be rendered in 1931. It is not a money bill, I repeat.


Eugène Fiset: Does the Prime Minister object to my continuing the discussion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Eugène Fiset: Last session the financial requirements of the Canadian National Railways were introduced in the form of estimates. I want to call the attention of the Prime Minister to this. Last year in the estimates we simply authorized the Canadian National Railway Company to float loans in four different ways: 1, from the treasury; 2, publicly without guarantee; 3, publicly with guarantee; 4, temporarily. By this bill you are creating first of all a new term, "authorized expenditures." I suppose it should have been "statutory expenditures." Then the other section would not have been embodied in the bill. But outside of that you are creating a new departure by dividing under three different headings the total amount of $68,500,000, which is also the amount mentioned in the resolution moved by the Minister of Finance. The methods of allowing the company to raise loans are absolutely different from what they were last year. I agree entirely with what the Prime Minister is doing, and I should like to go a little further, touching section 3. Under that section the governor in council controls absolutely the issue of any securities of any kind that may be raised by the Canadian National Railways; everything is done subject to the approval of the governor in council. I remember a discussion we had in the committee three years ago, and we came to the conclusion then that the ideal system would be for the government to raise money and be the only creditor of the Canadian National Railways. Should this course be followed, I, for one, would support it. But it appears to me that there should be a change in the heading, because as now headed it is a money bill; and if it is a money bill it should be introduced by a resolution. Of course, I trust entirely not only the judgment but the statement of the Prime Minister, but I should like to have this point cleared up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has observed the difference between the method adopted heretofore, and the method which we propose to adopt in connection with the raising of moneys for the Canadian National Railways undertaking. He says he agrees with the views we have put forward in the legislation in question, and I think that the judgment of the house will concur with him in that regard. The supply bills of the country always begin, "Most Gracious Sovereign: Whereas it appears", and then in the schedule that was attached last year there is a statement of the sum required for railways. We now propose that the Canadian National Railways shall be exactly as any other railway enterprise. It seeks the authority of this parliament to issue its securities to the amount stated in the bill. My hon, friend suggests that this might be designated as a money bill because of t'he title: "An Act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1931." If the title is regarded as not truly designating the purport of the bill, it can, of course, be amended. But I think that upon investigation my hon. friend will conclude that the title properly designates the provisions of the bill, for the bill provides merely for the authorization of the right on the part of the company to create securities.


Eugène Fiset: I am not speaking for myself alone; this discussion took place in committee. What surprised us to a certain extent was the fact that in this bill there appear the words "authorized expenditure", and authorized expenditure is defined throughout the bill. It will be found that for the first time this year the estimates of the Canadian National Railways, instead of being voted en bloc, are divided into three parts- $31,000,000, $9,000,000 and $27,000,000. It is apparently intended that there shall be no transfer of one vote to another without
Interim Supply Bill

authority. But it will be observed that authorization is given in paragraph (c) of section 2, to switch any desired portion of the sum mentioned in that paragraph to the purposes indicated in paragraph (a). I regret this very much, and I am sorry also that the subdivision of the vote has not been carried further. In the old estimates there were a number of headings under which this vote could have been divided, and I think it would be not only to the interest of parliament but to the interest of the committee as well if the subdivision were carried further. Information will have to be furnished the committee in toto with regard to every one of these items, and the more it is subdivided the less danger there is of switching. As regards the methods adopted I have only one regret- they do not go far enough.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government will be indeed very much satisfied if the committee in the exercise of its judgment concludes to attach to the bill a schedule, dividing it into as many items as it deems advisable. There is no desire in any sense to lessen the activities of the committee in making recommendations, and so far as dividing the estimates is concerned, I assure my hon. friend that he may divide them into thirty parts if he wishes. When the bill is given its second reading it will be referred to a special committee with power to deal with it in any way they consider in the public interest. In other words, they may increase the number of items to as many as they think desirable.


Eugène Fiset: Will the Prime Minister answer another question? I am seeking general information with a view to the discussion in committee. I understand that this will take the place of the ordinary estimates of the Candian National Railways. Will the bill introduced by the Minister of Finance, based on the resolution with respect to the $68,000,000, be submitted to the committee for discussion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not intended that that bill should be sent to the committee for discussion. After the committee has made its report that bill will be proceeded with, and it will represent only the amount which the .icnimittee reports as desirable. There will be no point in considering that bill, the members of the committee having done their duty when they have concluded what sum shall be appropriated. The Minister of Finance will then bring in his bill in accordance with that of the Minister of Railways.
tSir Eugene Fiset.]


Eugène Fiset: The provision by this parliament of $68,000,000 is dealt with in Bill No. 79. Apart from that, provision is made in the ordinary estimates for the deficit on the eastern line, for the Marine^-


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are statutory obligations.


Eugène Fiset: Yes, and also the Maritime Freight Rates Act. They are included in the estimates. The relation between the resolution of the Minister of Finance with respect to the $68,000,000 and these other details is rather a complicated one. It is the first time such a departure is being made. We have a few new members on the committee, and if for this year the two bills were submitted to the committee at the same time for study we should be better able to understand the relationship between the bill not based upon a resolution and that introduced by the Minister of Finance preceded by resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assure the hon. gentleman that the bills will provide the same amount. One will provide for the guarantee and the other for the authorization of the issue of securities. If it is desirable that the committee, to understand the matter, should have the bill brought to their attention, it will be done. Whatever is thought desirable to enable the committee to be thoroughly seized with the situation the government will be glad to have done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it the intention not to present to parliament the estimates of the Canadian National Railways?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The estimates of the
Canadian National Railways are contained in the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In this bill
which is down now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the bill of the Minister of Railways. The Canadian National Railways divide 'their financial operations under two heads: (a) statutory obligations of the country as disclosed in the estimates, 379, 380, 381, 382,-'that is, steamship lines, the West India line, the Freight Rates Act-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those estimates are before the house now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And they have been preceded 'by resolution?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.

Ways and Means-Interim Supply


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is my
point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then come the estimates of the Canadian National Railways as indicated by Bill No. 79. That is referred to the committee. It refers to the construction program of the road and its maintenance, the acquisition of securities, and matters of that kind. Then comes the bill by the government to enable the guarantee to be given for the sum which the committee reports it is necessary to raise this year for the system. In other words, the resolution that is now before the house in my name is a resolution preceding the bill which fixes the country's liability. The other bill is exactly similar to that of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Algoma Central, and other roads; only in one instance 'it is referred to a special committee instead of to the railway committee. That special committee's report may diminish to some extent the amount of the estimates of the railway. In that event the two will correspond: they will provide exactly the same amount. Whatever amount the railway company succeeds in convincing the railway committee would be a proper estimate for the year will be the amount for which guarantee will be given after authorization by this parliament of the bill which stands in the name of tihe Minister of Finance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The misunderstanding arose when the Minister of Railways, in introducing his bill, made the statement that it related to railway estimates of the Canadian National Railways. The words of Hansard are:
This bill. Mr. Speaker, is to authorize the Canadian National Railways to issue securities to cover $68,500,000, being the amount of the estimate of the railways' deficiency in their needs above .their earnings for 1931: really the estimates of the Canadian National Railways.
That last clause possibly was an afterthought on the minister's part. The estimates now before the committee will be referred to the railway committee?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not here when the minister made the statement. The. first part is obviously correct. The second part with respect to the deficit is covered by the estimates submitted to the House of Commons, because under the statutes this country, whether or not we like it, has to provide that money out of consolidated revenue, and that is the reason why it is in our estimates as distinct from being in the bill. I believe there was some doubt among the legal officers as to just what was the meaning of the words in the original statute and last year, as perhaps my right hon. friend will recall, the railway
company issued its securities to take care of its deficits guaranteed by the dominion under authority conferred by parliament at its last session. The distinction I have been endeavouring ito make is the distinction between supply and providing for the requirements of the railway. While I was in opposition I mentioned this matter, although not in great detail. I think there is a clear distinction between supply to His Majesty and the provision of the necessary authority for the railway company to issue its securities. As long as we do it by the indirect method as mentioned by the hon. member for Rimouski, so long I think it should be done by separate and distinct legislation, the one conferring authority and the other authorizing the guarantee. The other items to which my right hon. friend has just referred clearly are items of supply and I think my colleague for a moment dealt with the deficit as being included in the authorizing Bill No. 79. That is not quite correct as that is dealt with by the estimates themselves.


Eugène Fiset: Is it the intention to continue this procedure in the future?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I propose to follow that principle; it may be possible we can improve upon it but I have no intention to revert to supply except for those items that create statutory obligations of the country to the railway.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the hon. minister allow the resolution to stand until a final report is received from the committee?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This interim supply has nothing to do with that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was referring to the other resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With the consent of the house, I will put the resolution through, have it read the first and second time, and then allow it to rest until such time as the committee has made its report. At that time, when we are in committee the resolution can be amended to be strictly in accord with the report of the committee as to the sum of money which should be expended.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) ir the chair.
Copyright Act
Richard Bedford Bennett: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932, the sum of $22,197,647.29 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 81 for granting to Hiis Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1932.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Richard Bedford Bennett: If we may, we shall now take up the Copyright bill. The Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) is going to move that the house go into committee on that bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
my right hon. friend: Is it understood that when the discussion on the Copyright bill is completed, we shall return to the motion to go into committee of ways and means?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And will the
debate then continue?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was my understanding. Was it that of my right hon. friend?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.



COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 4, to amend the Copyright Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I be permitted to say
on the motion to adopt section 1, that the bill as introduced into the house has been considered by a select committee appointed for that purpose and representative of all parties in the house, and it has been reported with certain amendments. I may say generally that the committee was unanimous in its opinion with regard to this bill. One member of the committee, the hon. member for Ottawa, reserved the right to discuss one or two sections with which he was not fully in accord.

The general scope of the bill seeks, bj' amending the definitions, to enlarge the application of section 4 of the Copyright Act which provides that:
Copyright shall subsist in Canada for the term hereinafter mentioned, in every original, literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work.
In the definition we have defined more clearly the words:
Original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work.
in order to include within the scope of the bill the works which are protected or proposed to be protected by the Rome copyright convention, to which it is suggested, under the provisions of this bill, that Canada shall adhere. The government has received notice from the government of the United Kingdom that, on behalf of that government, the Rome copyright convention will be ratified before the first of July next, which is the last day of the term within which ratification is possible. I am bringing this bill to the attention of the committee this afternoon in the hope that if it meets the approval of the house, it may be placed before the Senate at an early date, because the bill in the form in which it is finally enacted must receive the approval of His Majesty early in June, as at least ten days will be required in order to give notice of ratification on behalf of Canada. Therefore the matter is one of some urgency if Canada is to adhere to the Rome copyright convention which was signed by representatives of the government of Canada during the regime of the present leader of the opposition.
The bill itself, if I may be allowed to explain, provides in every clause except two, namely, 6 and 10 of the amended bill, amendments which have been asked for on behalf of authors. In other respects I think it enlarges the scope of our present act and gives greater security to the authors than has ever before been given by legislation in Canada. Sections 6 and 10 are regulative. They are the sections which have caused discussion.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps I may be permitted, on section 1, to say a few words of a general character. I endorse fully what the Secretary of State has just said. The main purpose of the bill is to bring the act into conformity with the convention at Rome, but in doing so, especially in enacting section 9 which does away with compulsory registration, we met with conditions in this country which perhaps also require a little attention. If hon. gentlemen read schedule A which reproduces the Rome copyright convention, they will see that while the convention has laid down certain general principles, a number of

Copyright Act
Which issue from former conventions, it has also left to every country a certain degree of freedom in legislating for domestic purposes. I believe the bill comes very strictly within that interpretation. It corrects certain omissions or defects of the act as it stands now and at the same time it has made an effort to meet the conditions which will be created by the new enactment.
If I were to write a treatise on copyright, if I may put it in that Way, or give my theories as to copyright, I might make some reservations as to certain sections, for instance, sections 6 and 10, which take away from the owner of 'the copyright partial enjoyment of his rights. But I know all the conditions; I have been in charge of similar legislation for a number of years, and I think the bill is most excellent in that iit meets all conditions and comes strictly within the convention as to its principles whilst iit makes an effort to adjust conditions created in Canada by adherence to the Rome convention.
Perhaps I may be permitted to say that although I have sat on a number of committees on copyright, I have never before been on one where there has 'been such an excellent spirit of cooperation on the part of members of the three parties in the house, and it is a great pleasure to me to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the open-minded and impartial way in which he conducted all the meetings. So far as I am concerned I do not hesitate ito commend the bill to my hon. friends on this side of the house.


Mr. CHEYRIER:: It is not my intention
to speak at any length on all of the clauses of this bill. I desire, however, to express some difference of opinion with regard to certain remarks that have been made by the minister who introduced the bill, especially wherein he says that most of its provisions represent demands made by the authors themselves. I represent no particular interest. When I sat in the select committee I did not represent the interests of authors, no antagonistic interests, nor did anybody on the committee represent any special interests. I think I can show, in the course of my remarks with respect to particular sections of the bill, as they are called, that though the bill may go some little distance, it can by no means be regarded as highly desirable legislation from the point of view of the protection of authors' organizations at the same time not interfering in any way with the legitimate interests of others.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I say that in these
amendments we have complied with many of the requests of the authors and of various
international societies and others who asked for amendments?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I cannot accept that reservation. In so far as the other statement of the hon. Secretary of State goes, that this bill grants more security, I deplore that it does not, and I shall show that in my comments on the various sections as they are called; for I presume it is the intention of the committee that the sections shall be called and studied one by one.
It might not be amiss at this moment to say a word or two on just what copyright is. I do not pretend, and it is not my intention at this time, nor is this the place, to make any long discourse on that point. Indeed I would not introduce that subject were it not for the fact that since the bill was introduced and since the select committee considered it, hon. members have spoken to me about certain features of it, some of them expressed considerable surprise-I say this without any thought of hurting the susceptibilities of anyone-that there was a fundamental difference between the right of property in a work, as defined under the statute, and in a house, a horse, a farm, a chair, or any other chattel or real property.
I shall not go back to the time of the origin of copyright, but there is an idea prevailing to-day, which is a very erroneous one, and which leads to much difficulty in interpretation and in the settlement of rights, that copyright is purely and simply a statutory right. That is not by any means so. Copyright is as old as any other right of property, but unfortunately this right has been limited and constantly pruned down by statutes. Let me say this once more, that if parliament has the right to limit the enjoyment of copyright, as undoubtedly parliament has, and if parliament wants to reduce that right, to take away 95 per cent of the rights of the authors and grant them only the remaining 5 per cent of their rights by statute, then let parliament at the same time grant to the owners of that 5 per cent residue, 100 per cent enjoyment of the rights of ownership in that 5 per cent. I have no hesitation in affirming, and I shall prove it as I go along, that the en-j oyment of those rights has been limited; and all through the present law, and throughout this bill, there is nothing in the way of efficient safeguards, no means of redress for Canadian authors in our own domestic legislation, and far less in connection with the requirements of the Berne convention revised at Rome, to which we are about to signify our ratification. It may be of interest to the committee, to
Copyright Act

know that, even in the early days of the colony in Canada, copyright amongst the Indians was recognized. I had some years ago the opportunity of going into this matter, and I shall simply give to the committee one or two illustrations for the benefit of those who may think that copyright is a right similar to the right in property.
If we go 'back to 1636, we find by volume 7, page 16, of Jesuits Relations, 1636, that each Indian had his own song, which no other Indian dared to sing otherwise than to the great offence of its composer, and that is why to sing another's song constituted a challenge. Each had his own song, and of his own making, and no one could sing it without insulting the owner and receiving in return a blow from the tomahawk. That was what we would call to-day an infringement of copyright, and that was their method of redress. I would say that, in the bill under review and in the law as it stands, our legislation is sorely deficient in the way of remedies. The Indian's song could not be sung even after his death, except on great festival occasions, and then only by members of the family of the deceased. That showed that protection existed in those days even after the author was dead. La Potherie and Nicolas Perrot relate similar examples of copyright protection among the Indians of the early days of Canada.
I will give one more illustration, going back to the Ammassalik Eskimo, I quote from page 550, volume 40, of East Greenland Nations in Meddelelserom Gronland:
He (the Eskimo) has a monopoly of the song.
Perhaps my hon. friend the minister will frown on the use of this word "monopoly", which he does not like; but monopoly goes back to the time of the Eskimos, monopoly meaning the full right in his song. He had a monopoly of the song, with its text and melody as long as he lived. It was only after his death that it was considered suitable for others to use the particular song and melody which were his. I could go on and give further picturesque illustrations. But I will stop at that.
I should like now to address my remarks to the first clause of the bill. I intend to treat this matter having in mind the words of a great French philosopher, Auguste Comte, who said that "liberty of conscience does not exist in astronomy", meaning that truth is eternal, and that you cannot contemplate any compromise in the light of it. In this matter, I do not intend to stand by any compromise. Copyright is an intricate

and complicated, but most interesting matter; and if at some stages in this discussion I may seem to ramble, I do ask the indulgence of the committee.
So far as copyright is concerned, Canada, in 1921, adhered to the Berne convention of 1886 as revised at Berlin in 1908. We signed the declaration to adhere to the new convention as revised in Rome in 1928, which we are now about to ratify.
I must take issue, very respectfully, with what the hon. Secretary of State said a moment ago as to the intention of this bill. May I assure the committee at once that it is not my intention to oppose its passage. I am quite anxious to see it go through, with the reservations that I shall make, because I feel that some remarks may come later on which will justify the stand that I take now, that this bill does not go far enough to make our present copyright law conform to the stipulations and prescriptions of the Rome convention. I read the following from the explanatory note attached to the bill:
"This bill is not intended to revise generally the Copyright Act, but to amend that act only in so far as is necessary to bring Canadian Copyright legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Rome convention."
I dhould have hoped that the bill would go far enough to do that. However, it does not. As the various clauses are called concerning which I have remarks to make, I will endeavour to make my statements clear.
This is a copyright bill; that is, a bill for the protection of authors. There is the act relating to Patents of Invention passed for the protection of inventors; there is the Trade Marks and Industrial Designs Act for the protection of those who may have industrial designs to protect; there is the Wage Earners Lien Act, and there is the criminal code for the protection 'of citizens against evil-minded people. Then there as the Copyright Act, and I will go so far as to say that it protects nearly everybody but the author himself. If in some respects it does .protect him, it fails to grant rights of recourses which leave the infringement of his right without remedy. I shall endeavour to show, clause by clause, that my statement is correct.
In order to lay the foundation for some of the statements I shall make later on, I should like to refer to some portions of the evidence adduced before the select committee which dealt with Bill No. 4. Probably the quotation of this evidence will prove tiresome, but I think the committee will find some of the extracts most interesting, and they will be in a position to form a proper appreciation of the nature of this most important legislation.

Copyright Act


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would it not be well to cite the evidence as we proceed, clause by clause?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Yes, but there are certain parts of the evidence I should like to cite now. Under clause 1 of the 'bill, I shall make some observations so as not unduly to clutter up the record when the other clauses are reached.
I said that this bill was to protect authors without prejudicially affecting the interests of anyone. I wish at this time to quote an extract from the evidence taken before the committee. At page 33 I find that Mr. George Buck was called and sworn, and I read the folowing from his evidence:
By the Chairman:
Q. Where is your residence, Mr. Buck.-A. In New York. Kensington, Great Neck, Long Island. I am vice-president of the Canadian Performing Right Society, president of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers.
Later on the evidence is as follows:
"I am not a lawyer, sir. I happen to be an author. I have written for the Ziegfield Follies for some seventeen years."
Then at page 34 I find the following:
"It seems that among some people, and among some nations that those who chose to work with the products of their brains instead of their hands are always begging and heeding to protect that particular gift that they have. If a man makes this chair it is his, no question about it. He does not have to put his name on it, he does not have to register it. But if you choose, sir, to write a song, or a play, or a book or an article, through some particular trick of fate you must go through a million formalities, yet any person loaded with larceny can come along and take it without even asking you any question."
Then at page 35 I read:
"But Mr. Chairman, the desire before this committee that ran rampant through it, that brought me here, sir, was the desire to protect the author,-there would not be a picture house open in America to-night, there would not be a radio set open to-night; there would not be a cabaret or a dance hall open to-night, nor would a state fair open if they did not have bands and music to help put that state fair over, sir."
Then at page 37 I read part of a paragraph which indicates what has to be considered when a bill of this nature is formed:
"That is what brings me here, sir, to make a plea for those men. What other authors are in this room? What other authors are here? Who are the public in this room? The public is not here sir. You gentlemen represent the public. But there is no number of the great public of this nation of this dominion in this room telling you gentlemen to do this. You are only asked to do it by a single group of men who would like to regulate us. That is the basis stripped of all its verbiage, and no one is here to tell them that they shall charge so much an hour: no one is here to tell them that they shall charge so much a seat. And even if those gentlemen are given the right
to regulate their raw material they shall not let the public into the theatre any cheaper. As far as the public is concerned, however, in this particular day of copyright-and if you men know anything about copyright or its ramification, it is the user of the creator, and I appear before you, sir, and you gentlemen, to make the earnest plea for the creator, because through the history of the world, 90 per cent of them are starving to death."
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) then asked the question:
How does this bill affect the creator?
And the reply was made:
"Because it shall regulate him and shall not regulate the user."
At this time I shall read from the evidence of Mr. Gitz Rice:
"I am Lieutenant Gitz Rice of the 1st Canadian contingent, a resident of the city of Montreal, a Canadian composer. I took to the profession of song writing before the war, in Canada, and furthered it in France and carried on back here after the war. Since I started my profession of song writing, I have been very fortunate in writing some of the world war's greatest songs. I have yet to collect the first cent from my own country, Canada, for them. I am here as Exhibit A, victim No. 1. I understand, sir. that you are going to put some things in this bill. There has been a lot of squabbling about churches, and a lot of things that I have laughed at many times. The composer always gets the worst of it no matter where you go."
Then Mr. Rice told of the troubles he had had with the gramophone industry as a result of which he secured a judgment for 811,000, which sum was all eaten up in costs. The paragraph ends as follows:
"In fact, if I have to sue all that you wish me to collect in Canada I will be up here for the rest of the days of my life. I do not like this individual suit."
Then, I find the following in the evidence of Mr. Riee:
"I will give you a little example of why I do not like it: An infringement was made on a writing of mine in the city of New York by a big motion picture concern. I went to a legal man, gave him a deposit, and after a few weeks I was told 'don't you think you had better lay off this corporation if you expect to ever do any business with them.' I laid off. I have no enmity against anybody, but I would like to have the chance, as a Canadian, to say how much shall be paid me for my work."
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock, I was about to quote, from page 77, further portions of
Copyright Act

the evidence of Mr. Gitz Rice. At the top of the page will be found the following:
"I have never had it up to date, and the only way that I have ever been able to get anything out of it was to associate myself with the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. The only moneys I have ever derived have been from that society. It is functioning beautifully and we fellows, as composers, have nothing to say against our board of directors for the way in which they have handled our affairs."
Then at page 78:
"It may not include it, sir, because in France in 1915 I created 'Mademoiselle From Armentiores' you know-'Hinky Pinky Parley Voo.' It swept the country. I was at war and doing the best I could with the battery. I could never copyright, you can understand that. And it has swept the country since, and I have yet to earn the first penny from that song. I did not know when I wrote it that it was going to be a hit."
And at the bottom of page 79:
"The Witness: Have you any objection to my retaining and owning my own copyright.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Not in the slightest.
The Witness: And sell it for what I can get for it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Not in the slightest.
The Witness:	All right, then; what is the
argument about the government fixing a price?"
His concluding words will be found at page 80:
"The Chairman:	It seems to me you have
stated your case very well indeed.
The Witness: I thank you very much indeed for this opportunity. I hope I will be up again. I was up eight years ago, and I was promised a lot of things, but I never got a thing."
I think that represents the attitude and the state of mind of those for whose benefit this Copyright Act was originally framed, and for whose benefit this bill is supposed to be introduced for the purpose of bringing our law into conformity with the Rome convention. I desire now to proceed to discuss article 4 of the convention itself.
Mr, CAHAN: If we are going to discuss the articles, will it not be advisablfe to deal with them when we come to the schedule?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury):: That is the rule, but as the hon. gentleman was discussing general principles I allowed him to proceed.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I shall be through with this clause in a minute or two. I was trying to lay a general foundation, so that when I came to the other clause, I would not have to clutter up the record with citations of evidence. Now, in order to lay that foundation properly, I want to refer to article 4 of the convention itself, which appears at page 8 of
fMr. Chevrier.]
the bill. There are two kinds of rights mentioned there which are the subject matter of this legislation. This is paragraph (1) of article 4:
Authors who are nationals of any of the countries of the union shall enjoy in countries other than the country of origin of the work, for their works, whether unpublished or first published in a country of the union, the rights which the respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to natives, as well as the rights specially granted by the present convention.
Meaning thereby that there are two kinds of rights in contemplation in this matter: the rights which the natives-the nationals-of Canada now enjoy by virtue of the present Copyright Act; and, further, the rights which the nationals of Canada enjoy in Canada by reason of the Berne convention as it presently is; as well as the rights of any of the contracting parties to that convention which they enjoy in Canada. It is therefore incumbent upon Canada, in the passing of this legislation, to enact such measures as will protect the acquired and vested rights of Canadian nationals, as well as the further rights that may be granted to them under the convention, and the further rights of the unionist authors that come in ipso facto.
In order to save time I will conclude my remarks on this clause by analysing the effect of the bill. Let us see what it does. It amends the present law by adding definitions that have some value, as in section 2. It clarifies certain sections of our law, as in clause 3 and 4, to which I have no objection. It adds a new feature recognized by the Rome convention with reference to "moral right", with which I agree, but which, as I shall show by clause 5, does not go far enough. It tries to regulate certain rights of recourse, but falls far short of giving to the authors, either nationals or unionists, those rights of recourse prescribed by the act, and particularly by the convention to which we have subscribed. It introduces new and vital encroachments on author's rights, as will be found in clauses 6 and 10. It decreases, but does not wipe out, certain formalities imposed upon the enjoyment of rights under clause 10. But it does not remove certain and most objectionable features that are still in the present law.
For those reasons, I conclude my remarks on this clailse by stating that I cannot subscribe to the explanatory note to the effect that this bill amends the Act, namely the Copyright Act, only in so far as it is necessary to bring the Canadian Copyright legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Rome con-

Copyright Act
vention. Some iforty-odd nations have to ratify the convention. They are all unanimous as to the legislation that is to be adopted, and into that concert of nations-I am not saying this in any spirit of levity-I hesitate to see Canada enter with a non-harmonious and non-musical instrument such as the Canadian Copyright Act will become if these amendments are enacted.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work.
Mr. CAHAiN:	With regard to this clause,
the definition, as I explained before, is clarified, and in addition in subsection (2) there is a definition of "legal representatives." Our present act says:
"Legal representatives" includes heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns or other legal representatives."
Doubt has arisen in our courts as to who are constituted "legal representatives." It is a very broad term. Instead of "legal representatives" we have inserted after "administrators" the word "successors" and then we have added "or agents or attorneys who are thereunto duly authorized in writing." I am instructed thait these words clarify the section and make it clear who are legal representatives within the meaning of the statute. That is the only change.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Subsection 3 of
section 2 refers to visual representations of any dramatic action in a work. What protection is accorded anywhere in this bill to dramatic ownership in any dramatic rights, in any dramatic composition? I do not ask this question in a critical spirit. I simply wish to be informed whether there is anything in the bill to ensure such protection.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The act as it now stands
affords the same protection in regard to performances as is given in the English law, and we have added to our definition the words "or by radio communication." In England, the courts have decided that radio communication comes within the meaning of the word performance; but in order to make it clear that the author's rights include not only the right of performance by acoustic representation and so forth, but also by radio communication, we have added those words "or by radio communication" to the present definition of performances as contained in the act. With respect to the protection to which my hon. friend refers, that is ensured by the entire act. I am simply adding the words "or by radio communication" to make it dear that in respect of radio communication the author has exactly the same rights as he has in relation to other performances of his work.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am sure that the thanks not only of this house but of the whole country must be very, very cordially extended to my hon. friend for the splendid self-sacrificing work he has done in connection with this bill, and I am among the very first to recognize that and to hail him. I hope my hon. friend will appreciate that I do not in any sense fail to realize . what splendid work has been done in this bill which he has brought down. But I desire to know whether it can be shown what protection is accorded the author of any dramatic or musical composition. I mention this because it is a matter of common knowledge, among those who have to deal with such things as a means of livelihood, that the ordinary provision, "you shall restrain by injunctive process, or you shall fine, or do this, that or the other thing if the act is infringed upon" is not applicable and is certainly not operative with respect to legislation such as we have before us. The acts which are in force in the United States are by no means perfect, but they have been endeavouring there from time to time to improve them; and they have long recognized that in order that the author of any dramatic composition, whether musical or otherwise, may be protected in the ownership of his own work, it is necessary to prescribe criminal penalties for any theft thereof. I have not been able to find anything in this legislation that will afford similar protection to any man the product of whose brain may be ruthlessly stolen. It is not in any carping spirit but for the purpose of obtaining information which I should be glad to have that I am inquiring wherein the bill as now before us proposes to protect an author who may be ruthlessly pillaged and stolen from just as a man may have his bank account or anything else that belongs to him plundered by any unprincipled thief. I cannot see anything in the act with this object in view, and if my hon. friend will be good enough to point it out I shall be very grateful to him.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The Copyright Act as it now stands on the statute book provides in section 20 for civil remedies, that is to say, actions for damages, We have inserted in this bill a clause which we shall reach in a few moments in which, with respect to civil remedies, we have widely extended the recourse available to the author. I will discuss it when we reach the section. The present act also provides, in section 25, for summary remedies, with certain penalties of fine and
Copyright Act

imprisonment which may be imposed for infringement of copyright. This bill does not attempt to widen the scope of those penal clauses. Personally, I think that if we can provide adequate civil remedies it is not necessary that we should increase the penalties under the criminal law of Canada. If new penalties of fine and imprisonment are to be introduced, my own view is that they should be introduced as amendments to the criminal code. In any case, my hon. friend is correct to this extent, that we have imposed no new penalties in this bill. We have, however, preserved all the old penalties; they are there, untouched. And we have made civil remedies available to the author.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I did not intend to discuss this point just at the moment, but since the hon. gentleman has brought the question to the attention of the committee I may deal with it. I would much rather discuss it under clause 7, however.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Suppose we restrain our debate on the question until we reach that section.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I think that course would be wisest. I may say, however, that the law, as it stands at present in section 26 of the act, has proved absolutely worthless in the past as a remedy. And this bill, by clausa 7, does not make it any better-in fact, it is worse. I shall demonstrate that under clause 7.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-"-Copyright" further defined.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Section 3 of the bill incorporates two new sections into the Copyright Act in order that our act may conform, first, in clause (e), with article 14 of the convention which will be found on -page 12. Then clause (f) introduces an amendment in order to conform with article 11 bis of the convention. Article 11 bis reads:
(1) Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the communication of their works to the public by radio communication.
That is a new clause in the Rome convention which did not appear in the Beme convention, and in order that the clause may be enforced we have introduced in clause 3 a new clause (f) which reads:
In ease of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to communicate such work by radio communication.
Section 3, in other words, is intended to bring our Copyright Act into conformity with

the Rome convention which it is proposed that Canada shall ratify.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Cases -of joint ownership.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Section 4 is amended by the words underlined in the bill in order that our Copyright Act should conform to article 7 bis of the Rome -convention. The Berne convention provided that copyright should subsist during the lifetime of an author and in the case of joint authors, during the lifetime of the author who died first. This change will enact that a copyright shall subsist for fifty years from the date of the death of the joint author who dies last.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Author's right to restrain acts prejudicial to his honour or reputation.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This section is introduced so that our statutory enactment known as the Copyright Act shall hereafter conform to article 6 Ibis of the Rome convention. Article 6 bis of the -convention reads:
Independently of the author's copyright, and even after transfer of the said copyright, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work, as well as the right to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of the said work which would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation.
That clause was introduced into -the convention of Rome to provide that, although an author had assigned -his entire right to a copyright, nevertheless he, being the author, has a moral right to safeguard his reputation against any distortion, mutilati-on or other modification of the said work. The convention uses the words "as well as the right to object," and we have incorporated the same provision into this bill with the insertion of the words "to restrain." The words "to object" would have no legal significance in the procedure of our courts and therefore the words "to restrain" are introduced into the bill in order to enable an author who has parted with his entire right to -a copyright to -proceed in our courts by means of injunction to restrain any such distortion, mutilation or other modification.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that this is one of the important sections of the new bill. It recognizes the moral right of the author, and is one of the most important decisions arrived at in the convention at Rome. Perhaps I may be pardoned if I remind the -committee that at last session the government tried to deal with this very -matter by means of Bill



S, 1931

[Stage Direction]
Copyright Act
No. 37, which acknowledged the moral right oif the author in such a way as has been pointed out by my hon. friend. Subsection 2 of article 6 bis of the convention reads as follows:
The determination of the conditions under which these rights shall be exercised is reserved for the national legislation of the countries of the union. The means of redress for safeguarding these rights shall be regulated by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed.
Bill No. 37, introduced last year, went farther than the present bill. It mentioned a fine not to exceed fifty dollars and costs and made provision for the redress mentioned in the convention. However, if the committee has followed me, it will have found out that while the convention is very precise in its declaration of principle, it leaves to the legislatures of the different countries the task of determining the means of redress and the penal provisions which must be attached to a copyright bill, as it is here. The Secretary of State will bear me out when I say that no effort has been made in the present bill to change the penal conditions of the Copyright Act. I share the views of the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) and my confrere from Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) that the act would probably bear a certain degree of amendment in that connection. It must be acknowledged that no effort is being made to touch upon these points, and perhaps these matters will be touched upon when we are discussing other clauses of the bill. It would be an appropriate task for a future session to deal with the penal conditions of the Copyright Act. However, as I said in my preliminary remarks on section 1, this bill is a step in the right direction. I know that no act is perfect, and. I am supporting this bill with the reservation of future discussion. I congratulate the Secretary of State upon having included clause 5 as I think the acknowledgment of the moral right of the author is well worth while. It is possible that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house will be raising this penalty question, but perhaps they should be patient in this regard.
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, as has
been so ably said, clause 5 of the bill is one of its most important features. However, I cannot let the occasion pass without stating how, when and where that important feature of the Rome revision came about. In 1925 a select committee of this house was appointed to investigate the Copyright Act. As a result of its deliberations, the committee brought forward a recommendation that the right of the author should be rec-22110-153
ognized in the way in which it is now defined, namely, as a "moral right". In 1926, a very able and esteemed member of this house, Mr. Ladner, introduced Bill No. 3, and for the first time in any legislature of the world the moral right of the author was recognized. That bill did not go through. In Mr. Ladner's bill, the moral right was defined as "the author's personal privilege of enjoying the prestige or influence which he may derive or which would accrue to him from his work notwithstanding any assignment of his .property rights". There is not a vast difference between that definition and the definition which was accepted in Rome; but the seed was not sown in vain; and I want to say on the floor of this house that it is to Canada's credit that this moral right has been introduced into a measure of international legislation. Because of that I feel very keenly on this matter. If the Rome convention has seen fit in its wisdom to embody that in its revision and then to make a special declaration to that effect, I say that it is highly incumbent upon Canada after having suggested the creation of this right, to see that it be properly protected. I am not prepared to admit, and I shall not admit, that there is in the present bill, or in any sections of the law as it stands to-day, anything that can be made applicable as a means of redress or safeguard in so far as moral right is concerned. Moral right is a new creation, and just as when we create statutory penal crimes we always by proper legislation, enacted at the same time, create the . adequate remedy, we should do so in this case. The convention has seen fit to prescribe it, and, wisely so, has left it to the respective contracting countries to devise the means to safeguard it. But the convention did not simply recognize the principle; it went further than that. I read subsection 2 of article 6 bis of the convention:
The determination of the conditions under which these rights shall be exercised is reserved for the national legislation of the countries of the union. The means of redress for safeguarding these rights shall be regulated by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed.
I repeat:
The means of redress for safeguarding these rights shall be safeguarded-
And permeating through nearly every article of the convention, as I shall show later on, there are imperative directions upon the contracting nations to enact such means of redress as will safeguard the rights of an author not only in his own country but also in other countries which are members of the union. For these reasons I cannot accept this section as it .'stands.

m2
Copyright Act


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member has
referred to several legislative measures which from time to time have been brought before the house dealing with copyright. Each of those, excepting one bill introduced by my hon. friend the former Secretary of State, contained several rather severe penal clauses. Those bills never passed the house. I was a member of the house when some of them were suggested, and the feeling on both sides was that those penal clauses would not receive the approval of a majority in the house if it were left to the discretion of -individual members as to how they should poll their votes. The house must remember that the 1921 Copyright Act was brought into force by proclamation only in 1924. Prior to 1921 such a right as this moral right had never appeared upon any statute book. Prior to 1924 performing rights had never been conserved in this country. In every church hymns were sung; in every fraternal organization music was played and sung; in community centres throughout Canada music was played by the city bands, town bands and country -bands, entirely ignoring the performing rights therein. Since 1924 we have been brought face to face with the fact that performing rights incidental to copyright are safeguarded by the act then brought -into force by proclamation of the governor in council during the regime of the government of the present leader of the opposition. It is the desire of the present government that we should enact some simple measures that will bring us into conformity with the new Rome convention -and that will authorize the government to ratify that convention on behalf of Canada. This bill, so far as it deals with moral rights, is merely educative. It is deemed to have an educational effect in the direction of providing that those moral rights shall be consistently conserved. Under the Rome convention we are entitled to exercise our discretion as a legislature with regard to the means by which that right may be conserved. We have decided to accord to the author the right to appeal to the court for an injunction against any distortion or mutilation of his work, even after he has parted with his rights in it. I think that is sufficient for the present. Penal clauses may at any future time be introduced through a bill of any private member of a bill sponsored by the government, but I feel assured that the present bill is as far as the majority of members of parliament are prepared to go at the present time. Let us go that far; let us affirm the moral right; let us give that means of conserving that right; but if you attempt at the present time to make this new bill a series i?f penal stat-
utes, I think, you will find exactly the same public opposition throughout -the country as has led to the withdrawal of every bill that we -have had dealing with copyright since 1924. Therefore I suggest that the bill should pass. It will educate the people of this country; they will know that even though they purchase an author's rights outright, they cannot distort or mutilate his work.


Arthur Edward Ross: Carried.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It is not carried. I said a moment ago that I would not accept the section. The committee, if it likes, may carry it, but it can be carried only on division. The section does not go far enough. I was careful, when I was on my feet, to say that I was against the section -carrying by unanimous consent.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 6.-Performance without private profit.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: "Private profit" is a term that has entered into our existing legislation. Section 17, subsection 3, of the existing act gives certain exemptions in respect of those who do not perform for private profit. Subsection 3 reads:
Copyright in a work shall also he deemed to be infringed by any person who for his private profit permits a theatre or other place of entertainment to be used for the performance in public of the work-[DOT]
Section 25, subsection 2, also deals with the question of private profit. It provides:
If any person knowingly makes or has in his possession any plate for the purpose of making infringing copies of any work in which copyright subsists, or knowingly and for his private profit causes any such work to be performed in public without the consent of the owner of the copyright, he shall be guilty of an' offence under this act.
Again on section 26, subsection 1, is the same reference to private profit. With regard to the performing of musical works at exhibitions and fairs, the Deputy Minister of Justice, W. Stuart Edwards, in January, 19-27, gave an opinion to Mr. A. T. Charron, Acting Deputy Minister of Agriculture, dealing with the question whether under the existing law, the performance without private profit of any musical work at agricultural exhibitions and fairs constituted an infringement of the act. The following is the opinion then given by Mr. Edwards:
In reply to your letter of January 26, I have to advise that even in case the society represented by Mr. Woodhouse holds the performing rights for music played by a band at a Canadian exhibition, such exhibition is not bound to pay a licence fee to the society, and in the

Copyright Act
event of refusing to do so is not liable to prosecution bsr the society unless it knowingly causes or was aware of the infringement complained of and that the performance was for private profit.
That is the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice with regard to the existing law. But actions for penalties have from time to time been brought before justices of the peace in different parts of Canada where this opinion has not been known, and therefore it seemed advisable to introduce into this measure an express provision embodying the view already given by the Department of Justice with regard to the performance without private profit of any musical work at any agricultural exhibition or fair held under dominion, provincial or municipal authority.
The other clause deals with the performance of any musical work by any church, college or school, or by any religious, charitable or fraternal organization, provided such performance is given without private profit for religious, educational or charitable purposes. As the English law now stands-I have before me an opinion of Sir William Jarratt of the board of trade, who is a great expert on copyright law,-it would appear that if a religious service is being held and hymns from the ordinary hymnbook as used in Protestant churched are sung, and if those hymns were written in recent years or sung within fifty years from the death of the author, then not only the choir that sings the hymn but every individual in the church who joins with the choir in singing such hymn is, according to certain interpretations of the law, infringing copyright, and is liable to be haled the next day before a justice of the peace for having sung the hymns of his own church in a place of worship. I think it is wise that we should protect the copyright of the author in every reasonable way, but exemptions should be made with regard to the public singing of hymns or other musical compositions in churches, colleges or schools, or by any religious, fraternal or charitable organization, provided such performance is given without private profit for religious, educational or charitable purposes. I think it is entirely within our right as a legislature to enact that clause. I believe that if the opinion of the Department of Justice were invited with respect to this clause it would be to the same effect as that which I have just quoted, which was given by the Department of Justice during the regime of my hon. friend the former Minister of Justice. It is expedient that we should remove all doubt as to the fact that performance in the wavs mentioned in section 6, 22110-1531
without private profit, should not be ground for action for damages or for bringing those who do so before a justice of the peace in a criminal prosecution the following day.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think every true student of copyright in the first instance would frown upon such provisions as are contemplated in this section, and in that respect I desire to state my position very clearly. I believe personally that copyright is an absolute right, and that it is not for the statute but for the composer himself or the owner of the copyright to decide what use shall be made of his own music without his permission. That to my mind is the true principle of copyright. It is not for the state to decide that a church, a college or a fair shall be allowed to use music without cost or without acknowledgment of the copyright. It is for the owner of the copyright himself, or for the author to decide that. But as I have said-I am always coming back to my initial remarks-I am trying to contemplate this bill as legislation in keeping with present conditions, and not as ideal legislation that cannot be improved upon in the time to come. There is force in the argument made by the Secretary of State a few minutes ago that you must educate the public to the spirit of copyright. You must educate public opinion. I do not believe, and this is why I shall not press an objection to these clauses, that any possessor or owner of copyright would refuse permission for a church or college or similar organization to perform his musical work in which he owns the copyright provided that no private profit is derived therefrom.
This section governs the very point which seems to have been worrying every hon. member of the house. While the committee was at work every hon. member on either side of the house whom I met would ask me:	Are
you going to exempt the fairs from copyright? That seems to have been in the minds of hon. members, and it follows that it must also have been in the mind of the public generally. I say again that if it were possible, I would rather have the owner of the copyright give the fair permission to use his music, but that would lead to a very complicated situation, and it is with a view to meeting public opinion in this matter that I am quite willing not to press any objection to these clauses. I do believe, however, that they are not quite sound copyright legislation, because the copyright belongs to the owner. Whether the composition be used for profit or merely at a performance without profit, the copyright belongs to the owner, and the owner should be asked for permission to use his work, rather than the state
Copyright Act

stipulate by statute that the performance shall be free. But in order to save other parts of the bill, to secure other amendments provided therein which are very desirable, I do not think we should press an objection to this section. The Secretary of State is right when he says that we have been endeavouring for years without success to put a copyright bill through this house. Public opinion must be educated. There is certainly a demand from every part of the country for some such restrictions as are included in this amending bill, but I repeat that we are by statute disposing of a right which, if we adhered strictly to the principle of copyright, should rest with the owner.


Mr. IRVINE:: Before this section carries I want to express a word or two of disapproval of the principle involved. First I congratulate the minister on the singular success that he has attained in respect to this proposed legislation. Everyone knows that copyright legislation is extremely complicated, and all former attempts to amend the act have so far failed. I think every amendment proposed, with the exception of the one we are now discussing, gives a decided advantage to the authors and composers of this country. Much of what the minister has said in regard to this clause is true, and were it omitted filom the bill public opinion would probably censure us severely. Nevertheless I do not think it fair by legislation to make an exception of authors and composers by compelling them to give anything to anybody. By legislation we are assuming the right to do the charitable work which belongs properly to the individuals whose property is concerned in the matter. It would be a fine gesture if composers would give their music free to the churches; it would be a fine gesture if they would give their music free to the fains throughout the country. However, for this parliament to legislate a gift from the hands of composers and authors to anybody whatsoever is a questionable procedure. Furthermore, I do not think the churches want or expect such treatment. I am not going to press the objection any more than has the hon. gentleman who has just spoken because this clause represents a very fair compromise. The clause we are now discussing was fully fought in committee. I do not want the opportunity to pass, however, , without registering the objection I registered in committee to the principle involved. I believe that even in matters of religion and agriculture the rights of authors should be protected as they are protected in connection with other matters.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Following the remarks of the hon. members for St. James and Wetaskiwin, I have one suggestion to make by way of criticism of ithe phraseology of this particular section. So far as I am concerned I should like to see all the people in all the churches of all the religious sects in the land have every opportunity to sing all the hymns they feel like singing, so long as I do not have to listen. No doubt a great deal of good may be done by the dissemination, among the people ait large, of compositions of that kind, but I do not think that thait procedure should extend to institutions which are not of a religious nature. The bill proposes that the use of such composition shall be extended to charitable or fraternal organizations, provided such performance is given without private profit for religious, educational or charitable purposes. Speaking seriously, I do not fancy anyone would wish to deny to any genuine religious or charitable organization the opportunity to profit by making use of compositions of that character. Unfortunately for me, as for some other hon. members of the house, I did not have the opportunity of following the proceedings of the committee nearly as closely 'as I should have liked. I have been informed, however

and I shall be very glad if any hon. member will correct me if I am in error-that evidence was adduced before the committee to the effect that in many cases people interested in gatherings of fraternal or charitable organizations, under the .cloak of having performances given, the entire proceeds of which were to be devoted to charitable or fraternal purposes, with which we are all in sympathy, cut the proceeds and took off substantial profits for themselves. Am I right? If I am wrong I should like to be corrected; if I am right, I object to such procedure.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: One instance was brought before the committee which to my mind should not have been made a matter of reference. The committee by unanimous resolution eliminated from the evidence the time and place, because, the instance concerned a statement of a clergyman that certainly could not have been uttered except in a merely jocular manner. No other similar case was brought belore the committee, and after taking advice from the law officers of the crown, and in order to obviate the possibility of any person receiving private profit from such performances, the words "private profit" were inserted in this provision, as they had been introduced in other sections of the original act. I have no doubt considerable .propaganda has been carried on throughout the country

Copyright Act
in this respect, otherwise I should not have received a large, number of communications from representatives of nearly every agricultural fair and exhibition from the Atlantic to the Pacific, nor would I have received communications from a great many hon. members of this house demanding exemption in respect to agricultural fairs and exhibitions. The real issue in the minds of those who have advocated the insertion of such a clause in the bill is this: There is no copyright and there can be no copyright, there is no property and there can be no property right in copyright in this country, which does not subsist by reason of statutes enacted by this parliament. In respect to statutes which create rights and vest them in the author and his assignees there certainly is the right on the part of parliament to prescribe the conditions under which that statutory right shall be exercised and under which it may be enforced. That argument appealed to me as being a very strong one in favour of the insertion in the bill of section 6 which is now under discussion.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I said before that no liberty of conscience existed in astronomy. When one deals with a positive science one must deal with it in a positive way. No compromise is possible either in mathematics or in astronomy; stars either do or do not exist. We learn their distances, their magnitude and all the facts in connection with them. The matter before, us is purely legal in character, and in that there can be no compromise. A duty is cast upon this parliament to legislate in such a way that the resulting law will stand the test of the courts and give justice to the people whose needs it is designed to meet. I do not intend to be a party to any compromise in the way of legislation. The statement is made that we must educate the people before we provide for the safeguarding of rights and the necessary remedies. I think that is a false position to take. The sooner we provide deterrents against the violation of any law we enact, the better that law will be and the sounder will be its administration. The Secretary of State has said that copyrights exist in Canada merely and only by virtue of statutes. I have no quarrel with that, but there is a limit to the exercise of those rights by statute. If you grant copyright to the extent of 5 per cent to an author, then you are in duty bound to give him the exercise of the lights that go with the. 5 per cent or else take them away altogether.
Reverting to this clause, I think it is the most brazen demand that was ever placed before a committee. It is sought by this legislation to take away from the author his
copyright if his work is used for charitable, religious and other purposes. I think the hon. Secretary of State has chosen a rather extreme case in citing the singing of hymns in churches.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was merely by way of illustration.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: In the most amicable
spirit I challenge the hon. minister or any other hon. member to state any case where in this country an author whose rights have been infringed in the way described by the Secretary of State has taken action against any church community. No such privileges exist in the Patent Act. For instance, why should we not say that any device of a patentee may be used for " charitable, educational or religious purposes" without remunerating the patentee? W'hy should we not say that for any religious purpose or for a charity the ladies auxiliary of a certain community shall have the right by statute to go to the caterer's and take everything required for their afternoon tea, free of charge? Why should we not say that the janitor of the fraternal association next to my home, for instance, should have a statutory right to use my lawn mower to cut the grass of his association's lawn? Are we going to continue this principle ad infinitum and by statute take away from our citizens their undoubted rights? This subsection reads:
fvii) The performance of any musical work by any church, college or school, or by any religious, charitable or fraternal organization, provided such performance is given without private profit for religious, educational or charitable purposes.
I think the point was as neatly put as it could be by the hon. member for West-Ham-ilton (Mr. Bell). But see how wide this proposed amendment is "for all religious, charitable or fraternal organizations." It is simply preposterous that one should be mulcted of one's rights to this extent by statute. Who has asked for this concession? No church, no college, no school, no religious or charitable institution appeared before the committee and asked for it. True, Mr. Blake Robertson appeared on behalf of the Fair and Exhibition Associations of Canada, asking that they be allowed to use, free of charge, at their fairs and exhibitions, music, copyright or otherwise. I would have no objection to that if it could be lawfully done. But there are two reasons why it cannot be done; first, that such a concession infringes on the rights belonging to Canadian nationals, and we cannot take those rights without their
Copyright Act


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As the result of propaganda from one end of the country to the other.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Here is one from Charlottetown :
I do not consider that the proposed change is in the interests of any of the objects named, rather it is legalizing theft.
I shall prove that this is purely and simply an incentive to theft, just as much as it is an incentive to misrepresentation and fraud, as was hinted by the hon. member for West Hamilton. Here is another protest from a reverend canon:
It is unjust.
The superintendent of University hospital, Edmonton, writes:
I consider legislation of this nature "highway robbery." Churches, colleges, schools and fraternal organizations are the only bodies which are not feeling the present financial depression. Many charitable organizations exist for their own benefit, their cost of administration being greater than their benevolence. True philanthropic bodies do not require this legislation. Little theatre groups require their funds to help counteract their psycho-neurotic temperament, but not at the expense of the composer.
From British Columbia we get this communication :
Does the parliament of Canada seek to justify the confiscation of property? If so, at whose request?
[Mr. Chevrier.j
Here is another protest:
As chairman of a local church, I have not heard of any demand for passing this legislation.
The following is from a very distinguished cleric:
I regard your contentions as perfectly just
Another distinguished cleric writes:
It should not be enacted. It is most unjust
There were 133 of these communications received by the committee; I shall not trouble hon. gentlemen by reading the others. But there is the situation. Much as I should like the request to be granted, I say we cannot legally do so. Of course, parliament can take away from the author the right of refusing or of granting a request for the use of his copyright. But nobody wants to be legislated into heaven by statute. And compulsory charity is no charity. I submit that under the terms of the Rome convention which we are about to ratify, we have no right to do this. Here is what we have the right to do: we have distinguished, and we have the right to distinguish, between nationals and unionists in this country. We have imposed unjust conditions, limitations, bonds and fetters upon our own national authors by sections 15, 16 and 17 of the present law-the "licensing clauses". We did impose those restrictions upon our nationals but we knew we had not the right to impose them upon unionist authors, whom we had to exempt from the operation of that law. The solution is simple. If this parliament desires to grant that, let parliament draft that clause in the way it should be drafted, because it is practically meaningless as it stands. Let parliament draft the clause in the way it desires and add one more fetter and limitation restricting the rights of nationals and say to people, to their hearts' content, "You may use Canadian music for any purposes whatsoever, but we will not impose any restriction upon unionist authors who have rights in Canada."
Now I come to the second clause, which is that relating to fairs. Again, I should like to extend that privilege to the fairs, but I find myself in the very same situation because of the law as it is to-day. We are going to limit it to agricultural fairs or fairs where there is no private profit-or fairs under the control of the Dominion or the provincial or the municipal authorities. Now, one must be careful in the drafting of that clause to cover those to whom it is intended to apply. I do not wish for a moment to be regarded as attempting any jokes or making puns, but when one is speaking of the directors of any money-making fair, so far as this bill is con-

Copyright Act
cerned, one cannot help using the word fair in a double sense. I am sure that any owner or manager or promotor of a fair intends to deal justly and fairly with those with whom he comes into contact, and I submit that the principal feature of any fair is the musical side of it. Well, after all, if one wants a fair with music, why should not one pay for the music? If one wants a ham omelette there is but one way I know of getting it: it is to pay for the ham and for the omelette. If a community or a promoter has not the money to pay for the music, let them have the fair without the music, just as, if one had not the money to pay for the ham in the omelette, he must be satisfied with the plain omelette.
There are a number of fairs that make money-fairs that derive a profit. I will take one by way of illustration, the Toronto exhibition. I have every reason to assume that the people at the head1 of that exhibition, the managers and directors, wish to deal fairly by those whose commodities they utilize. I am satisfied of that, whether it 'be music or anything else. Why, then, insert in the statute a provision that will not be invoked? The moment you exempt these people by statute, then I submit they would be absolutely foolish, and not the business men I presume they are, if, being exempted by statute, those in charge of these large fairs did not take advantage of the provision. Now, in what categories do they come? I have bere the report of the Canadian National Exhibition of Toronto- and let me assure the committee that I am not singling out this exhibition, above any other, with any special object in view. I simply take it as an illustration. Their financial report, which I have here, shows that they made last year $685,746.27. This profit may be invested, or some other disposition may be made of it. But it is a profit. Then one would say it does not come within the terms of the statute because it is a profit. But take the words "agricultural fairs." Can one argue that the Toronto exhibition is not an agricultural fair? I have its program, and from page 25 to page 49-24 out of 35 pages of descriptive matter-70 per cent of the report deals exclusively with the agricultural side of the fair. One needs but to look at the titles. We find, for instance, that a magnificent total exceeding S125.000 was offered by the board of directors as primary awards in competitive classes: $2,500,000 has been distributed in agricultural prizes since 1879. And it refers, page after page, to horse show, to cattle, giving various descriptions of the animals, to sheep and the like. Under this description the Toronto exhibition could be brought within the category of agricultural
fairs. But if it does not come under that head, it is undoubtedly one that is under the control of the municipality of Toronto, and therefore on that score it would come in.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the management of these large fairs would willingly pay for what they get; they would be satisfied to pay for it. If you could grant the demand and grant protection of the rights of nationals, the protection of Canadian writers and composers, and at the same time the protection of unionist authors in Canada that would be well and good. But the moment we interfere in any way with unionist rights we expose ourselves to retaliatory measures from the forty different nations of the world. They will say to us, "You are not affording to our Unionist authors in Canada that extent of protection which we in France, in Japan, in Finland, in Sweden, in Norway and in various other countries, grant to Canadian authors within our borders." As I have said, Mr. Chairman, in astronomy there is no liberty of conscience, and for these reasons I cannot accept this section.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: My hon. friend the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) is sorry that he cannot agree with the minister; I am equally sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Ottawa. I desire to congratulate the minister upon having made these two exemptions in this bill. They do not constitute a precedent at all; they are quite in conformity with public sentiment throughout the country. And similar exemp* tions can be found in the criminal code where these various institutions are bracketed together. So that there is no precedent in that respect. But even if there were a precedent this parliament is surely capable of making it. The minister will recall that I had a conversation with him the day the amended bill was tabled, and he convinced me that these two exemptions were to the same effect although differently drafted. I think he is right in that respect; they do mean the same thing. Nevertheless it has been pointed out to me by a number of agricultural authorities and officers that the very fact that these two provisions are drafted differently will create in the minds of many people the presumption that they must differ in meaning since they are differently drafted. I believe they mean the same thing, but at the same time the lay mind will not be apt to incline to that view. This is a matter that has been of concern to officers of agricultural associations for five or six years. I am delighted with it even as it stands, and it seems almost like an attempt to gild refined gold to make even a suggestion
Copyright Act

with respect to a slight change in it. I think these two exceptions might be drawn exactly alike and still be in conformity with the desires of the minister. The doubt would then be removed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The committee will notice
that the clause dealing with performances at any agricultural exhibition or fair is worded: "The performance without private profit of any musical work at any agricultural exhibition or fair." If I were to change the first clause dealing with musical works by any church and so on to read: "The performance of any musical work at any church, college or school" it would give an immensely wider scope to that clause. I excepted the performance of any musical work not given at any church, not given at any college, or not given at any school. Our Protestant churches throughout the country are holding entertainments which come and should come within the provisions of the Copyright Act, but, in regard to colleges, churches or schools it is restricted to the performance of any musical work by any church, college or school. In regard to agricultural fairs, we have made it a performance without private profit of any musical work at any agricultural exhibition or fair. This clause exempts the performers without private profit as well as the exhibition and the managers of the exhibition.


George Hamilton Pettit: Will the minister advise
the committee if this section would cover a band which charges for playing at an agricultural fair? I do not think it does.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My own opinion is that if
any band plays at an agricultural exhibition or fair and receives any private profit for such performance, it is not exempt.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, may I
say a few words on the amending legislation which is before the committee? I note with gratification the clause in the amending bill dealing with agricultural exhibitions and fairs, which reads as follows:
The performance without private profit of any musical work at any agricultural exhibition or fair which is held under dominion, provincial or municipal authority.
I commend the minister for including that clause in the amending section, as I think it meets with the viewpoint of every agricultural society in western Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There are eight hundred of them.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I believe it meets with
the viewpoint of every agricultural society in

Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba, and also in the other provinces. I do not omit any of the provinces, not even British Columbia or Ontario. I think all these societies will be delighted; I am myself and I am quite willing to congratulate the minister on this clause. The clause deals with any fair or exhibition held under dominion, provincial or municipal authority, but what about an exhibition which might be organized in an unorganized district, [DOT]say in nothern Saskatchewan or northern British Columbia? The farmers themselves might form an organization which would be supported by private funds perhaps for three or four years, and then later when the territory has become fully organized this organization would receive some support from the municipality or the provincial government, or even from the dominion government. What would be the position of such a society? Would it be amply safeguarded?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would it not be within a
municipal district?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Any such district would
be unorganized and I do not believe it would be called a municipal district. Of course the whole province is under provincial authority but I was wondering whether or not the act was definite on that point. I would like to see all such societies fully protected.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In the eastern provinces
these fairs are held under either dominion, provincial or municipal authority, and I assumed that the same system of holding fairs prevailed generally throughout the dominion. If there is any municipal authority which could give authority for the holding of such a fair in an unorganized district, it certainly would be exempt. However, in the unorganized districts I do not think the Canadian Performing Right Society, Limited, would be able to get after you. That is the only other solatium I can offer.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If a fair were held in
an unorganized territory under provincial authority would it be exempt?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly, if it were under
provincial authority.


Mr. BEAUBIER:: Did I understand the
minister to say that where a band was employed by an exhibition board and paid for its services, it would not be exempt?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If it is making no private
profit out of the performance it would be exempt, but that would have to be determined by an inquiry as to whether or not

Copyright Act
the performance were given without private profit. I adhere to the words "private profit" because they are used in other sections of the act as it exists at the present time. I have received an opinion from the Deputy Minister of Justice in the following words:
I have to advise that even in case the society represented by Mr. Woodhouse-
That is the Canadian Performing Right Society, Limited.
-holds the performing rights for music played by a band at a Canadian exhibition, such exhibition is not bound to pay a licence fee to the society, and, in the event of refusing to do so, is not liable to prosecution by the society, unless it knowingly causes or was aware of the infringement complained of and the performance was for private profit.
According to the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice every performance not given for private profit is not an infringement of the Copyright Act. I think thait should be made clear because that interpretation of the existing law has not been given by many magistrates who are called upon to administer the act.
Mr. BELIj (Hamilton):	In the event that
such a band plays at a fair or exhibition and is paid a fee for so doing, which it may very properly be paid, and takes that fee and puts it into its pocket, which it may very properly do, is that not a performance for private profit?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not construing the
law.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am sure my hon. friend will be glad to help us by construing the law if he can.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I cannot pose as an authority
on the interpretation of the law. What I say is this:	In my opinion, a fair compromise
is that any performance which is given without private profit would be exempt. Prior to 1924 this country did not know of the enforcement of those performing rights to the extent to which they are enforced to-day. Prior to 1924 no city, town or municipal band was ever brought before a magistrate or ever sued for an infringement. In 1924 when + he statute was brought into effect, it created a new law with regard to performing rights in musical works in Canada and vested those performing rights in the author.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: What created the performing rights?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A statutory recognition of performing rights is what I am dealing with. As this performing right cannot exist in this country apart from statute, the parliament
which is vested with authority to create copyright, performing rights in copyright, may in its discretion say, as parliament has said in the past, that when a performance is given without private profit it shall not be deemed to be an infringement of the act. I do not intend to discuss this further. The hon. member for Ottawa has said that there was no demand before the committee for this legislation. The reason is that, in the bill as introduced, certain of these rights were recognized, but it is clear that eveiy agricultural exhibition or fair, with few exceptions, from one end of the country to the other has by telegram and letter communicated with the department of the Secretary of State demanding exemptions of this nature. We have introduced them in the bill. I am not personally concerned whether parliament approves those clauses or not. It was the duty of the Secretary of State to bring to the attention of parliament the fact of the existence of public opinion from one end of the country to the other that such exemptions should be made and I am prepared to take a vote and to allow the committee and parliament to decide whether or not those exemptions shall be granted. This is not a party measure in the sense that the government will stand or fall by the approval or defeat of this legislation. These issues have been before parliament time and time again. The government is anxious to give to the authors of this country the additional rights which are created under the Rome convention, if that is accepted, and we desire therefore, in adhering to the Rome convention, to deal only with those sections of the present Copyright Act which must necessarily be dealt with, first to enable us to ratify the Rome convention, and, secondly, so to satisfy public opinion throughout Canada as to justify members of parliament in voting for the main provisions of the bill.


David Wilson Beaubier: The hon. member for West Hamilton asked a moment ago a question which I had intended to ask, that is with reference to performances by bands employed by exhibition boards. It was not very clearly or definitely answered that they would be exempt from this tax. While I am on my feet, however, I might say that the exhibition boards of the country, particularly Toronto, Brandon, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina, sometimes bring in bands from a distance as far as England or Australia. In this way our people are afforded an opportunity of hearing some excellent music from these bands and the public come great distances to hear them. I should like to know and have ilt clearly defined whether these
Copyright Act

musicians who receive remuneration for their services at such exhibitions are exempt?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think I can give a definite answer. There is not a band performing in this country at present but obtains a licence from the Performing Right Society of Canada, Limited, which controls 95 per cent of modern music, which controls 3,000,000 musical works and which grants licences by the week, month or year to the various performing bands throughout Canada. There is no doubt that every band which give a performance in this country obtains a licence for that purpose. The clause is intended to exempt exhibitions and other societies only.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Does the Secretary of State mean to say that simply because there is a large demand for this kind of legislation, that makes the legislation legal; and, second, is the Secretary of State absolutely satisfied that this legislation if it passes will be 100 per cent in accord with the directions and stipulations of the Rome convention?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not called upon to construe the Rome convention. There is a Court of International Justice which may construe that convention; but this I do say- and I say it with all sincerity and fervour- that the public opinion of this country, as made manifest to me through the Department of the Secretary of State in large numbers of communications received by that department when my predecessor, the hon. member for St. James was in office, and by others which I have received since then, is very close to this stage-


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Does that make the measure valid?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Let me answer-is very close to this stage that if certain regulations which we propose to enact in this bill are not within the Berne convention, then public opinion in this country is in such a state that the great body of it may say that the sooner Canada gets out of the Berne convention, the better for Canada.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Will the hon. member move now that we get out of the Berne convention?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will not, because I believe the house will give an intelligent appreciation of the work that the committee has been endeavouring to do and will sanction the compromise at which we have arrived. If the house is not prepared to accept these clauses now, it is open to every hon. member to exercise his independent vote and vote against 
them. I shall leave it to the house to say whether these clauses are to be incorporated in the bill or not. There is no whip connected with this vote. It is not a party measure. I am not trying to pay compliments to other hon. gentlemen, but I have been in the house for six years; I have sat on many committees and I do not think I was ever before on a committee where the individual members endeavoured more conscientiously and assiduously to arrive at a fair compromise than this committee. We have arrived at this compromise and proposed it to the house by a majority vote, my hon. friend dissenting, it is true. I do not wish to expend too much time in discussing it. We understand each other's views very well and I think we ought to have a vote as to whether or not this section shall carry.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was not quite clear on the answer which the minister gave on the point I brought up, namely, whether a fair in an unorganized district, not making any profit, would be exempt or amply safeguarded.


Mr. BROWN:: No such thing exists.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No such what?


Mr. RINERET:: If I may be permitted, it has already been stated by the Secretary of State that any performance given without private profit is exempted by the act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In the case raised by the hon. member for North Battleford, if no such fair exists, that settles it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Might I say in answer to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), that such a fair does exist?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Coming back to the point, I believe that a fair such as mentioned by my hon. friend would be covered by section 26 of the bill. May I say further that if I do not press my objection to these clauses it is because I consider they do not introduce such radically new matter into the copyright act. There is no infringement where there is no private profit, and we are here only making it clear that this shall apply without the least doubt. I share the minister's view that unless we had these two clauses we could not possibly put this bill through the house, and it is to save other sections of the bill that I am quite willing not to press any objection to these clauses.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Might I just say that there is such a thing as a fair in unorganized

Copyright Act
municipal territory? I was wondering what the minister's answer was on that point.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no doubt that it
will be protected under provincial authority.


William Richard Motherwell: If the provincial government recognizes such fairs, it would be protected.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 7-Presumptions as to copyright and ownership.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With reference to the new proposed subsection 3, under the law as it exists at present any plaintiff who comes into court and says that he is the author is presumed to be the author without proof. That presumption has not been changed. Paragraph (a) of subsection 3 says:
The work shall, unless the contrary is proved, he presumed to be a work in which copyright subsists.
Paragraph (b) says:
The author of the work shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be the owner of the copyright.
A new provision is inserted with respect to that presumption. If the copyright is registered and assignments of the copyright have been registered under the act, the succeeding presumptions are annulled if contrary to the registration which exists. It is simply to make that clear that lines fourteen, fifteen and sixteen on page 3 have been inserted. With regard to the new subsection 4, under the law as it exists to-day in the United Kingdom and under the law as it exists in Canada, the author or owner of a copyright must elect as to whether he will sue for damages or whether he will sue for participation in the profits made by the infringer of the copyright. One action excludes the other entirely. Actions are brought for damages, and no damage can be proven. Then an entirely new action has to be brought, within the term within which an action may be brought, for participation in the profits which may have been made by the infringer. The matter was discussed in the United States. The new copyright bill of the United States congress, which passed the House of Representatives, and passed its two readings in the senate but was lost because of a filibuster which prevented its third reading before the recent adjournment of congress, contained this section which was demanded iby the authors of the United States, namely, that in the same suit the author or owner cou'ld sue not only for damages but for participation in the profits made
by the infringer. It applies largely to broadcasting rights by radio. It is sometimes difficult for the author or owner to prove any substantial damages. This section provides that he may sue for damages and also for participation in profits, and that in addition to the. damages proved, the court may award him such share of the profits as the court may deem equitable. It goes further in favour of the author, and provides with regard to proving profits that all he is compelled to prove is the amount of revenue derived by the inifringer, and every element of cost which enters into the consideration of the question of profits must be proved by 'the infringer himself. This was inserted in the United States bill at the request of the authors of that country, and was finally approved by the senate unanimously without division. In view of the fact that in England and in this country the same difficulty arises, we deemed it advisable to give by this section to the author or owner the right to take conjoint action in respect of the two remedies which under our present system are mutually exclusive.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Perhaps I may
be permitted to illustrate a point that I desire to make by giving the committee a little of what our American friends would doubtless be inclined to term some inside dope. My hon. friend the minister has just dealt in his .usual very able and very fair manner with one Class of protection; (that is, the protection of people who turn out books, and the protection perhaps of people who turn out photographs. It might even be that the section which he has just explained accords some measure of protection to musical compositions. But let me assure the committee that it does not afford one particle or scrap of protection to the man whose life work carries him into the theatre. Not one particle of protection is there for him, for the work which he has wrought out by the sweat of his brain.
I said a moment ago that I might be pardoned, perhaps, if I gave the committee what might be vulgarly termed a little inside dope. It is to this effect:	In the first place, some
years ago as a youngster I attempted, through a great deal of my own effort, to obtain some recognition on Broadway. The greatest difficulty I there encountered was the attitude of all those who were engaged in the production and casting of plays to the effect that a Canadian could not have within him the possibility of producing anything of the type I tried to place before them. The one cry that was addressed to me when I sought recognition month after month, year after
Copyright Act

year, was, "Get out of that rube country you are living in, come to the United States and you will get somewhere." It was horrible to think that we should be so designated. I remember an incident when, after one of my plays had run on Broadway for quite a length of time, I went into a shop jn my home city. The shopkeeper said to me, "A funny thing happened; you will remember that a few minutes ago you were looking in my shop window. A man came into my shop and spoke of a play he had just seen on Broadway. I said to him, 'Do you want to know where the play came from? The author is outside looking in at the window.' The other man said, 'You have given me the best laugh of the week. You do not suppose any man who could succeed in the United States would waste his time in Canada, a country which will not do anything for its dramatic authors, but lets them starve.' " So far as Canada is concerned, during those years I fought for recognition and for something to live on, I could have starved, because anything I have ever been able to get as a dramatic author I got through the producing brains and energy of American producers backed by American capital, by Americans paying their money into the ticket offices of American houses in American coin. The money I got I did not leave in the. United States, however, but brought it back to the country of my birth to which I stuck, although I received no help whatsoever from it. In the minds of some hon. members of the committee it may seem unreasonable that I should feel as strongly as I do in this matter, but may I tell hon. members that upon those two occasions when that which I was able to produce met with a degree of success, when my work was being shown in Germany, Austria, Italy and in countries even as far away as China, when I was receiving royalties on the work I had produced, out in the city of Vancouver a stock company was brazenly and openly stealing every play it could steal and would not pay me a Canadian, one cent for that which I had produced, although the people of Germany, China and those foreign countries were willing to pay. Is that fair? Is that something to boast about? Is that something of which we Canadians may be proud? Only last winter a stock company was organized in Winnipeg and the same old brazen theft was repeated. Some people may say, "Oh well, what does it matter?" Others may say, "What rights have authors to the product of their own brains?" Others may say, "You may go into the House of Commons and see the benches only half filled during a debate 
of this kind, whereas, if some other topic were before the house, those benches would be filled." But where the author is concerned, out with him; let him starve, so far as his own fellow countrymen are concerned. I ask this committee:	Is that the proper attitude
for the parliament of Canada to adopt, not towards me-it makes no difference about what I may do or fail to do-but towards that young generation coming along who want to make Canada a place of distinction, who want if possible to make Canada preeminent in every line of activity? Is that the proper attitude to adopt towards those young people who look to this house to safeguard their interests?
My very highly esteemed friend the minister, whom I like and respect so much, has just read a clause in the bill through which it is proposed to safeguard the rights of those who publish books. Doubtless those rights can be safeguarded. Doubtless when books are pirated it will be an easy matter to proceed against those, who steal them and against those who publish them improperly and dishonestly. Let me tell the committee however that such a clause is not worth a rush, so far as dramatic compositions are concerned. With the help of such a clause the authorities could seize the output of a pirating company which is publishing thousands of copies of a book. In the case of dramatic production however, worthless men may go into some part of Canada, steal the properties of other men and perform them for weeks. They are irresponsible, and before long they are gone. Sue them? Yes, sue. them for damages. Why, the burlesque of such action would shriek to heaven! Sue them for damages! What damages would we get when the offender was brought to trial? There is only one action to take in connection with the thief of the theatre, and that is to put him in jail. That action has been taken in the United States. If the minister tells this committee that the. provision now contained in this bill is similar to that found in the American Copyright Act, I must agree with him. I have to go further however and remind the committee that in the Vestal bill and in the Dill bill, in fact in every bill which recently has come, before the congress of the United States, the provision for the jailing of the thief of the theatre has never been interfered with and never been abrogated. Were it not for that protection the dramatic authors of the United States would starve on the streets. Why should we in this country not have a provision at least reasonably akin to that? That is all I am contending for, Mr. Chairman. Let me tell the committee that

Copyright Act
until such a proviso is incorporated in the laws of this country the citizens of Canada, through their representatives in parliament, will have to take upon themselves the responsibility of driving out of this country any young men who show talent as dramatic authors, Undoubtedly they would not all be like myself and be determined to stay here and work under a severe handicap. Please do not misunderstand me; I am not asking for sympathy. I am not asking for any commendation but am trying only to make the committee appreciate the true situation and to help the men who by the protection of this parliament should be helped now and in the future.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It seems to me that the comments of my hon. friend from Hamilton are entirely beside the issue. The United States have never entered the Berne or any other convention. In that country there are special laws protecting authors who first publish in the. United States. There is a community of
110,000,000 or 120,000,000 people, and works in connection with which copyrights subsist are most advantageous to authors and owners.
I am not surprised my hon. friend has gone to the United States from time to time to secure copyrights for his works. In the clause under discussion however we. are simply giving to the authors and owners a right to join two actions for which many of them have asked, because only alternative actions can be brought in our courts at the present time. There are remedies in our Copyright Act. I cited section 25. Section 26 provides for fine and imprisonment in respect of infringement of the provisions of the act. If the penalties are not sufficiently heavy to meet the views of my hon. friend, he or any other hon. member may introduce amendments to sections 25 and 26 to carry out their purpose. But in this bill I am not dealing with those penalties. Previous bills have sought to impose heavier penalties, but they were not passed by this house; the government in certain cases, the promoters in others, had to abandon those bills. I admit that a great deal may be said in favour of the contention of my hon. friend that heavier penalties should be imposed, but I do not wish to imperil this present bill which gives to authors more extensive rights in this country than they ever have had, and which by our adhesion to the Rome convention enables them to acquire new rights. I do not wish that a bill which is so favourable to their interests may be imperilled by any attempt to incorporate in it a new criminal code to protect their rights against infringement.


Noé E. Chevrier: At no time with as great pleasure have I had my powder stolen from me or the wind taken out of my sails as on this occasion. There were a number of considerations that I wanted to put before the committee, but my hon. friend from West Hamilton (Mr. Beil) has done so in such a convincing manner and so eloquently that I must leave the committee under the spell of his appeal. As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, the Rome convention does not prevent us from enacting any safeguards which Canada may feel inclined to enact.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not the slightest.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Then the minister and
I agree. But he led me to believe that the convention would not consent to our doing so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not at all.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Now. I submit that this subsection of section 7 joining these two rights of action gets us no further than we were before.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I may say to my hon. friend at once that I am perfectly willing to abandon the clause except that our authors throughout Canada have asked for it. I am not imposing it upon them. It gives them additional rights in this country. Those who have copyright works which are being broadcast by radio are asking for this section. If such authors as my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Chevricr) and my hon. friend from West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) think the clause is of no use, why should I worry my brains about it? I am not an author, I have no works to be protected.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am
not an author within the meaning of the Copyright Act, anyway, and I do not think the minister should talk to me in that tone. I am only concerned in seeing that fair play is done to the various interests.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does not this section give
fair play so far as it goes?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It does not bring the
author any nearer to getting satisfaction.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It enables the author in
every case to join two actions and re-cover damages, if he can prove damages, and also all the profits that the infringer has made out of the infringement.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Both rights of action
have existed heretofore and have been of absolutely no value.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Because they could not be
joined under our present procedure, and now
Copyright Act

they can be joined under this proposed amendment.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Those actions were
repeatedly taken independently but they failed to effect their purpose.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not heard of any failures.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am about to show the minister that this proposed amendment does not get us one bit further than before.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then let us abandon it.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I submit to the Secretary of State that the authors, as such, would be in a much better position by remaining as they are to-day than they would be with this bill going through.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With this section going
through?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: With the bill going through.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: From one section of the country to the other authors have asked for it. There was no single objection raised to this clause before the committee.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The amendment is
absolutely inefficient. With this section I heartily and wholly disagree. I say it does not give any more safeguards or any better means of redress than existed before. One of the only means of redress to-day is under section 26, which deals with infringement of dramatic, operatic or musical works. That section has been tested before the courts time and time again. With what result? If the hon. minister wants some examples I shall be happy to give them to him. But the section provides that the infringer shall be liable to pay such damages as the owner must prove.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: There is the difficulty that my hon. friend from West Hamilton referred to, and he has gone through the mill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why should he have any damages that he cannot prove?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Out of deference to the hon. minister I shall not answer his question. Indeed I would suggest that he have it struck out of the record.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not wish to. I simply say that I know of no action for tort that is possible under English law in which you can recover damages if you are unable to prove damages; and this infringement of copyright is a tort, nothing else.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Copyright is a statutory right, as the Secretary of State has repeated time and again, while an action for tort is a common law action. Here the author must prove the damages. He must then decide upon taking the profits that have been made by the infringer. My hon. friend from West Hamilton has said that in a number of instances the people performing these dramatic plays are not worth a continental cent; they keep no books of accounts, they possess no property. Let us see what the laws, are in this respect so far as the United States and Canada and France are concerned. The hon. Secretary of State has said again and again that he wants our law to conform with that of the United States.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not, except, in this
respect.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: In the United States the infringer is required, under the copyright law, to hand over to the copyright owner all the profits derived from a counterfeit performance or production. This is the provision of section 25-B, of which I have made a synopsis. There are two and a half pages setting forth rights and recourses running up to $5,000 in damages and three years' imprisonment. We have nothing of that kind in Canada. In the case of theatrical performances, the American copyright law fixes the minimum damages which the infringer is condemned to pay to the copyright owner as follows: $100 for the first performance and $50 for each subsequent performance. Moreover, he has to pay full costs to the plaintiff. In Canada there is nothing to that effect. In the United Ptates, the court may award to the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. Further again, and independently of these monetary damages, the infringer, as well as any person who aids or abets such infringement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000, or both. Let me read some of the headings under section 26 of the American law in order, by contrast, that we may see how in Canada we try to protect the rights of Canadian authors, to which the hon. member for West Hamilton referred. For the newspaper reproduction of a photograph the minimum recovery is $50 and the maximum $200. There is nothing like that in our law. The maximum amount of damages for the infringement of a dramatic work is $5,000, with a minimum of $250.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If my hon. friend thinks that such provisions should be enacted in the

Copyright Act
law of this country, he knows he is quite at liberty to introduce a bill to that effect. The government have not taken the responsibility of introducing such a measure for the reason that- in the past any approach to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman has never secured the approval of this house. And I do not think that at the present time these new penalties which the hon. member is proposing could secure the approval of the house. Is it not far better to accept the measure we have and leave to the future the question of introducing a new penal code?-because it is a penal code the hon. member has been reciting.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That is not an answer. We have had a copyright law in Canada for a numbers of years, and the people, instead of being educated to that copyright law, are, by that very law, being educated to persist in infringements, plagiarisms, distortions and mutilations of all sorts. And they are getting away with it. I submit to the minister, therefore, that the sooner these deterrent factors are incorporated in this absolutely innocuous law, the sooner he will have taught certain people in Canada to respect our copyright legislation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will not assume the responsibility for it this session.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: il submit that when the Secretary of State introduces legislation for the purpose of bringing our copyright legislation into conformity with the Berne convention, he is bound to bring down such legislation as will protect the rights of na-ationails as well as the rights Of unionist authors in Canada, to the same extent as the rights of Canadians, in common with those of unionist authors, are recognized in other countries. If he does not do this, then I submit he is derelict in his duty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Let me say to the hon. gentleman at once that in this respect this bill is in conformity with the Berne convention. No duty or responsibility is placed upon us to incorporate a new criminal code into our Copyright Act. The Berne convention expressly states that all measures to enforce that act, by way of penalty or otherwise, are left to the discretion of the legislature of the country which is a member of the union.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The hon. gentleman has given me the answer. The Berne convention imposes upon us the obligation of legislating-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In our own discretion.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It does not say discretion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Nonsense.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Nonsense? The term is "shall". Probably it does not indicate the extent to which we should go. But is the Secretary of State prepared to argue that in simply making a stipulation which is absolutely non-deterrent, absolutely innocuous, absolutely useless, he is safeguarding the rights of authors and obeying the directions of the convention.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Allow me to answer the question. Article 4, clause 2, of the convention, provides that the extent of protection as well as the means of redress to safeguard the rights of authors shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country whose protection is claimed-leaving entirely to the discretion of that country the nature of the penalties to be imposed. If my hon. friend can secure a majority of this house in favour of his position, well and good. But he knows as well as I do that he is crying in the wilderness, for this house is not prepared at the present time to accept the penal code he suggests.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am sorry if I have been crying in the wilderness. However, I am prepared to keep on crying in the desert. Let me answer the hon. gentleman's argument that the protection of the rights of authors is a matter which is left to the different contracting parties. That is perfectly true. But those who drafted the convention did honestly rely upon the common sense and the sense of proportion of the legislatures of the contracting countries.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then you are reflecting upon this parliament and upon all parliaments that have existed in this country since 1921.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am reflecting upon those who persist in saying that the few remedies indicated in our law are an adequate satisfaction and constitute a compliance with the direction of the Berne convention that proper safeguards should be provided in the interest of authors. Now to proceed:
In France, in any case of unauthorized performance of a dramatic work, section 428 of the criminal code authorizes the confiscation of the whole proceeds of the performance as a partial indemnity to the author of the original work for the injury he has suffered by such infringement: and, moreover, the French courts have the power to condemn the infringer to pay damages.
Copyright Act

In Canada we have a Copyright Act. That act is derived from the British act, and pretty nearly everything in the way of remedy and means of redress to safeguard the author has been for some reason or other left out. The result is that the author has been pruned of almost all rights and means of redress and safeguards which to-day are provided for in the British act. If we are to make our copyright legislation conform with the British act, if we are going to boast, as the Secretary of State is fond of boasting, that our law is the same as the British law, why not let us have the whole British act as it is?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have made no boast about the British act in this house or anywhere else.


Noé E. Chevrier: Why should we have a sort of hybrid act, which is neither one nor the other? Between the two the author finds his defeat. In England to-day, there are a number of statutes that are operative in the British act, and which were scrupulously cut out of the Canadian law. Recently in the United States, a man named Carter selected four short stories by well-known American authors, disguised these stories rather crudely, and sold them to magazines, in which they were published under Carter's name. He was sued in the New York courts for plagiarism, and, under the American law of copyright, was sentenced in February 1930 to three years' imprisonment. In Montreal, Canada, a man named Eugene Lasalle, who in three consecutive years directed performances of a drama entitled "La Passion," which was a flagrant plagiarism of a French play bearing the same title, was caught by the two original authors of that play, Messrs. Casimir and Comer, and brought before a Montreal court. Lasalle was duly convicted of plagiarism and, under the Canadian law of copyright, was sentenced in November, 1928, to a fine of ten dollars.


Leslie Gordon Bell: That is what it
would be.


Noé E. Chevrier: I could refer the minister to some very interesting cases which have been before the tribunals of Montreal. There is that classic case of Leroux vs. Gui-mond and Silvio. This was a case of plagiarism of the most revolting kind. There are two kinds of infringement, one a simple infringement, for lack of authorization, and the other where a man wilfully suppresses the name of the author, distorts the play, mutilates it, makes it to suit his own purpose and puts his own name to it. Guimond and Silvio played about fourteen representations and cleared up about [Mr. Chevxier.l
four thousand dollars. They were sued and when they appeared before the judge, the plagiarism was so flagrant that they admitted their guilt, that they had cut the name of Leroux, that they had mutilated the play, that they had played it under Guimond's name. Under this clause of the bill, damages must be proven. What monetary value can an author place upon his work because of the fact that someone has played his play or sung his song without his consent? Nevertheless, there has been a straight violation of his property rights. There is nothing in the law which says that he is entitled to some punitive or exemplary damages. This particular defendant then tried to offset his own costs. He deducted everything which he had paid for salaries, for light and rent finally he had nothing left. These figures could not be checked up because he was a sort of transient actor and promoter, a similar case to that mentioned by the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Upon the admission of the plagiarism the judge threw up his hands and said that there was nothing in the law which would permit him to assess damages, as no damages had been proved. Fortunately the judge went as far as he could and finally decided that the measure of damages would be a sum representing the value of the number of copies which the author might have been precluded from selling by reason of the fact that the play had been played without his consent, and he allowed two hundred dollars damages which the defendant never paid.
In order to obtain a sterile vindication of his honour, this author spent something like six hundred dollars and costs in order to obtain judgment of two hundred dollars which could not be collected. If the hon. Secretary of State is prepared to say that that is a means of redress within the terms of our law, if he means to say that that is complying with the spirit of the convention to safeguard the rights of authors, then he has a very poor conception of what is right. By this convention we are bound to give to the unionist authors in Canada the same measure of security and protection which we receive in other countries. If we are satisfied to allow our own nationals to get away with a ten dollars fine for an infringement which, had it taken place in France, would have been met with an assessment of considerable damages, then we leave ourselves open to retaliatory measures by the other contracting nations.
I just warxt to add one more word to what the hon. member for West Hamilton has said. It has been admitted many times that the

Copyright Act
development oif literature in Canada has not been as rapid as it might have been. The hon. Secretary of State htas properly stated that this bill is not a partisan matter. We hear a lot about protecting industries, protecting the development of monetary or financial interests, protecting manufacturers and factories, but we are not protecting in any way the national development of literature. We are taking no steps whatever to assure to the youth of to-day that should they take up a career of writing, their works will be safeguarded and their interests wall be protected, that whatever .'they may be able to achieve in the way of success, whatever they may be able to obtain in the way of monetary remuneration will be protected. For these reasons I cannot accept subsection 4 of clause 7.
Subsection agreed to on division.
On subsection 5-Protection of separate rights.
Mr. OAHAiN: Separate rights have grown up under the Copyright Alct. There is the performing right, there is the producing right by mechanical instrument, there is the broadcasting right, and under the law as it now stands .there is doubt as to whether or not the plaintiff, who has the performing right which he desires to enforce, must necessarily join the author or the owner of the copyright as a parity to the suit. This section provides that the author or the owner of any right, title or interest whatsoever may sue in the courts individually for the protection of his individual right without joining other parties.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Registration of a grant of interest in copyright.
Noé E. Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I have
a very short observation to make in connection with this clause. I entertain the gravest doubts as to the soundness of subsection 1, 2 and 3 of this clause, in view of .the provisions of the Rome convention, and I will limit my observations to the reading of a portion of a letter from Downing street, dated July 26, 1927. This letter is contained in sessional paper N.o. 272, the return of which was made to the house in April. It is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and reads as follows:
It would therefore appear that the provisions of section 39 of the Canadian Act-
That section is now section 40. The letter continues:
It would therefore appear that the provisions of section 39 of the Canadian act, as now interpreted by the courts, are in contravention of the stipulations of article 4, paragraph 2, of the revised Berne convention, which provides that the enjoyment and the exercise of the rights conferred by the convention shall not be subject to the performance of any formality.
Moreover it would appear from the provisions of section 39, subsection I of the Canadian act that registration of an assignment can only be made if the assignment is made in duplicate.
This does not now make it -compulsory, but the principle is the same as to registration.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am not going to agree with that. I think this is the radical clause of the bill. There is a complete change in it as between registration being compulsory as it was in the act, and as it is now, and this section which makes it voluntary. I may say I am cognizant of the letter from which my hon. friend has read. It does cover the case of compulsion, but now that the Secretary of State proposes to d'o away with compulsion, I do not think this lettter has any application to the matter.
M.r. CAHAN: Furthermore I may say that during the last long session my hon. friend, on behalf of the then government of which he was a member, introduced a bill, but owing to some delay at the end of the session it was not proceeded- with. I have adopted the same principle and the same policy as contained in the government bill introduced by my hon. friend when he was Secretary of State.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I was just going to mention that; that was my reason for rising. I want to be fair to the government, This section is practically a reproduction of my bill of last year.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly.


Noé E. Chevrier: I just want to draw the analogy between this principle and the one that was in the other clause. For the purposes, however, of expediency, I am quite satisfied, since I have said that I am not absolutely in favour of these subsections, to leave my stand at that.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 10-Performing rights.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I dislike very much to take up the time of the house, but as this section of the bill will be subject to discussion, I wish to -explain my position with regard to it. There is in this country a company known as the Performing Right Society of Canada. It was that company which brought to the attention

Copyright Act

of the government of the United Kingdom, the old section 40 of the Copyright Act as it exists at present. That section imposed upon any assignee of a grant or licence of performing rights the duty of producing at the Copyright office the original assignment and a duplicate of that assignment for registration. There must be duplicate copies of the assignment and unless the assignment was registered, no recovery could be made in respect of infringements of the act. It was found that duplicate copies were not in existence for many of those assignments which had been made during the past fifty years. In many cases the assignors had long since died and it was represented to the government of the United Kingdom 'by the Performing Right Society of England that it was unjust and unfair to exclude these assignments from registration owing to the impossibility of producing duplicate assignments from an assignor who had long since died. Secondly, in every case in which that company brought suit in respect of an infringement of a copyright they were compelled to show that the assignment of that copyright had been registered. They represented that they owned performing rights in 3,000,000. works; that the copyright office imposed a fee of one dollar in respect of each assignment, and that therefore the registration of their 3,000,000 works necessitated payment to the Copyright office of the sum of $3,000,000 for registration. It was in that connection that the communication came to the late government signed by Lord Lovat on behalf of the dominions' office in London. We have met that. It is no longer necessary that assignments should be made in duplicate; it is no longer necessary that assignments should be registered at all as a condition precedent to a recovery of damages for an infringement of copyright, or for the recovery of fees or royalties for performing rights. We have now by these sections which have passed, if they receive the final approval of parliament, wiped out all those objections. But this condition exists in Canada to-day: The Performing Right Society have hitherto been compelled to restrict their recovery of royalties, fees or charges for performing rights, to the few works which they have been able to register; but the Performing Right Society of England, which was the subject of investigation in that country in 1930, has procured the incorporation of a company in Canada known as the Performing Right Society of Canada Limited, with its head

office in Toronto. This company has procured from the English company an assignment of all its performing rights. It has procured from a similar association in France an assignment of all its performing rights; the same from Italy, the same from Germany, and more recently, from the United States it has procured an assignment of practically all performing rights in that country. The result is to-day that the Performing Right Society of Canada Limited controls the performance in 'Canada of the musical works of some 30.000 authors and musical works to the number of 3,000,000. It is admitted in their own testimony before the committee they control performing rights in. from 90 to 95 per cent of all modern music in the world. This Performing Right Society which has acquired this monopoly, I might say a super-monopoly, because each author has a monopoly in respect of his own works, has obtained vested rights in and control of about 95 per cent of all modern music, and instead of exacting fees and royalties as in times past for the performance of one musical work or a dozen musical works, it is now proposed to the users of music in Canada that they shall obtain from it a licence authorizing the performance of the whole 3,000,000 works, so that as at present, according to its present tariffs, which have been placed before the committee, if a band in a country community centre desires to perform band music, it must acquire from this company the right to perform the three million works which this society controls. If a broadcasting company, such as we find in Toronto or Montreal, desires to broadcast certain music as a part of the entertainment which it gives by radio, it is compelled to come to this company and pay whatever fee or royalty they demand, not for the performance of the 150 works which the broadcasting company may desire to perform, but for the performance of the whole three miilion works, or any of them or all of them which this society controls. Objection has been made to that. Very serious objection has been made by the broadcasting companies in this country, which I need not name, by the Canadian National Railways, which does a certain amount of broadcasting, by the Canadian Pacific Railway, which also broadcasts, and also by newspaper companies, which broadcast programs in various parts of this country. They have protested against that. Every hotel in this country which for the

Copyright Act
amusement and entertainment of its guests during the dinner hour performs music on the piano or by violin or by an orchestra is compelled to take monthly licences from the Performing Right Society of Canada for the performance of that music, and not for the performance simply of the 100 or 150 pieces which they may desire to perform during the week or month, but for the performance of the three million pieces which this company controls. Nearly every hotel proprietor in this country has protested against that condition of affairs. Exactly the same protests have come from civic bands, military and militia bands, and bands in certain civic communities throughout this country. If we amend this section 40 so that registration and the payment of fees under the act is no longer necessary, we no longer compel them to register their assignments, or the grants under which they obtained these rights; we no longer compel them to pay the fee of one dollar with respect to each registration, which will amount to $3,000,000. We give them all of that. But we wish to know the names of the pieces which this society controls. We say to them that it is in the interests of the music-users of this country that they should file in some public office in this country a list of the works which they control so that they are no longer in. a position to impose upon the people of this country the idea that they control everything. We say to them: File a list of the music works which you do control, so that those desiring to perform music may deal with other owners with respect to the works which they control. That they have so far refused to do.
Secondly, we say this; You do not represent the authors within the meaning and intent of the Berne convention or of the Rome convention. Those authors were granted certain rights with respect to their individual works. They were given the right of assignment of the copyright in those works. But an entirely new condition has arisen, where one society may control three million works, 95 per cent of the modern music of the world, and if that society is left unregulated and uncontrolled it is in the position of a combine or monopoly which in its own discretion may impose any royalties, any charges, any fees, whioh it may deem expedient, upon the music users of this country.
As to the method of control, we propose this provision:
Each association, society or company which carries on in Canada the business of acquiring copyrights of dramatico-musical or musical 22110-134i
works or of performing rights therein, and which deals with or in the issue or grant of licences for the performances in Canada of dramatico-musical or musical works in which copyright subsists, shall, from time to time, file with the minister at the copyright office:-
(a)	Lists of all dramatico-musical and musical works, in respect of which such association, society or company claims authority to issue or grant performing licences or to collect fees, charges or royalties for in resneet of the performance of such works in Canada; and
(b)	Statements of all fees, charges or royalties which such society, association or company proposes from time to time or at any time to collect in compensation for the issue or grant of licences for or in respect of the performance of such works in Canada.
That imposes upon them the duty of filing a list of their works, without charge, so that the public may be informed of what they control; and secondly, of filing a list of the fees, charges or royalties which they demand from the users of these musical works. Then comes the provision:
2. Whenever in the opinion of the minister, after an investigation and report by a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, any such society, association, or company which exercises in Canada a substantial control of the performing rights in dramatico-musical or musical works in which copyright subsists, unduly withholds the issue or grant of licences for or in respect of the performance of such works in Canada, or proposes to collect excessive fees, charges or royalties in compensation for the issue or grant of such licences, or otherwise conducts its operations in Canada in a manner -which is deemed detrimental to the interests of the public-
Then, upon an inquiry and report showing that in either one. of these three ways the company is acting in a manner detrimental to the public interest, a revision may be made of the fees, charges and royalties which it imposes. Public sentiment in this country requires that. In my personal opinion that clause is within and consistent with the terms of the Berne convention and of the Rome convention because, while this country of Canada may adhere to such a convention for the protection of authors' rights, it certainly reserves its own inherent right to deal with a monopoly within this country which controls 95 per cent of a product, and which is free without such regulation to exact any such fees, royalties or other charges as it may in its discretion impose. This imposes no penalties upon such company. It simply says to them: There are certain limits within which you may impose fees, charges and royalties, but if you proceed in such a manner as is deemed subversive of the public interest, an inquiry may be held
Census Enumerators

and your fees may be, revised. I think it is a fair way to deal with a monopoly of that character, and certainly public opinion in this country demands that there should be some such regulation of such an enormous and widespread combine and monopoly as that to which I have referred.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is a very important clause, and it is a departure in copyright legislation. I understand that my hon. friend from Ottawa, and perhaps other hon. gentlemen, would like to discuss it a little further. I would therefore suggest to the minister that as it is close to eleven o'clock the. committee might report progress.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rhodes the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Tuesday, June 9, 1931.