1931-07-08

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed the following bill without any amendment:-
Bill No. 100, An Act to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service.
Also, A message informing this house that the Senate doth unite with the House of Commons in an address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, praying that he may be graciously pleased to cause a message to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom, pursuant to certain declarations and resolutions made by the delegates of His Majesty's governments in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland, at imperial conferences held at Westminster, in the years of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six and one thousand nine hundred and thirty, and pursuant to certain other resolutions made by the delegates of His Majesty's government in Canada and of the governments of all the provinces of Canada, at a dominion-provincial conference held at Ottawa, on the seventh and eighth days of April, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, in the manner set forth in the said address thereto attached, and have filled in the blank space therein with the words "Senate and".
And also, A message informing this house that the Senate have passed an address to His Excellency the Governor General; praying that His Excellency may be pleased to transmit our joint address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, relative to a measure to be submitted to the parliament of the United Kingdom, and more particularly set forth in the said joint address: and desiring the concurrence of the House of Commons in the address to His Excellency the Governor General hereto attached, and the filling in of the blank space therein with the words "and Commons".
|Mr. Ralston.]
To His Excellency Captain the Right Honourable the Earl of Bessborough, a member of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Governor General and Commander in Chief, of the Dominion of Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
We, His Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Senate	of
Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave to approach Your Excellency with our respectful request that Your Excellency will be pleased to transmit in such a way as to Your Excellency may seem fit our joint address to His Most Excellent Majetsy the King; praying that His Majesty may be graciously pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom in the manner set forth in our joint address hereto attached.



MARINE AND FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on Marine and Fisheries-Mr. Ernst.

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

Mr. SPENCER:: How many associations, national, provincial or local, have passed resolutions in favour of full time health units during the last five years, and notified the Department of Health or the Minister of Health of their action in this regard?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1928-One, Dominion Council of Health;
1929-	two, Dominion Council of Health and Federated Women's Institutes of Canada;
1930-	two, both Dominion Council of Health;
1931-	three, Ontario Society for Crippled Children, Victorian Order of Nurses and Dominion Council of Health.


CENSUS ENUMERATORS-SKEENA
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	How many census enumerators were appointed in the Skeena riding?
2.	How many of these are returned soldiers?
3.	How many boats have been chartered for census purposes in the Skeena riding?
4.	What are the names of the boats, and howr much is each boat paid per day?

Questions


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Fifty-seven.
2.	Forty.
3.	Seventeen.
4.	The Alberta G and Northern Cross at thirty dollars per day; the Carrie, Dixie, Carmona, Taylor, Alice B, Newberry, H. Pelton, R. Pelton, Tillie C, Mella, Silverheels, at twenty-five dollars per day; the Edac, Polly Ann, Mollie and Mac Deane at twenty dollars per day.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT

Mr. LAURIN:: 1.	Has the government or any of its members received from the government of the province of Quebec, one or several requests asking for the establishment of reserve zones under the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, in the counties of:	(a) Jacques-Cartier; (b)
Terrebonne; (e) Deux-Montagnes?
2.	If so, when?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Jacques Cartier, February 21, 1929, March 7, 1929, May 1, 1929; (b) Terrebonne, December, 12, 1930; (c) Deux-Montagnes. December, 12, 1930.



STEVESTON, B.C., SOUTH JETTY

Mr. REID:: 1.	What amounts have been paid up to the present time on the contract let for work on the south jetty, Steveston, Fraser river, British Columbia?
2.	What are the names of the person or persons to whom the various cheques have been issued?
3.	What is the date of completion called for on the contract let on the south jetty, Steveston, Fraser river, British Columbia?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1 and 2. The whole work of the south jetty is under one single contract, with the W. R. Ja3uies Company. The payments up to the present date have been $86,430, all paid to the said company.
3.	February 6, 1932.



THE ACTING PRIME MINISTER

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	From September 22, 1930. until the return of the Prime Minister, did the Acting Prime Minister stay all the time in Ottawa?
2.	If not, at what dates wras he absent from Ottawa?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Mr. Speaker, I
do not keep a diary, but if my memory serves me correctly I was not absent from Ottawa for a single day during the time the Prime Minister was away from Ottawa last autumn. At the same time I wish to say that I do not consider this a proper question to ask, nor do I think the hon. member has a right to this information.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BROWN:: For a copy of the report made by Mr. W. R. Little, of the Department of Immigration, covering an inquiry held in Glasgow, Scotland, in April, 1930, with reference to complaints made by Mr. A. M. Graham.



RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION

Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between: (a) the Right Hon. Prime Minister; (b) the Hon. Minister of Marine; (c) the Hon. Postmaster General; (d) the Hon. Solicitor General; (e) the Hon. Secretary of State; (f) the private secretary or assistant secretary of each one of them and Mr. C. E. Dube, regarding the construction of a new railway station at Riviere du Loup, from June 1, to June 30, 1931.
For a copy of telegrams and letters from the Hon. Minister of Marine and his secretary to Mr. C. E. Dube and Mr. Leo Berube, arranging an interview with them in Ottawa on October 6, 1930.



ST. CHARLES DE CAPLAN LIGHTKEEPER

Mr. DUFF (for Mr. Marcil):: For a copy of the evidence and report of Commissioner Sirois in the case of Raymond Arsenault, of St. Charles de Caplan, Quebec, lightkeeper, charged with political partisanship.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. McINTOSH:: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters, and telegrams, exchanged between the Prime Minister's office and the Post Office Department in connection with the cancellation or continuation of the daily mail service now enjoyed by the city of North Battleford on the northern loop of western Canada's air mail system.


Mr. BENNETT:: Mr. Speaker, this motion cannot be complied with as it relates to interdepartmental correspondence and the conduct of government. Such memoranda are never brought down.
Motions jor Papers


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was asking only for information; there is nothing in this motion connected with the policy or conduct of government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The papers will not be produced unless the house says so.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Upon objection being made by the Prime Minister, the motion will be dropped.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I did not drop the motion; I want to know where the house stands on it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Nevertheless, it will be dropped.
Motion dropped.



ENTRY OF WORKERS FROM THE UNITED STATES

Mr. ELLIOTT (for Mr. Heenan):: For a copy of all telegrams and correspondence between any department of the government or any member of the government, respecting the entrance into Canada of workers from the United States at Fort Francis, Ontario, since April 30, 1931.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this is an improper motion as it asks for interdepartmental communications and communications between members of the government. Such productions have not heretofore been made. Unless the house changes its attitude with respect to matters of this kind, the production will not be made.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It is for the house to say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I said.


Ernest Lapointe: His Honour thinks that it should be dropped because the Prime Minister says so; that should be for the house to decide.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In the absence of the
hon. member moving the resolution, perhaps it had better stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not, Your Honour. This motion should be discharged at once and there should be no question about it. The action taken heretofore, and I trust it will always be the case, has been that interdepartmental communications are not brought down. Otherwise how could the government be conducted?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Prime Minister, I think primarily it is a matter of courtesy 
to allow the resolution to stand when the member in whose name it appears is absent. It is quite possible that the hon. member asking for these papers may have some point upon which he would like to have information, and which information could be obtained in a few minutes. I think the motion should be allowed to stand at least until the hon. member is in his seat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not desire in any
sense to be discourteous to any hon. member. Motions have been allowed to stand for days in order to accommodate the views of hon. members, but when a motion is one to which the house has never acceded I do not think it should be asked to allow the matter to stand. However, if the leader of the opposition asks that this motion stand, certainly it shall stand.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In the absence of the hon. member moving the resolution, it shall stand.
Motion stands.



SHIPMENTS OF CATTLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, the following is a Canadian Press despatch dated Toronto, July 6:
Ontario cattle will be shipped to England this year in larger numbers than ever before, according to Hon. T. L. Kennedy, provincial Minister of Agriculture. The decision of the Dominion government to allot a generous share of available shipping space to the province is responsible for the improved export outlook, he said.
Is it the intention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) to allot apace as is indicated by this despatch, or has he any space to allot?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: As far as I am aware, the government has nothing to do with the allotting of * space.



CENSUS IN ROCK ISLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mir. C. B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In Hansard of July 1, at page 3237, this question appears:
What is the name of the party who is taking the census in Rock Island, Quebec?

Privilege-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
The answer was:
Mr. J. W. Downing.
The second question was:
Does he live in Canada or the United States?
I should like to ask why the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not say that he was living in the United States, was appointed by the present government and wias taking the Canadian census.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I thought it was desirable to give to my hon. friend as full information as 1 was able to give on the question. I am sorry if I have offended him by adding to the laconic answer of yes or no.
MINISTER TO UNITED STATES On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MAiCKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition): I have noticed in the press mention of the. fact that Canada's Minister to the United States has been having an interview with the president. As a general rule the minister interviews the Secretary of State. Evidently this is a very special matter. Perhaps the Prime Minister would be kind enough, if he is in a position so to do, to inform the house with respect to the nature of the interview.


Right. Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: I think the press further observed it was a call of courtesy and I have no further information to communicate to the house.
ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY On the orders of the day:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect to the development of the St. Lawrence waterway, will my right hon. friend, before the house prorogues, have, any statement to make as to the .progress of negotiations with the United States?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be absolutely impossible for me to answer that question, but I should say not, so far as my present knowledge goes. If I have any statement to make, I shall communicate it to the house.



DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Livingstone Brown: I wish to refer to order No. 1 standing in my name under notices of motions for production of papers:
For a copy of the report made by Mr. W. R. Little, of the Department of Immigration, covering an inquiry held in Glasgow, Scotland, in April, 1930, with reference to complaints made by Mr. A. M. Graham.
It has been standing for a considerable length of time. I know there was some hesitation on the part of the Minister of Immigration to allow it to pass, but now that it has been passed by the house, may I ask him to expedite the return?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had intended to refer to it, but it was passed before I had an opportunity to rise to my feet. It relates to a matter in which Mr. Graham was dismissed from the service before the present government came into power. The minister had no personal knowledge of the matter until he looked up the papers. I have a memorandum indicating that part of these communications relates to purely inter-departmental matters in connection with the conduct of the department and one of its officers and the return will not contain anything that is of a privileged character or which in the mind of the minister it is not in the public interest to bring down, The return, therefore, may not cover all that the hon. gentleman wishes and at the time the motion passed I desired to make that reservation.



PRIVILEGE-MR. R. K. SMITH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland):: On a
question of privilege I wish to say that in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen, under the caption "Senators make protest about Wellington street," there appears the following:
t Senator R. K. Smith, K.C., Cumberland, Nova Scotia, remarked: "But it is better not to take any chances," and here the matter dropped.
I desire to say, Mr. Speaker, that this report is inaccurate, in the sense that it is premature.



PRIVILEGE-MR. MANION DISMISSAL OP CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES AT JOLIETTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I rise to a question of privilege. May I say that in some sixteen sessions this is, I think, the second time I have done so. It is in regard to a number of statements, all wrong, made by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Ferland) in a political
Privilege-Mr. Manion

speech delivered, I think, on July 1 in his constituency. For fear that I may be accused of mistranslating the hon. gentleman's remarks, I shall attempt in my halting way to read it first in French and then I shall read the translation, 'lire French version is as follows:
Le dernier orateur est M. C.-E. Ferland, depute au parlement federal. Apres avoir dit qu'il etait heureux de prendre part a cette assemblee, il parle du renvoi de 46 employes du C.N..R. "Je veux dire", dit-il, "aux ouvriers affectes par cette decision funeste du gouverne-ment conservateur de jeter sur le pave qua-rante six employes, toils pores de famille-plu-sieurs d'entre eux avaient droit a un fonds de pension-qu'il y a la une injustice considerable."
"Des le renvoi de ces citoyens, on m'a notifie au moyen d'un telegramme. Je me suis occupe de cette affaire immediatement et je regrette aujourd'hui de dire que je blame le ministre des Chemins de fer, l'honorable Dr R. J. Manion parce qu'il a refuse de recevoir une delegation d'ouvriers de Joliette qui voulaient aller le rencontrer a ce sujet. Une lettre dans mon bureau a Ottawa atteste ce que j'avance.
"Je suis content ee soir de rencontrer les ouvriers du C.N.R. et les autres pour les mettre au courant de ce refus du ministre eonserva-teur."
This is the translation:
The last speaker is Mr. C. E. Ferland, federal member. After saying that he was glad to take part in this meeting, he spoke of the dismissal of forty-six Canadian National Railway employees. "I wish to say," he said, "to the labourers affected by this disastrous decision of the Conservative government, throwing forty-six employees on the pavement-
I suppose that means the street.

all fathers of families-a few of them entitled to a pension-that there is a terrible injustice."
That is the first statement that is not correct, because the federal government has nothing whatever to do with the laying off of employees by the Canadian National Railways. The management of the railways handle entirely the matter of employment, the maintenance of the road and work such as that without consultation in any shape or form with the government of Canada. Then the hon. member says:
I was notified by telegram as soon as these employees were dismissed. I took the matter in hand immediately and regret to say that I blame the Minister of Railways, the Hon. Doctor R. J. Manion, because he refused to receive a delegation of the labourers of Joliette, who wanted to meet him in this connection. A letter in my office in Ottawa confirms this statement.
I am glad to meet to-night the Canadian National Railways employees and to let them know the refusal of the Conservative minister.
He says that I refused to receive a delegation of the labourers of Joliette. I was never

asked either by the hon. member for Joliette or anybody else, to meet a delegation so I could not very well refuse. Secondly, he says that a letter in his office in Ottawa confirms his statement. That, of course, is just as far from the facts as the other statement was, I am going to read his letter to me and the house will see whether he asked me to receive a deputation. I shall read my reply to him and then I shall make one comment. This was written by my hon. friend on House of Commons paper under date of June 26:
Dear Mr. Manion:
You will please find enclosed a telegram which I received this morning from Mr. Hector Mainville of Joliette, regarding the Canadian National Railway's decision to lay off forty men out of sixty men now employed in ear department at Joliette, Quebec.
This shows that my hon. friend knew as well as I do it was the management of the railways that laid off the men. The letter continues:
May I venture to say that the above decision is in violation of the terms of an existing contract which obliges the Canadian National Railways to maintain in permanence at Joliette (one of its divisional points), not less than fifty men in that car department, according to the interpretation of Canadian National Railway officials.
I wish you would kindly investigate and see that no unlawful act or injustice is done.
With my best regards, I remain, sir,
Yours truly,
Charles E. Ferland.
He did not ask me to meet a deputation of any kind. I replied acknowledging that letter, and I will read my letter in a moment. He accompanied this letter with a telegram which had been sent to him by Hector Mainville, from Joliette, reading as follows;
Charles E. Ferland, M.P.,
Ottawa.	.
Officially decided by Canadian National officials that effective July first forty men out of sixty will be laid off in car department whereas at other points in this district reduction only amounts from ten to twenty per cent. Conditions most disastrous and delegation wants to meet you at your office soon as possible.	_
Hector Mainville.
In other words, they asked to meet Mr. Ferland. Mr. Ferland sends me a copy of this telegram, which speaks of a delegation wanting to meet him. My reply to Mr. Ferland was as follows:
Ottawa, June 29, 1931.
Dear Mr. Ferland,-
I have received your communication of the 26th instant, and will pass it on to the railway management for their consideration, as the matter is one entirely in the hands of the

Quebec Leader of Opposition
officials. You will, therefore, appreciate that the deputation should see the management and that there would really be no use in their coming to Ottawa.
To see Mr. Ferland, as the telegram said. I was not asked to meet any deputation. The ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) smiles, but so far as my statement is concerned, it is absolutely in accordance with the facts. I was not asked to see a deputation. Mr. Mainville asked to see Mr. Ferland, with a deputation and I told them that the best thing to do was to see the management. To show my good faith in the matter, I might mention that I wrote to Sir Henry Thornton, enclosing Mr. Ferland's protest and a copy of the telegram. I have brought this matter up, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. gentleman has been in the habit-this is not the first time-of making such mis-statements. I think there is decency and honesty in public life that should be respected even by that hon. gentleman.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: The Minister has quoted from a newspaper. He did not mention the name of that paper or the date.


Robert James Manion: I beg the house's pardon.
I overlooked that. I was quoting from L'Etoile Du Nord, of Thursday, July 2, 1931.


Paul Mercier: Where is
that paper published?


Robert James Manion: It is published in Joliette. It contains a regular report of the meeting. I am informed that it is a Liberal paper. However, I do not know about that.



QUEBEC LEADER OF OPPOSITION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: I would like to remind the right hon.
leader of the government of a question that I put to him on Thursday, the 2nd of July, which appears at page 3298 of Hansard. I quoted the report of a statement of Mr. Houde, the leader of the opposition in Quebec, and asked if the federal government was involved in the promises which Mr. Houde had made. Mr. Houde promised, first, that he would see that the federal government gave a premium to encourage the production of butter and cheese, and secondly, that it
would reduce the rate of interest to the farmers. I would like to have from the right hon. gentleman an answer, yes or no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry that the hon. gentleman
can hardly get a yes or no answer to that question, because it is something like the interrogatory addressed to the new candidate, "Had he given up beating his wife," to which an answer, yes or no, was wanted. My hon. friend's question is in the same category. I do offer him my apologies for not having answered the question on the succeeding Mon- ' day, because I promised that I would look at what he said in Hansard. I understood the newspaper report to indicate what Mr. Houde had suggested with respect to the functions and duties of the federal government. I did not understand him to say that he had any promise from the federal government that it would do thus and so, or that the federal government had indicated that it would do thus and so, but that he indicated that in his judgment the federal government, whether Liberal or Conservative, should do thus and so, and he expressed his views as vigorously as he usually does on questions of that kind.


Vincent Dupuis: I would like to have some
further explanation from the right hon. gentleman. The leader of the opposition in Quebec said: I will propose that the federal government do these things.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. The hon. member has asked his question, and it has been answered.


Vincent Dupuis: I am not satisfied. I want
to know from the Prime Minister what the federal government will say.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. The hon. gentleman has had his answer.
INQUIRY FOR RETURN st. mary's road, p.e.i.-postmistress
On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: An order
of the house was passed on June 1, relating to the Post Office Department. The return has not yet been brought down, and I would ask that it be expedited.


Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) :: I am making inquiry into the matter,
and the return will be brought down during the week.
Tariff Board



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, July 7, consideration in committee of Bill No. 47, to provide for the appointment of a tariff board -Mr. Bennett-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 4-Duties of board.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think, Mr. Chairman,
that we were dealing with subsection 6, and the leader of the opposition had suggested an amendment. We have put it in the form that I am submitting to you, and if that is satisfactory to the right hon. gentleman, and he will move it, we will accept it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move the
amendment which has been placed in your hands, Mr. Chairman.


The CHAIRMAN:: Mr. Mackenzie King
moves to amend subsection 6 of section 4, by inserting after the word "manner" in the second line thereof the following:
in public except as otherwise expressly provided in this or any other act of parliament of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. RALSTON:: When the committee rose, it had before it also an amendment moved by the hon. member for Prescott, and I was directing the Prime Minister's attention to the objection he had made and to the statement of the Prime Minister to the effect that there would be no applicants in connection with proceedings before this board. I made a statement as to what I thought the procedure would be, which appears at page 3503 of Hansard, as follows:
A consumer is coming to the government and asking that a certain duty be decreased. The government then requests the board to make an investigation. Surely the person who is applying to the government becomes an applicant before the tariff board and one of the parties to the action. My right hon. friend shakes his head.
Mr. Bennett: That is not the way.
I want to ask my right hon. friend just what is the policy which will govern the minister in exercising the power which he has under this act to request an inquiry by the board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the exercise of that
discretion he proceeds according to the provisions of the statute.


James Layton Ralston: The provisions of the
statute are that the minister makes a request, and I am trying to learn from him what

policy will govern. I am afraid however that I have not been very successful. May I ask this question:	Will the Prime Minister give
the committee an undertaking that before a change is made either to decrease or to increase duties, he will refer the matter to the board which is now being set up as an important adjunct to the administration of the tariff?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will not.


James Layton Ralston: Thank you very much.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury) :: Does section 4 carry? Carried on
division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, just a
minute; there is an amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statement was made that an amendment would be moved.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a matter
of fact I think there was an amendment before the house last night before we adjourned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; the hon. member
for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand) said he was not going to move the amendment in the absence of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan), and he was permitted to proceed because we were dealing with subsection 6 of section 4. His proposed amendment was to have been subsection 7 of that section.


Olof Hanson: The proposed amendment was to
have been a new clause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it was not a proper amendment.


Olof Hanson: The proposed additional clause is
as follows:
Whenever application is made on behalf of a manufacturing company for higher duties the board shall investigate the capitalization of the company, and all salaries paid to the president, directors and managers and the wages paid to their employees, the number of hours per day employees are required to work, and whether or not freedom of association is permitted the employees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I took the view, Mr. Chairman, that that section was out of order. Certainly the proposed additional clause No. 7 does not constitute an intelligent amendment because it is based upon the assumption that a manufacturer or someone on his behalf is making application to the board. The very section to which attention is now directed is the negation of that idea. In addition to that I have pointed out

Tariff Board
that the previous clauses of section 4 deal with the very matter to which the hon. member for Prescott directed attention. I do not think there could be two clauses in the same section dealing with a similar matter, and the committee has already passed the sections dealing with this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What section
has dealt with it?


Mr. VENIOT:: The amendment does not
say, "application to the board."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: No, it says that when
application is made the board shall investigate.


Olof Hanson: The amendment states:
Whenever application is made on behalf of a manufacturing company for higher duties the board shall investigate ....
The Prime Minister has risen to a point . of order; does any hon. member wish to discuss that point before a ruling is given?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, that is what I am on
my feet for. The amendment reads as follows:
Whenever application is made on behalf of a manufacturing company for higher duties the board shall investigate ....
It does not say that the application is made to the board. If per chance application is made, according to the interpretation we have heard from the Prime Minister the application if any must be made not to the board but to the minister. According to the proposed amendment the application can be made to the minister and when so made the board shall be instructed to investigate. I do not see how the amendment is out of order; in my view it is all right. The minister may instruct either for or against. Supposing an application is made to the-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Supposing an application is made to the mayor of Ottawa.


Peter John Veniot: That is nonsense. I am
surprised that the Prime Minister has advanced such a point as that. We are dealing with a tariff board and a minister and we are not dealing with the mayor of Ottawa or any other mayor. Again, an amendment of this sort cannot be out of older unless it destroys the original section, and in this particular case there is no attempt at such destruction. The proposed amendment merely
adds to the original. Reading it I find that it does not say the application shall be to the board, and therefore I claim it is not out of order.


Mr. CAHAN:: The clear implication of the proposed subsection is that the application shall be made to the board.


Peter John Veniot: No it does not say that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It deals entirely with the
board, and states that when application is made the board shall investigate. There is no suggestion that the application is to be made to the minister and that the minister shall be bound by a statutory Obligation to refer it to the board for investigation.


Peter John Veniot: From what is my hon.
friend reading?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am referring to the proposed amendment.


Peter John Veniot: I would ask my hon.
friend to read what it says.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It says:
Whenever application is made on behalf of a manufacturing company for higher duties the board shall investigate the capitalization of the company ....
And so on.


Peter John Veniot: It does' not say that the
application is being made to the board.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But the whole implication is that it has to be made to the board.


Peter John Veniot: Not at all.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is nothing in this bill from A to Z or from first to last which provides for any application being made except through the minister. Hon. members opposite have been suggesting that in their view the proposed board should be a partisan committee to which application might be made directly by any person. However that is not the wording of the bill, and there is no such implication in the proposed bill as hon. gentlemen opposite have imagined. The suggested addition would allow any manufacturer to apply directly to the board, and that is contrary to the other provisions of the bill and inconsistent with it.


Peter John Veniot: There is nothing in the bill to prevent applications being made either to the board or to the governor general in council, and in my opinion that is where it is
weak.
3512 *
Tariff Board


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The only provision in the
bill for third parties to approach the board is contained in subsection 2 of section 5 wherein it is stated:
The board shall give reasonable opportunity to persons who may not have been summoned, to appear before them and give evidence upon oath or solemn affirmation as aforesaid, on any matter relevant to an inquiry then being held by the board.


Peter John Veniot: Only when the matter is
referred by the minister to the board.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so. And the clear
understanding with respect to this proposed bill is that with respect to tariff inquiries the reference must be made to the board by the minister. Unless it is so made, with a request for the board to make certain findings, the matter does not come before the board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
my right hon. friend whether this would be the proper wording of a clause which might be inserted in the bill.
Whenever application is made to the Minister of Finance or to any other minister of the crown on behalf of a manufacturing company for higher duties said application shall be referred by the minister to the board, and before any increase is made in the tariff the board shall investigate the capitalization of the company, and all salaries paid to the president, directors and managers, and the wages paid to their employees, the number of hours per day employees are required to work, and whether or not freedom of association is permitted the employees.
At the moment we are discussing the propriety of the insertion of a particular clause. I now ask the Secretary of State whether from the point of view of appropriateness the section I have read might properly fit in as an additional subsection to section 4.


Olof Hanson: I suggest to the leader of the
opposition that at the moment he is not in order. We are discussing a point of order raised by the Prime Minister which will have to be disposed of one way or the other. If the right hon. gentleman wishes however he is free to move an amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
point of order?


Olof Hanson: The point of order raised by the
Prime Minister is that the proposed amendment for the reasons he has stated is not in order. We are now speaking to that point of order. I believe the hon. member for Kenora-Rainv River (Mr. Heenan) wishes to address the committee.
[Mr. Veniot.J


Mr. HEENAN:: I was going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Finance practically what the right hon. leader of the opposition has already suggested. If the principle of this amendment can be accepted its phraseology can be put in such form as to satisfy all parties. The point we want-


Olof Hanson: The hon. member is not speaking to the point of order. We will have to dispose of that before we discuss the principle involved.


Peter Heenan: The phraseology I copied from the amendment introduced in 1912 by the then Minister of Finance, Mr. White, afterwards Sir Thomas White. As the Minister of Finance has said, all questions need not be submitted to the board-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not all questions; all applications.


Peter Heenan: -but the finance minister might use his own discretion in the matter. The object of the amendment, however, is to make it mandatory that all applications should be investigated and reported on where increases are involved. If the Prime Minister will accept that principle now I shall be satisfied, and I think I can speak on behalf of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bertrand) who kindly moved the amendment for me last night, in my absence. I am satisfied to have the amendment drafted to meet the wishes of all parties.


Olof Hanson: Is the amendment dropped?


Richard Bedford Bennett: One minute, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley) in his speech on the introduction of this bill made some reference to the provisions of the bill introduced in 1912 by the then Minister of Finance, Mr. White, now Sir Thomas White. He is quite right in saying that a considerable number of these sections follow the provisions of that bill as it was ultimately amended. You, Mr. Chairman, will observe that in section 4, paragraph (c) the very point to which attention is now directed by the amendment is covered:
(c) the cost, efficiency and conditions of labour, including health of employees, in Canada and elsewhere;
That is, the whole question of wages, of association, of freedom of association, of everything that touches labour and efficiency and costs and general conditions, is to be dealt with, by the board. In addition to that

Tariff Board
there is the factor dealing with the question of capitalization, the question of dividends and matters of that kind-all conditions and factors which affect or enter into the cost of production or the price to consumers in Canada. I may add that those paragraphs in that section were amplified to make it clear that the point that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) now endeavours to meet should be met and provided for. I think I mentioned that once before in this house.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The Prime Minister is quite right, he did mention it, but he has consistently failed to deal with the point I made at the time, and that is that the investigation of those particular factors depends on whether the minister sees fit to request the board that they be investigated. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River says that this should not be left to the discretion of the minister, that when a manufacturing company applies to the government or to the Minister of Finance for an increase of duty on its product, and the minister sees fit to request the board to make an investigation in respect thereto, the board must, irrespective of any request by the minister, investigate certain matters, that is, wages, hours of labour, and conditions in the industry. In that respect the substance of the amendment is not dealt with before in the bill. It seems to me therefore that on the second branch the Prime Minister's point of order falls to the ground. There cannot be anything out of order in making imperative what is not made imperative in the bill elsewhere. The other point, that there will be no application to the board, has been spoken to by certain members, but the consideration that I put forward last night, and desire to put forward now, is that there will be thousands of applications; there will be an application in nearly every case whether the application be made to the government or to the Minister of Finance.


Olof Hanson: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to the point of order? If not, I rule that the proposed amendment is out of order as being inadmissible for these reasons stated in May at page 404:
Amendments are out of order if they are irrelevant to the bill, or beyond the scope of the bill or of the clause under consideration;
On the latter ground I rule the amendment is out of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I wonder if this amendment would be in order, Mr. Chairman?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We have not yet disposed of the two preceding subsections, and the right hon. gentleman is about to propose an amendment which will be subsection 7. Should we not dispose of the two already not disposed of?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think they are disposed of.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I beg your pardon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I understand it, all the sections up to the end of the six subsections have been adopted, and it is quite competent to move an additional subsection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I beg to move, Mr. Chairman, the following amendment:
Whenever application is made to the Minister of Finance or to any other minister of the crown on behalf of a manufacturing company for higher duties, said application shall be referred by the minister to the board, and before any increase is made in the tariff the hoard shall investigate the capitalization of the company and all salaries paid to the president, directors and managers, and the wages paid to their employees, the number of hours per day employes are required to work, and whether or not freedom of association is permitted to the employees, and report thereon.
To make quite clear the significance of the amendment, may I point out that this places an obligation upon the Minister of Finance to refer to the board for investigation any applications for increases of the tariff before such increases are finally made, and the board will be expected to report upon the various matters mentioned in the clause which I have submitted. As I understand the bill, in connection with the section we are discussing, the Prime Minister has stated that whether or not any matter shall be investigated by the board depends on the Minister of Finance himself, that he will exercise his discretion in this respect. I think that is the Prime Minister's statement. Now this amendment limits the minister's discretion. It still allows him discretion with regard to the innumerable mat tens which may be referred to the board, but it does limit his discretion in one particular with respect to one class of applications, that is, applications for increases of tariff. The amendment proposes that before the duty is finally changed those applications shall be submitted by the finance minister to the board, and that the board shall investigate and report on such applications with respect to the several features mentioned in the proposed amendment.


Mr. ERNST:: May I ask the right hon.
gentleman this question: if that amendment
Tariff Board

were passed, would it not mean that parliament would really delegate its power of taxation to the board in a manner against which the right hon. gentleman has been protesting
for several days?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, parliament would at most be reserving to itself the exercise of that right with respect only to increases in the tariff until it had from the board information on the subject necessaiy for its guidance in a matter of the kind.


William Gordon Ernst: And could not impose taxation without that information?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is against increased taxation. My hon. friend has got so much into the habit of protecting only the manufacturer that he forgets that the consumer may want a little protection as well. This amendment aims at protecting the consumer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whatever may have been said with respect to the first amendment may be said with equal force with respect to the amendment now suggested. I do think the right hon. gentleman has overlooked the fact, which I again direct to his attention, that the section adopted yesterday provides that the inquiries held by the board shall deal with the very problems to which he has directed attention. It has never been customary in a bill which imposes a discretion on a minister to endeavour at the same time to impose upon him an imperative duty. One is quite at variance with the other, and the very language used with respect to the amendment of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River applies with much more force to the present amendment, because this is at variance with the whole principle of the bill. It imposes in mandatory terms an obligation upon the minister which by the bill is left to discretion, and with this amendment the bill would be of no advantage. If the amendment were adopted the mandatory duty cast upon the minister would negative the use of his discretion in dealing with matters of this kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I understand that the principle of the measure is not to place upon the board any obligation to investigate anything other than what the minister himself places before it. That is the principle, is it not? Everything investigated by the board must be at the request of the minister?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or the governor in
council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, or the
governor in council, and other parties, no
[Mr. Ernst.1
matter whom they are, who make application for investigation will not be entitled to have their question inquired into by the board unless the minister in the first instance, or the governor in council, so instructs the board. That is the fact?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then, if that is the principle of the act, I admit that this amendment may not conform to that principle. I should like to move it, nevertheless, as a section which I think ought to be in the bill, and if the Prime Minister and his party wish to vote it down, well and good. I believe the public generally have assumed up to the present that a tariff board was being created in order that all parties might be heard before tariff increases were made; if that is not the object perhaps the best way to confirm it is not only to accept the Prime Minister's statement, which I am,' quite prepared to accept as the final word, but to allow his party as a whole to say they are not prepared to have this board investigate applications before increases of tariff are made.


Olof Hanson: In view of the admission of
the right hon. leader of the opposition there is nothing for me to do but declare the amendment out of order.


James Layton Ralston: The right hon. leader of
the opposition has intimated that his amendment is opposed to the principle of the bill as laid down by the right hon. Prime Minister, but I suggest that it is quite within the competence of this house to introduce other principles into the bill. The one principle is that a portion of the powers of the board may be exercised under the direction of the minister, but another portion of those powers may be exercised under a mandatory principle. I have in my hand the Tariff Board Act of Australia, where those two principles exist. In section 15 of the act of the Australian parliament we have the provision that the minister shall refer to the board for inquiry and report the following matters:
(a)	the classification of goods under all tariff items which provide for classification under bylaws.
I will leave out sections (b) and (c), since they have to do with the Customs Act, but subsection (d) continues:
(d) The necessity for new, increased, or reduced duties, and the deferment of existing or proposed deferred duties.
That is the very thing the minister says he is not compelled to do, but he says he is to

Tariff Board
have some sort of optional court, and when he decides to refer an application, that may be done. In Australia 'the provision is mandatory, and the Australian parliament has said the minister shall do so and so. Then I read section (h):
Any complaint that a manufacturer is taking undue advantage of the protection afforded him by the tariff, and in particular in regard to his-[DOT]
(i)	charging unnecessarily high prices for his goods; or
(ii)	acting in restraint of trade to the detriment of the public; or
(iii)	acting in a manner which results in unnecessarily high prices being charged to the consumer for his goods. . . .
All those matters are required to be referred to the board by the minister, and then follows these words;
.... and shall not take any action in respect of any of those matters until he has received the report of the board.
The difference between that act and the proposed act before us now is that the minister says all these powers are to be exercised voluntarily, as he sees fit, and that therefore any such mandatory provision in the act is opposed to the principle of the measure. I almost understood you, Mr. Chairman, to have accepted that as a reason why this amendment should not be introduced. But let me point out that in the same section of the Australian act there is a further provision that the minister may-not shall, but may- refer to the board for inquiry and report certain matters which are optional with him, and '
1 want to cite that to you, Mr. Chairman, as indicating that this amendment is perfectly in order. That is to say, it is quite within the power of any hon. member of this house to move an amendment which may provide that certain duties shall be exercised optionally while others are made compulsory. I point out the Australian act as supporting that contention, at the same time emphasizing the situation in which my right hon. friend finds himself. He has stated to the country that he is going to have a tariff board which will make all findings of fact with regard to these complicated matters, but now he says it is to be purely optional. He says, "When I see fit I may increase or reduce tariffs without any application to this board and with no finding whatever by the board, and in the odd case applications will be made to the board." I think it will be only the odd cases;
I do not think he will have any trouble getting men for that board who will do all the work he will find for them to do. I submit that the amendment is perfectly in order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would suggest that it
may be quite in order for hon. members 22110-224	revised
opposite to introduce a bill to amend this tariff board bill after it has passed, but it is entirely out of order to introduce an amendment which is confessedly directly antagonistic to the principle embodied in this bill. I think there can be no doubt about that, and what is the suggestion of hon. members opposite? It is that in the future parliament cannot pass an act to increase the duty upon any commodity manufactured in this country unless there previously has been a reference to and a finding by the board. This infringes upon the discretion and power of parliament, and certainly should be voted down.


Mr. YENIOT:: It is not a question of
voting it down; it is a point of order.


Olof Hanson: Does any hon. member desire to
speak on the point of order before I rule?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I should like to ask the committee if the principle of this bill is not to establish a tariff board, and also if the committee did not understand from the Prime Minister and all hon. members opposite that the purpose of this tariff board was to advise the government on tariff matters. If that is the case this amendment must be perfectly regular, because it refers to the principle of the establishment of a board to advise the government; it insures that the government will be advised before acting. Surely it is entirely regular.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sun-bury); The position is that the committee has already established a principle in paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of section 4 of the bill, and as I read the proposed amendment it is inconsistent with the conclusion already arrived at by the committee. Therefore I am obliged to rule-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just before
you rule, Mr. Chairman, may I say that what the committee has decided is that the minister himself may refer certain things to the board, and a number of matters are enumerated which may be referred for purposes of inquiry and report. We are not taking away that power from the minister; he has the fullest latitude, to refer to the board anything he wishes. We are asking that when an application is made for an increase in the tariff, in addition to the board having the power to inquire there shall be the obligation, which is quite proper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that no action shall be taken until the obligation is discharged, and therefore parliament is impotent. That is what it means; parliament is to cease functioning in that regard.



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Tariff Board
James Layton Ralston: Not at all. It will not make any difference to imy right hon. friend, but I am surprised that both he and the hon. Secretary of State should suggest that there cannot be introduced into a bill, the principle of which is the establishment of a tariff board, a compulsory feature which parliament thinks it wise to introduce. It might just as well be said that where power is given to the governor in council [DOT] to make regulations on a certain subject, it is inconsistent for parliament to say that on any particular point they shall go only so far.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member should know his trawler regulations, of which the supreme court disposed.


James Layton Ralston: We will have something to say about those regulations before this parliament is over, as I understand the government prefers to hide behind the court rather than to take action. It is at variance with any principle of legislation or of law to say that there cannot be introduced into a bill a clause making it compulsory for some officer to perform certain duties which parliament may want performed. The chairman is an eminent member of the 'bar and I submit to him that a ruling of that kind will not help in the conduct of the business of this parliament.


Olof Hanson: In addition to the reasons I have given already, I refer hon. members to clause (c) of subsection 1. The question has been dealt with already and this is not the opportune time to introduce an amendment. I am supported in this contention by May and, therefore, I rule the amendment out of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask if it will be an opportune time at some other stage of the bill to move such an amendment?


Olof Hanson: There will be the third reading of the .bill but it is not for me to say what the hon. gentleman should do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I understand, Mr. Chairman, you are limiting your ruling to the application of this particular amendment to this particular subsection.


Olof Hanson: That is the result.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was going to appeal from your ruling if it was to the effect that this amendment could not be moved at any point.


Olof Hanson: It is not for me to say what the hon. gentleman should do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I understand the ruling, it is made in connection with the principle of the bill and this amendment will not be allowed to appear as part of
section 4.


Olof Hanson: I have given my ruling and it is not for me to advise what action the right hon. gentleman should take in the premises.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do I understand that you, Mr. Chairman, have ruled that the amendment which I have moved is not in order?


Olof Hanson: It is not in order for the two reasons which I have given.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will appeal against that ruling.


Olof Hanson: It is quite open to the right hon. gentleman to do that.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
On Bill No. 47 Mr. Mackenzie King moved the following amendment:
Whenever an application is made to the Minister of Finance or to any other minister of the crown on behalf of a manufacturing company for higher duties, said application shall be referred by the minister to the board, and before any increase is made in the tariff the board shall investigate the capitalization of the company and all salaries paid to the president, directors and managers, and the wages paid to their employees, the number of hours per day the employees are required to work and whether or not freedom of association is permitted to the employees, and report thereon.
This amendment the chairman ruled out of order for the following reasons: the amendment is beyond the scope of the clause under consideration and inconsistent with the decision of the committee on a previous subclause.
An appeal having been made from the decision of the chairman just read, the matter is referred to the Speaker.


Robert James Manion: I was paired with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) Had I voted, I would have voted that the Chairman's ruling be sustained.


Mr. GANONG:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted, I would have voted that the Chairman's ruling be sustained.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted, I would have voted that the Chairman's ruling be sustained.
Mr. MoPHEE: I was paired with the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). Had I voted, I would have voted that the Chairman's ruling be not sustained.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted, I would have voted that the Chairman's ruling be sustained.
Tariff Board


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley). Had I voted, I would have voted that the Chair-mam's ruling be sustained.


Mr. HACKETT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Perras). Had I voted, I would have voted that the Chairman's ruling be sustained.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted, I would have voted that the Chairman's ruling be sustained.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted, I would have voted that the Chairman's ruling be sustained.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was paired with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted, I would have voted that the Chairman's ruling be not sustained


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desrochers). Had I voted, I would have voted that the Chairman's ruling be sustained.
The committee resumed, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 4-Duties of board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman I have a subsection here which I think will be in order and which you will not find it necessary to rule against. I have been careful in drafting it, having in mind the principle which the minister has laid down that he himself must have discretionary power with respect to what is referred to the board. This amendment relates only to things that are referred under this section to the board. I move, Mr. Chairman:
That section 4 be amended by adding as subsection 7 thereof the following:
When an investigation is being made by the board under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the board shall investigate the capitalization of the company, and all salaries paid to the president, directors and management, and the wages paid to their employees, and the number of hours per day employees are required to work, and whether or not freedom of association is permitted employees, and report thereon.
May I point out that paragraphs (b) and (c) deal with:
(b)	the cost of production in Canada and elsewhere, and -what increases or decreases in rates of duty are required to equalize differences in the cost of production;
(c)	the cost of efficiency and conditions of labour, including health of employees, in Canada and elsewhere.

Section 4 authorizes the minister to refer to the board for investigation any matter under these two paragraphs. My amendment obliges the board when such a matter is referred to them, but only when referred to them by the minister himself, to make inquiry into the subjects mentioned therein.


Mr. COOTE:: On a question of privilege, may I say that some members at this end of the chamber were in a little difficulty as to how to vote on the question which was before the house a short time ago, because it was impossible to hear most of the argument at the other end of the chamber. We had to make up our minds on the point of order as best we could from the statement given by the chair. It would certainly be appreciated in this end of the house if debate on the bill at the otheT end of the chamber were carried on in a louder voice so that we could hear what is being said.


Olof Hanson: The question is on the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the house will agree that this is not an amendment that is in order. In the first instance, it limits the application of the amendment to paragraphs (b) and (c) whereas paragraph (e) is the controlling one with respect to matters of this kind. Paragraph (e) says:
All conditions and factors which affect or enter into the cost of production and the price to consumers in Canada.
And paragraph (f) reads:
generally, all the conditions affecting production, manufacture, cost and price in Canada as compared with other countries.
No overhead costs could be arrived at which did not take into consideration the salaries of the president, officers and directors. It therefore follows that this is but an attempt at the end of the section to amplify the terms of subsections which the house has already adopted, and which cover the principle proposed as clearly as language can express an intention. Why we should at the end of a section, after we have adopted the different paragraphs, endeavour to add to them something which is only an amplification of what they say, I cannot understand, and I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is out of order. But if not, we have already covered it by the paragraphs that have been adopted.


Mr. BOURASSA:: I entirely sympathize
with the objects in view in the amendment, but I am afraid that its phraseology may defeat its own object, because investigations as regards capitalization and, the conditions of labour are much more generally covered

Tariff Board
by paragraph (e) than by paragraphs (b) and (c). If the amendment of the leader of the opposition were adopted it would restrict the board in their investigations of capitalization of a company to such matters as are mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c), and they could plead that parliament had not indicated the investigation of capitalization as one of the factors which enter into the cost of production. If we introduce a subclause which enacts that the board shall investigate the capitalization of a company only in such matters as are covered by paragraphs (b) and (c), inferentially we do not require the board to investigate capitalization in respect to the other matters mentioned in the other paragraphs.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am afraid that that
construction might be put upon it. At times it is very dangerous to make reference to special clauses when the intention is that a certain matter should be investigated in all cases.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am obliged
to my hon. friend for putting his question in the way he did, because I think both the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) can be answered at the same time.
Section 4 sets out that the minister may request the board to make inquiry into certain matters. Those matters are enumerated in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f). Paragraphs (e), and (f), cover everything on earth that I think the minister could conceive of as bearing on the subject, and therefore would cover what I have proposed in my amendment. I do not deem it necessary therefore to say anything about paragraphs (e) and (f). I wish the hon. member for Labelle to observe however that whether or not there will be any inquiry under paragraphs (e) and (f) rests entirely in the discretion of the minister. This is all preconditioned on the statement made by the Prime Minister that he alone, as Minister of Finance, will say what is to be referred to the board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or the governor in
council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If under paragraphs (e) and (f) the governor in council refers anything to the board that body will have to go into the matters named in my amendment. Therefore in my amendment there is no need to refer to paragraphs (e) and (f).
Paragraphs (e) and (f) however have nothing to do with paragraphs (b) and (c) because
the Minister of Finance may never make any references under paragraphs (e) and (f) at all. I assume that most of the references which will be made by the minister will be under paragraph (b). He will ask the board under paragraph (b) to inquire into the cost of production in Canada and elsewhere and what increases or decreases in rates of duty are required to equalize differences in the cost of production. If the board is willing to make an investigation under paragraph (b) it may use its own discretion as to whether or not it will inquire into the salaries paid to managers or directors, or the allowances to *presidents. The members of the board may not feel that the hours worked by employees is a question they should investigate. The purpose of the amendment is to make perfectly sure that when the board is reporting under subsection 6 with respect to increases or decreases in rates of duty they will have to take into account the matters to which I have referred in my amendment, and which are of importance to labour. Similarly if the board is called upon to report upon the conditions of labour, including the health of employees, and so on, one of the unodubted factors in a full inquiry would be these special matters to which I have referred, namely, the amount of the total output that is going into the payment of salaries to managers, directors and so on. All those factors would.have a bearing on the cost of labour. Despite the fact that they would have a bearing, unless specific instructions were given to the board it would be within the power of that body to ignore altogether the factors I have mentioned.
The Prime Minister would have the committee believe that because paragraphs (b) and (c), if carried out in the strictest manner possible, would probably include the matters to which I have referred there is no necessity for telling the board what specific matters they must take into account. I contend that as paragraphs (b) and (c) now stand the board may use the same kind of discretion as to what it will or will not inquire into as the Prime Minister is exercising in connection with what he will refer to the board. I wish to make absolutely .sure that when the board is called upon by the Prime Minister to report concerning the increases or decreases of rates of duty and concerning matters respecting costs of labour, and the like, they shall 'take these all important factors into consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nothing is to be gained
by prolonging discussion upon a point of order, if we are to proceed in committee with
Tariff Board

the bill now before us. As this amendment was in part, a few minutes ago voted down by the house and as the point of order has been discussed by the right hon. gentleman and myself I am content to withdraw the point of order and dispose of the amendment by a vote.


Olof Hanson: The question is on the amendment.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I should
like to ask the Prime Minister one question. I take it from the words of the leader of the opposition that in any matter that the Prime Minister as Minister of Finance, or his cabinet, may decide to refer to the tariff board when created, it will not be necessary to undertake investigation into subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) together, but that a question may be referred for examination under one or more of the subsections, according to the wishes or will of the Prime Minister? Is that true?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot anticipate the
question which may be submitted, but obviously by the language of the bill discretion is given to the minister. An interpretation placed upon it by myself would not bind those who might afterwards administer the Department of Finance. As will be seen, a wide discretion is given, and one thing and one only is provided, namely, to enable every factor which enters into production costs of commodities in this country to be determined. The sections are specific with respect to labour conditions and costs of production, including salaries to presidents, managers, officers, directors and every other overhead which enters as a factor in determining production costs. The bill before us was drawn for that purpose and I believe effectuates that purpose. The amendment is brought forward merely to endeavour to place upon the record something which will seem to sound goo'd but will actually contain nothing more than is now in the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Speaking of
sound, may I say with all due respect that there is no hon. member who likes more to hear his own voice than does my right hon. friend himself.


An hon. MEMBER:: Four hours at a time. Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Olof Hanson: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to be in hearty accord with my last statement. The section is drawn *Mr. Bennett.]
with a view to having the public believe that many matters will be investigated so as to protect the different elements to be considered, namely labour, capital, manufacturers, consumers and the like. As a matter of fact, as drafted and as interpreted to-day by the Prime Minister, the section is meaningless, if the Minister of Finance decides that he will not refer any particular subject to the board. The Prime Minister has made clear to-day that the principle of this bill is to give to the Minister discretion as to what he will refer to the board. There is to be no freedom of application to the board to have matters investigated by that body. Therefore everything in the section now before us is conditional upon the desire, the determination, the willingness and the request of the Minister of Finance of the day to refer matters to the board. That is bad enough, but if on top of that, after matters have been referred to the board, that body is free in its discretion to avoid inquiring into certain features affecting labour and consumers which would help to secure a true report on the situation, then the last fault is worse than the first. The purpose of my amendment is at least to make sure that when the minister has referred a certain matter to the board that body will have to take into account in solving the difficulty the various factors involved.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wish to ask this question: Under section 4 of the bill will it be possible for the Minister of Finance to refer to the board a question for inquiry under any one of the subsections, or any two or three of them, excluding the others?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The inquiry made at the request of the Minister of Finance will follow the language of the section.
In respect of goods produced in or imported into Canada the board shall, under the direction of the minister make inquiry.
That means just what it says. I can add nothing more to it, nor can I take anything from it. I have not the slightest doubt in the world that we could sit here the rest of the day and part of the night and talk about questions concerning this, that and the other thing. The right hon. gentleman talks about the sound of his voice. Anybody who has taken four hours to make a speech must be tired of the sound of his own voice. But leaving that aside, the question put by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) is answered by the section itself. The discretion of successive ministers of finance will doubtless determine the application of that section. I remember the late Mr. Robb.

Tariff Board
standing in his place and answering a question as to whether a certain matter had been referred to the tariff advisory board, said, ''No, it has been dealt with in the tariff." There are no findings extant of that board- and that was an advisory board! I suppose thousands of applications were received by the minister. At least he said that from time to time he had received a great many, and that some were referred to the board, some were not. That board sat thirty days one year, according to the last report; perhaps they may have sat for a greater number of days in other years. This is an endeavour to have the minister refer to the board such questions as he thinks should be investigated. He will exercise his discretion with respect to whether a question should be referred to the board. If it is referred to the board, it will be observed there is an obligation on the board to make inquiry. That is, the board shall at the request of the minister make inquiry, and the inquiry they make is indicated in those paragraphs, the sum total of it being contained in the last two:
(e)	all conditions and factors which affect or enter into the cost of production and the price to the consumers in Canada:
(f)	generally, all the conditions affecting production, manufacture, cost and price in Canada as compared with other countries;


Edward Joseph Garland: I know the right hon. gentleman will forgive me for pursuing this matter. After all. I am only a layman and he is a lawyer, and he is interpreting language in a bill. It is frequently found that even lawyers cannot agree upon the interpretation of a bill, so I may be forgiven if I am not quite as clear as I ought to be in regard to this section. Do I understand the Prime Minister to say that in every case referred to the board for consideration the board will have to investigate into (a), (b),
(c)	, (d), (e) and (f)-every one of them?


Ernest Lapointe: The answer is no.


Edward Joseph Garland: The answer can surely be made; it is simply yes or no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of the
interpretation of statutes rests with the judicial, not the executive body; but as I read that section:
In respect of goods produced in or imported into Canada the board shall at the request of the minister make inquiry as to-(a), (b), (c),
(d)	, (e) and (f)-and report to the minister-
They have to make inquiry into all those matters that are mentioned in that subsection and report.


Edward Joseph Garland: Upon every one?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly. It is provided later on how they may be able to make their report on evidence and on information. For instance, in one case evidence was submitted of the report of the League of Nations with respect to certain matters. Now, I assume from what the right hon. gentleman opposite said that the difficulty he was experiencing was this: the minister was going to exercise discretion in picking out or selecting these particular paragraphs of the subsection. If that is what the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) understood, it is not the question we are dealing with at all. The question is as to the submission, not as to the duty cast upon the board, for the minister cannot curtail the duty of the board nor limit it. His duty is merely to request the board to inquire and report, and this section provides what that inquiry shall be. If that is the difficulty I shall endeavour at once to clear it up.


Ernest Lapointe: When the request is
made the board will have to inquire into every one of the questions mentioned in the subsection?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: If that had been stated before it would have been better.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
Prime Minister's last statement makes the duty of the board perfectly absurd. If the Minister of Finance asks the board to inquire into the price and cost of raw materials, the board will have to report on:
All conditions and factors which affect or enter into the cost of production and the price to the consumers in Canada.
It means that the board in the simple matter of an inquiry about the cost of raw materials and transportation will have, as I said last night, to take into account world conditions, such as the present depression, they will have to tase into account panics, they will have to take into account the effect of stock exchange crashes, they will have to take into account the effect of the, tariff laws of other countries and of this country, and the like. I do submit that my right hon. friend by his last remark simply makes the functions of the board perfectly ridiculous. As I said last night, no board on earth can make successfully an investigation into all conditions and factors that affect costs and prices. When the minister seeks to have it appear that if a reference is made to the board they will have to take into account all the matters mentioned in
Tariff Board

paragraphs (a), (to), (c), (d), (e) and (f) even if the reference is only to one of the subjects named, he just makes the functions of the board appear absolutely ridiculous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it is ridiculous, why waste so much time opposing it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We want to find out what it really means.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last night he said ha knew.
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie King) negatived.
On section 5-subsection 1-Powers to summon witnesses, take evidence and produce documents.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Subsection I empowers the board to summon witnesses, take evidence and produce documents; subsection 2 provides that the board shall give reasonable opportunity for appearance to persons attending of their own volition- to give evidence; subsection 5 provides that the board shall have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to give evidence as is vested in any court of record in civil cases. Is it the intention to allow witnesses who are compelled to attend to be represented by counsel if they are called upon to produce documents?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend from
Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) is a member of the legal profession and he knows that no court permits a witness to be represented by counsel except in most extraordinary cases, and 1 see n,o reason why the rule of law should be departed from here. If a witness fears that he may incriminate himself he has the right to claim the benefit of the statute in that regard, and I assume that every court would see that he received that benefit.


Charles Edward Bothwell: In this case the board are given pretty wide powers; they are able to compel any witnesses to attend, and to give any information the board may desire; witnesses are also compelled to produce all documents, confidential and otherwise. A question may arise as to what are confidential documents, and surely in such a case the witness should be entitled to be represented by counsel.
Subsection 1 agreed to.
On section 5 subsection 2-Opportunity for appearance.


Mr. NEILL:: I have a little amendment here, which I am quite sure you will not rule out of order, Mr. Chairman. Might I take

the time of the committee for one minute to make a suggestion that I hope will expedite business-and goodness knows that is a praiseworthy ambition.
I want to congratulate you, sir, on the way you handled the points of order which were raised. You allowed the hon. member to state his point of order and the other hon. member concerned to state his conception of the matter. Then you invited any other hon. member who wished to say anything in connection with the point of order to state his views before giving your decision. I consider that to be the ideal practice; if it had been followed at all times during this session we would not have had the very large number of appeals we have had from rulings of the chairman. The chairman is inviting a member to appeal to the house when he says, "You are out of order. Sit down! If you do not like it you can appeal." In this case there was an appeal taken, but if your practice were followed it would leave hon. members with the feeling that they had been given a fair run for their money and a chance to state their point before the matter was decided.
I say if that had been done by the Speaker and Deputy Speaker there would not have been the very numerous appeals which have been made this session.
After that piece of flattery, Mr. Chairman,
I am quite sure you will not find fault with the amendment I am going to suggest, and in any case it is so appropriate that it cannot fail to bring with it its own welcome. I propose to insert after the word "aforesaid" in line 26 of subsection 2 the words "or examine witnesses". If the amendment is adopted the section then will read:
The board shall give reasonable opportunity to persons who may not have been summoned, to appear before them and give evidence upon oath or solemn affirmation as aforesaid, or examine witnesses, on any matter relevant to an inquiry then being held by the board.
The right hon. Prime Minister was courteous enough, and I think showed sound judgment in doing so, to accept an amendment to the effect that these hearings should be held in what is called open court, and the amendment I propose is so absolutely ancillary to that and so dependent upon it that it follows as a natural consequence that this amendment should be accepted also.
We have this situation: We have a court of record, which, in my layman's ignorance, I understand ranks at least with a county court, if no higher. We are to have public hearings, in accordance with the usual court practice. We are to have witnesses called to give evidence under oath, and then sud-

Tariff Board
fdenly this procedure departs from that ladopted in the ordinary court of record; there is no provision made for examining the *witnesses. Can you conceive a man taking *a case into court with the understanding that this witnesses shall not be examined? It may Ibe said that this is different from an ordinary Icourt, but these commissioners have been lalluded to as exercising judicial functions and as being in the position of judges, and I *accept that statement. Then surely the judges icannot cross-examine the witnesses; that Svould show partiality or bias to one side or *the other. To use the language of the courts, we might say there is in court a plaintiff directly or indirectly seeking the endorsation of the tariff board in connection with his proposed tariff increase. The plaintiff is heard *under oath; the witnesses for the plaintiff *can be heard, but the defendant in the case, the unhappy public, the consumer who must pay the piper in the long run, is not to be heard at all. There is provision that he may come in and give evidence but he cannot cross-examine the other witnesses, which is the vital point.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if this amendment is not accepted we might as well tear up the whole bill, because this will be only a one-sided court at the most. The pressure of public opinion is a very great thing, and if we are to have no publicity nine-tenths of the usefulness of this court will disappear. There will be no protection for the ordinary man in the street, to whom we refer so often as the consumer. We might as well go back to the old system, under which the representatives of the manufacturing interests met the minister in his office and told him any sort of story they wished to tell, leaving the minister to find out the truth as best he could. If we are not to have this provision in this bill we might as well let the minister continue as he has gone on in the past, aided perhaps by a committee of the cabinet and one or two technical men to get information on detailed points.
Why should there not be opportunity to examine witnesses? What objection can there be to this suggestion? If a man has a good case, I care not what court he is before, whether it is this parliament, the tariff board or some other court, he is not ashamed of anything he might be asked; he is anxious to present the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the men who are acting as judges or jurors. Take the case of two men charged with a major crime, say that of murder. The innocent man is only too willing to talk about his case to every person who will listen to
him. He is not afraid to answer quickly because he knows he is telling the truth and he cannot be tripped up in connection with some previous answer. He is willing to go into the witness box himself, although it is not to his discredit if he does not do so. He is willing to tell all he knows, to tell it to everybody and at length. On the other hand, the man who knows he is guilty is not going into the witness box unless he cannot help it, and if he does give evidence he will be very careful of his answers. He will say to himself, "If I say this it may conflict with what I said before; I must be careful. I would rather not go into the witness box, and above all I would rather not be cross-examined." The innocent man knows he has a good case and is quite willing to tell his story and be cross-examined upon it, because he knows that the more he gets his facts before the court the better will be his chances of success.
I might quote one instance; I need not go into details, because I think I have already mentioned it in the house. A certain duly incorporated manufacturing company, which I believe was really more of a private company, came to the tariff board asking for an increase of tariff in connection with a certain product. I think the president, or vice-president, the accountant and one or two lawyers appeared to present the case of the company. I happened to be present; it concerned a product used by dairymen, and I took some interest in the application. The beginning, the end and a great deal of the middle of the argument of each gentleman was that the company had been in business so many years and had lost money consistently during the previous seven or eight years because of the lack of a proper tariff. That was the burden of their song; whenever they got stuck in some other argument they fell back on the statement that they were losing heavily and could not make both ends meet; they saw ruin, destitution and starvation before them because of the lack of the tariff they requested.
This went on for so long, and the argument was reiterated so often that at last it dawned even on my slow-acting intelligence that "the lady doth protest too much," and I asked to be allowed to secure from thie gentlemen who were giving this evidence a copy of the 'balance sheet of the company for the last four or five years, in order to demonstrate just how much they had been losing and to see whether or not it was cumulative, because that was their argument. They said they lost so much in 1924 and so much in 1925 and the loss was getting bigger all the time. Remember, this was an incorporated company.
Tariff Board

but the president said, "No, not on your life; I did not come down here to spread my balance sheets before all and sundry." But my request was upheld, and he was ordered to produce his balance sheets within the next thirty days, or before the next hearing. Some very trivial excuse was made as to why the sheets were not presented at the next hearing, and again I was given permission to get them before the following hearing, but before that time came I was informed that the gentleman had thrown up his hands and would rather be without any more tariff protection than produce his books, which would have conclusively proved his own case if his argument had been sound. I will admit that he was not under oath, but surely that was only a detail. How would the board have obtained information on which to give a fair and equitable decision if they were not furnished with those balance sheets, and how would they have obtained them if I or someone else had not been there to ask that they be produced? That is a fair although trivial! illustration of the need of someone being allowed to go there and ask a few simple questions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did he not subsequently get a tariff?


Alan Webster Neill: No. He tried his best but he said he would rather do without it than to produce his balance sheet. This was not a personal company, he was not asked to divulge trade secrets or anything of that kind, it was just his published balances.
I have put the case in the best way I can. Recently the Prime Minister emphasized and reiterated at some length the fact that this legislation is motivated by a sincere desire to constitute a board which will be in the best interests of the manufacturer, the workman and the consumer. Up to the present moment I have been inclined to accept that view although it may have needed a little stretching of that imagination to which the Secretary of State dbjeets. I am willing to concede that up to this point the Prime Minister has been sincere and the legislation may do what he says it is intended to do, but should this amendment not be allowed I must change my viewpoint because I could not then see how it could be sincere or how it- could be successful. It would be one-way justice; the scales of justice will be loaded down against the consumer and in favour of the man making the application. A man may be applying for an increased tariff or for a reduced tariff, but there is an opposite side to any tariff application. The man on the opposite side should be given an opportunity 
to examine the witnesses who appear and swear, so to speak, against him, or at least in opposition to his own views. I earnestly urge the Prime Minister to consider the acceptance of this very small amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I suppose it is quite apparent to you that the amendment is out of order despite the very flattering testimonials which have been given by the hon. member to your rulings. Having made these flattering remarks he is assuming that you will decide that the amendment is in order. This amendment is out of order because it relates to a section which has to do with witnesses only. This amendment would have the effect of allowing witnesses to examine other witnesses. Subsection 1 gives the power to summon witnesses and require them to give evidence and produce documents.


Alan Webster Neill: The right hon. gentleman is dealing with the wrong subsection; I was referring to subsection 2.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Subsection 2 states that the board shall give reasonable opportunity to persons who may not have been summoned, to appear before them and give evidence upon oath-


Alan Webster Neill: I was not referring to witnesses, I was referring to those who may not have been summoned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am referring to those who appear to give evidence.


Alan Webster Neill: That is subsection I.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any person who appears to give evidence is a witness. He is either summoned by subpoena or he appears voluntarily. The first subsection deals with compulsory attendance by subpoena, while the second subsection refers to voluntary witnesses who appear and give evidence under oath. The next subsection deals with witnesses who need not attend outside of the province where they are served. The next subsection covers a point to which the hon. member has referred. We are now dealing with a person who appears as a solicitor, counsel or amicus curiae, a friend of the court. This matter is covered by subsection 12, which reads:
The board shall hold its sessions and conduct its proceedings in such manner as may seem to it most convenient for the speedy and efficient discharge of its duties.
The previous sections declare that the board is a court, and this subsection provides that the board shall have the power of making regulations for the conduct of his business

Tariff Board
Everyone is not to be allowed to jump up on the back seats and ask a question, there must be some measure of decorum observed in the conduct of the business of the tribunal. The provision in that regard is that the board shall make the rules for the conduct of its affairs. I have no doubt that those who may be interested will be given the fullest opportunity to cross-examine or deal with these matters, but that must be done under the regulations of the court itself. In respect to the inquiry which is now being held in this building it was determined in the first instance who were the interested parties, whether or not they should be represented by counsel, and otherwise. This subsection provides that the first duty of the board will be to make rules with respect to these matters and to prevent someone jumping up and saying he is going to ask a question of the witness. The first procedure is to know who are the appearances, to use the language of courts, who is to appear for the different parties. This amendment of the hon. gentleman deals solely with the question of witnesses and would have the effect of introducing a practice which cannot be accepted in any sense as having any relevancy to that particular section.


Alan Webster Neill: I acknowledge that the government has the power to defeat this amendment if it chooses to do so, but I would prefer to see it voted down rather than to be sidetracked by the use of a point of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not raising a question beyond saying that it is not-


Alan Webster Neill: The right hon. gentleman has suggested that I might find my remedy or recourse under subsection 12, but it would take an imagination beyond that which I possess to see in that subsection any provision of this character. The subsection reads:
The board shall hold its sessions and conduct its proceedings in such manner as may seem to it most convenient for the speedy and efficient discharge of its duties.
The board might decide that the hearing of witnesses without their being cross-examined would lend itself to the speedy discharge of its duties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Speedy and efficient" are the words.


Alan Webster Neill: There is a difference of opinion as to the meaning of the word " efficient", and that difference might apply in view of the pre-supposed opinions of the
members of the board with regard to tariff matters. I remember a few years ago when sitting on the opposite side of the chamber that a matter somewhat similar to this came up on a bill in connection with soldier settlement. I rose in my place and asked the minister in charge of the bill if it meant such-and-so. I wanted an amendment included to express my ideas, but the minister replied that it was not necessary, that it certainly meant such-and-so. Six months afterwards the department wrote me and totally disavowed the Iviews to which expression had been given in the house, and said that they were bound by the letter of the statute. Of course it was open to me to say that I remembered it to be such-and-so and give my own conception of what was meant by the statute but that did not prevail. However, going back to the word "witnesses" I really think the Prime Minister has a misconception of where this amendment should be included in the bill. He states that I am giving the power to witnesses to appear and to cross-examine other witnesses. Subsection 1 reads:
The board shall have the power of summoning before them any witnesses, and of requiring them to give evidence on oath ....
Subsection 2, to which I have been referring, reads:
The board shall give reasonable opportunity to persons who may not have been summoned, to appear before them

	*


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who may not have been Isummoned; it refers only to witnesses because they are the only ones who can be summoned.


Alan Webster Neill: It applies to people who have not been summoned. You summon witnesses but you do not summon everyone else. That is my point. It applies to people who have not been summoned to appear before them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And to give evidence.


Alan Webster Neill: Not necessarily. The subsection reads:
The board shall give reasonable opportunity to persons who may not have been summoned,-
Who are not going to be witnesses at the request of the court-
-to appear before them.
The subsection grants only one thing, the privilege to appear and give evidence under oath, but I am asking for the privilege of lappearing at the inquiry to examine witnesses. A man has the power to give evidence, but I want him to be given the opportunity of cross-examining his opposing witnesses, so to speak. This is very important as far as the
Tariff Board

consumer is concerned. With all due deference to the legal acumen of my right hon. friend, and allowing for my ignorance in the matter, I submit the point of order is not well taken.


Olof Hanson: The question is on the amendment.


Mr. YOUNG:: Mr. Chairman, the Prime
Minister complained yesterday that we on this side of the chamber did not appear to be able to understand the obvious meaning of words. After listening to this debate for the last few days, I confess that I am in the dark as to exactly how proceedings will be carried on before this board. In order that the committee may have a clear understanding of this procedure, I would like to state to the Prime Minister a specific case and have him tell us exactly what would happen. Let us suppose that a manufacturer of steel plates makes an application to the minister for higher duties. The application will be accompanied by a brief in which they will set forth the reasons why they consider their application should be granted. They will state their investment, overhead, cost of raw material, wage costs, market conditions quantity of their product, quantity of imports and everything else that they conceive has any bearing on the question. The minister then, if I understand the matter aright, will submit that brief to the board and he will say to it: Get us all the facts in connection with the matter. The board will make an investigation and will report whether the facts as it finds them as outlined in the brief are correct or not as the case may be.
But there is another set of facts that should have a bearing on the case in so far as the government's decision is concerned, and that is how this decision, if rendered, will affect the consuming public. Those steel sheets that were mentioned are the raw material of the stove makers, the makers of kitchen utensils, of filing cabinets, of a hundred and one other things. Any change in the tariff consequent upon the advice given by the board in this matter will therefore affect the production costs of these other manufacturers. I want to ask the minister whether these other manufacturers, so affected, will be given notice that this case is coming up and an opportunity to appear either personally or by counsel; whether that counsel or whoever they send to represent them will be permitted to give evidence as to how this decision will affect their business, and also to examine the witnesses of those who are making the appli-

cation. If the minister will answer that question specifically, perhaps I shall be able to understand how the board is going to proceed in such cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: First, let us assume that the application is made and referred to the board with the relevant papers. Second, the board will be convened at a date to be named for the purpose of hearing the application. Third, witnesses such as might be required would be summoned, if necessary by subpoena, and directed, if necessary, to bring their papers-in other words, as we lawyers say, subpoena duces tecum. Fourth, reasonable opportunity will be given to persons not summoned, to appear and give evidence under oath. Five, the board would otherwise, I take it, in the conduct of the inquiry, comply with its rules and regulations as it promulgated them under the provisions of subsection 12 of section 5. At the opening of the inquiry, as I would expect it would be conducted, it would call for the appearances, and as the hon. gentleman said, if counsel appeared for the stove makers, in my judgment he would have an opportunity >to crossexamine the witnesses that had appeared and given evidence in the earlier part of the inquiry as it proceeded. I can conceive of no rules being made that would not make some provision for that, and if hon. gentlemen believe they would feel easier in their minds if the government were charged with the responsibility, they may add to subsection 12 that the rules and regulations promulgated by the board shall be published in the Canada Gazette, so that there may be no question in regard to that.


Mr. FACTOR:: If anybody appears voluntarily, will the board have power under subsection 2 to refuse to listen to their evidence? To take as an example the case mentioned by the hon. member for Weyburn, if counsel representing the stove makers appears, will the board have power to refuse to listen to his representations?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is
confusing the question of representation made by counsel and evidence presented by witnesses. His first question was whether the board would have power to refuse to hear a witness that appeared. In my judgment, if a witness appeared and said: "I am here to give evidence in this inquiry," this is made to meet that very case. If counsel undertook to make statements without evidence, I assume the court would treat counsel exactly

Tariff Board
as a court of record would do and say: Mr. So-and-so, please confine yourself to the evidence in the record. The hon. gentleman is familiar with the practice of courts in that regard.


Edward James Young: I am not quite clear yet in regard to my question. If the stove makers in this case send a man to represent them before the board, will he be permitted to fulfil the dual function of giving evidence and examining witnesses?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The courts have universally held that except in very rare cases no man should be both witness and counsel. The reason is obvious, for the summing up involves the necessity of his referring to his own testimony. That has been wholly frowned upon by the courts of the country. I recall one case in which the court permitted counsel to go into the box and prove a fact that had to be proven merely as a formal matter, but where evidence touching the merits of a controversy is concerned, our courts have universally held that as a matter of sound practice and regard for the amenities between the court and members of the bar, no person should be witness and counsel at the same time. The case was very fully discussed on one occasion by the courts of the country. In a case before the Supreme Court of Canada on appeal from one of the provinces, counsel gave evidence as a witness, and was compelled during the argument to refer to the witness so-and-so and so-and-so. The court said that this was very unsound practice and I think practically no member of the profession in these days would suggest that it be followed.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the converse be true, that a man could appear and represent any particular interest without giving evidence?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I conceive
will be covered by the rules and regulations governing the court. If it be thought desirable that rules so promulgated should be approved by the governor in. council and appear in the Canada Gazette, I am wholly willing that an amendment to that effect be added.


Edward James Young: When the Prime Minister
speaks of representation by counsel, I should like to ask him whether representation is to be by counsel only or whether an agent could fulfil the duties. My experience in connection with the old tariff board was that frequently lawyers appeared before it whose understanding of the problems which were being inquired into was not as profound as that of laymen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My conception of the
duty of any court is when opening the inquiry and calling for appearances, to note the representatives that are present. It need not be a professional man who represents the parties my hon. friend has mentioned.


Edward James Young: Thanks for that much.


Alan Webster Neill: I thank the Prime Minister very much for his assurance. If he agrees with that, why not put it in the bill and make us happy?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because I have seen it
abused; that is the reason. I do think there must be some measure of decorum in the conducting of matters of this kind. It is wholly beside the question to have someone appear and claim the right to cross-examine and then to make statements, not under oath, which are not statements of fact, but which they ask to be accepted as facts.
Amendment (Mr. Neill) negatived, on division.
Subsections 3 to 6 inclusive, of section 5, agreed to.
On section 5, subsection 7-Powers of one member.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to make it clear that one of the powers conferred upon the board is to determine what increases of duty are to be made in certain cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was abbreviating. Section 4 says:
Ip respect of goods produced in or imported into Canada the board shall, under the direction of the minister, make inquiry as to-
(b) the cost of production in Canada and elsewhere, and what increases or decreases in rates of duty are required to equalize differences in the cost of production.
I was assuming that the finding of the board with respect to what increases of duty were required would involve the drawing of an inference upon which the government would act. The point I wish to make clear is that one member of the board alone, under the subsection that we are now considering, will have all the power's that in section 4 are conferred upon the board. In other words, the government may be advised on these matters by just one member of the board who may take the investigation in hand. It is not a full board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On more than one
occasion it has been found desirable, in a country as large as this, that there should be
Tariff Board

on the part of every member of a given tribunal the power to make inquiries. This subsection enables that power to be exercised by one member-the next subsection provides for two members having power to conduct inquiries in certain matters-the evidence being taken by one member of the board and not by all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
the reason, that it-may be desired to spread the members around a bit. But it comes down to this, that one individual exercises all the powers of this board for the purpose of the inquiry to be made under section 4.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the purpose of the
inquiry, but not for the purpose of the report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The report
is signed just as a matter of course.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, they may agree or
disagree. The report is by the full board.
Subsection 7 agreed to.
Subsection 8 agreed to.
On section 5, subsection 9.-Power to proceed on other than sworn evidence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think this is an extraordinary section. It simply means that members of the board may make a finding on anything they pick up anywhere in any way. That goes very far for a court. I have never heard of a court being able to pronounce judgment on information that it has gathered in the highways and by-ways, but that is exactly what is being done here. It says:
For the purposes of any inquiry under this act, the board may obtain information, which in their judgment is authentic-
They have only to believe it is authentic.
-otherwise than under the sanction of an oath or affirmation, and use and act upon such information.
All they have to do is to believe the information is authentic, and then they may use or act upon such information. With this subsection in the bill what is the good of the other subsections of section 5, which provide that evidence shall be taken under oath?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company vs. McKinnon, a gentleman of the legal profession, decided that it was competent for a board of arbitrators to arrive at a conclusion of their own knowledge. Rightly or wrongly, the general rule has been that you must have regard,

shall I say, to the common sense of individuals, and their sense of integrity and obligation. I have seen it happen that judges sometimes view the locus in quo for the purpose of ascertaining just how a machine may operate. They may hear the evidence with relation to it, and very often their own knowledge amplifies the evidence given. So that these words have acquired at least a general meaning. The League of Nations carries on very extensive inquiries, as I mentioned this afternoon. Evidence might be introduced with respect to that, but it is predicated upon the assumption that the board believes the information to be authentic. I recall thinking as the right hon. gentleman did, when that case went to the Supreme Court of Canada on appeal from the Supreme Court of Alberta. It did look a -bit strange that after admitting that the evidence was very contradictory the arbitrators should of their own knowledge arrive at the conclusion that the land was worth so much. Mr. McKinnon appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Any student of the law will 'be able to find the judgment. The case was over fifteen years ago. I realize that this subsection is a broad one, but it is the only one that would authorize reputable men charged with a sense of their own responsibility and regard for their oath of office, and who cannot at all times secure evidence under oath with respect to matters of this kind, to act upon information which they believe to be authentic and to which full credence should be given.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend has cited the Calgary case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Calgary and Edmonton Railway.


James Layton Ralston: I think he knows himself that it has not very much to do with what we are discussing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has everything to do with it.


James Layton Ralston: I submit that it has not, as I shall show. My right horn friend is talking of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, that arbitrator's might act of their own knowledge. The point made here is that this board, which is a court of record and has power to compel the attendance of witnesses and to pay their fees, is not obliged to do that but may obtain from any source information which they believe to be authentic. They may ask somebody in the street, or take information from newspaper articles

Tariff Board
or reports, so long as they believe it is authentic. I submit to my right hon. friend that is far from deciding that men may act on their own judgment, because every day the courts take judicial notice of matters within the knowledge of ordinary men. There are many matters in connection with which a complete knowledge of the facts and circumstances makes the taking of evidence unnecessary. That, however, is not what this section is for. It is not to authorize the board to act on their own knowledge; they have that power anyway. It authorizes them to act on the knowledge of somebody else without the solemnity of a oath. If the board so desires it has the right to issue subpoenas for the witnesses they wish to call. 1 am sure my right hon. friend has not given the true reason for this subsection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I object to that statement, because I have given the true reason with respect to it.


James Layton Ralston: I submit to my right hon. friend that if the subsection is placed in the bill for the purpose of allowing the board to exercise their own knowledge there is no need for it, because the Calgary case decides that such bodies may use their own knowledge. If on the other hand the board is to be enabled to obtain information elsewhere, then I submit such action would not be within the four corners of court procedure, with which my right hon. friend is so familiar. The subsection is entirely unnecessary, because through the powers given to the board by my right hon. friend, any man can be forced to come before the board, if it so wills, and give evidence with the solemnity of an oath. Why have a seal? Why have the board constituted as a board of record? Why have power to summon witnesses? Why have power to imprison? W'hy have all these powers if one member of the court may ask his friend, whom he regards as entirely reliable, a particular question and act on the information he receives in reply thereto?


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it would have to be reported to parliament.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that. That is what this section does; unless the information is of a confidential character it has to be reported to parliament-and I shall deal with that feature in a moment. I submit that the section is entirely unnecessary if its purpose is to enable the board to act on their own knowledge. It is entirely foreign to the
whole spirit of procedure, the functions and fundamentals of the tribunal, if it is for the purpose of enabling the board to act on information other than that taken under oath.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have given my hon. friend an illustration, namely information required with respect to a foreign government. A communication is despatched to the proper officer and a reply is received. This section enables such a reply to be used because it is believed that such information is true, without the solemnity of an oath. Such provision is absolutely essential in the conduct of inquiries, and there has been a custom-not in courts, but in other bodies-to rely upon the authenticity of information supplied by the public departments of the government of Great Britain. Not every day, but frequently, we act upon information received from public departments in Great Britain and the other dominions. This information is not given under oath but is believed to be reliable and is acted upon. It will be observed that in section 6 there is provision that a copy of any evidence taken, and information obtained, except it be of a confidential nature, shall be laid before parliament by the minister. So it is incumbent upon the board to make a record of the information obtained. It will be observed in the reports of the tariff commission of the United States to which I directed attention that in two instances they gave illustrations of information thus obtained. This is to meet that situation.


James Layton Ralston: If the provision is only to meet the situation of getting information from a 'foreign government, my right hon. friend should say so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are other cases.


James Layton Ralston: He should not make the section world wide in character in order to get certain official information. As he knows, evidence of the actions of foreign governments and all official actions are taken judicial notice of by the courts through the solemnity of a seal and the certificate of a proper officer. I am sure he does not need this section for that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This section goes beyond that.


Alan Webster Neill: I suppose but for this section it would be necessaiy for the tariff board to bring before them the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of National Revenue to take an oath every time the board referred to annual statistics.
Tariff Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: That might be so. My hon. friend has given what seems to be a very clear illustration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point out that under this section the board may conduct its whole inquiry, make its report and act upon the information it secures, without taking any evidence under oath at all. Leaving out the words "otherwise than under the sanction of an oath or affirmation" the section would read:
For the purposes of any inquiry under this act, the board may obtain information which in their judgment is authentic, and use and act upon such information.
That is all they need to do. Whoever is in charge may secure and act upon whatever information he wishes so long as he believes such information to be authentic.


William Gordon Ernst: Does the right hon. gentleman seriously suggest any court would do that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Whether any court would do it?


William Gordon Ernst: Yes, would any court do
that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is an utter absurdity to assume that economic phenomena can be dealt with in the same manner as that in which legal phenomena or questions of property and civil rights can be dealt with. It would be much better to simplify the terms of the bill by providing that the minister may obtain such information as he desires from any source in which he has confidence. That would be a guide to the minister. When he comes before parliament he has to take responsibility with respect to his presentations to parliament, and to my mind if that course were adopted the matter would be dealt with in a straightforward way. To go to the trouble to pass an act of parliament creating a court with all kinds of powers, dignities and the like, and insert in the bill a provision that the court may ignore all the powers so conferred upon it and act upon information it picks up on the highways and by-ways, seems' to me to be ridiculous.


Jean-François Pouliot: Some people have complained that there are too many oaths in courts of law'. Subsection 1 of section 5 states that evidence may be given on oath or on solemn affirmation. I believe the experience of lawyers is that they have enough trouble to get the truth when witnesses are under oath. I doubt whether the truth could be had at all if witnesses gave evidence only on

solemn affirmation. I do not see how an inquiry could be conducted seriously by asking questions of witnesses who are only on solemn affirmation and not on oath.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I should like to ask
the Prime Minister whether a case such as I shall outline would come under the provisions of subsection 9 and 10, which impose secrecy concerning confidential information. Assume the board has written to or requested the head of some firm to give a statement. The head of that firm has supplied the board with a letter or document containing certain trade secrets, and in asking for an increased tariff the firm has used arguments based upon such trade secrets. Could the board then take action based upon such a letter or document, which in its nature was confidential and could not be brought down before parliament, and of which no parties save the board and the interested manufacturer could possibly be cognizant? It seems to me that a provision which would permit of such a case would be very wide indeed. The conditions I have outlined are not at all inconceivable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are possible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister says they are possible-I would say that in many case they are probable. Under this section the board may bring before it the president of a company, And if the president of a company does not wish to be placed on oath so that the examination can run all along the line with regard to any questions that may be asked, the board under this section can simply get such information from him as they desire and then act upon it. Under the next subsection they may take his evidence in secret and may act upon it. I said the other day that this court is a star chamber foody, and I think that is amply borne out by these tw*o sections. It can if it suits its purposes put certain persons under oath, but other persons it may exempt from testifying under oath, it may use such evidence and conduct its business in secret and act upon the information obtained in that way. I do not believe there was a court in the reign of Charles I that ever had wider powers than that.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: That is Tory policy.


Alfred Speakman: The case that I mentioned is not merely a- hypothetical case, it is one that is exceedingly probable, and I think it is such a case as should, if possible, be guarded against.
Subsection 9 carried on division.

Tariff Board
On section 5, subsection 10-Confidential evidence or information not to be (made public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the foot of the last line will be observed the words:
-to a penalty not exceeding $1,000 or to twelve months' imprisonment.
It is thought that the words "not more than" should be inserted before the words "to twelve months' imprisonment."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I should have added when speaking about this star chamber court that in addition to all that I have said1, it has the power of fine and imprisonment. I think that is a perfectly ludicrous power to give to any court dealing with questions of this kind. Why do we need, with respect to questions [DOT] affecting prices, powers of fine and imprisonment, especially where the body is an advisor}' body? I think it is going altogether too far so to trespass on the rights of the people in matters that affect their everyday lives-the prices at which they are to sell their commodities, the rates they are to get for wages, the cost of their living, taxation-all these things are involved, and the star chamber court is to have the right to fine and imprison persons from whom they think they are not getting all the information they ought to get and in the way they think they ought to get it. It seems to me it would be better to cut out fine and imprisonment and let the Prime Minister create a court that shall have power to investigate only. Let him go easy on the penalties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This court has no such power. I am amazed that the right hon. gentleman should not at least do himself the credit of reading the words in this subsection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have read the subsection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why did he endeavour to mislead the committee? This court has no such power to fine or imprison.


James Layton Ralston: Has not a court of record power to fine and imprison?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not on summary conviction.


James Layton Ralston: I am not talking about
summary conviction. The test of a court of record is whether it has power to fine or imprison.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has power to enforce
law and order in the conduct of its proceedings.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, and punish for contempt, which is by fine and imprisonment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may do either. But
that is not the point. The hon. gentleman did not make that point.


James Layton Ralston: I did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth is taking his usual course. He is endeavouring now to squirm out of something that somebody else has done instead of meeting the issue squarely. As I said, the right hon. leader of the opposition has not taken the trouble to read the subsection, because had he done so he would find that no such power is conferred.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have read it
fifty times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The power of summary
conviction is the power conferred upon magistrates under the criminal code, and when the right hon. gentleman suggests that this power should not be given, the extreme case that was put by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) is itself some indication of the reason why. If trade secrets are to be given away, if a man's business is to be destroyed, it is hardly to be expected that there should not be some punishment given to the person who did it. I rather think the right hon. gentleman on mature consideration will acknowledge that his use of the words "star chamber" is hardly warranted, for this reason; that he himself and some of his friends suggest that this should be a public inquiry, and we have agreed that it should be so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Subject to the further clauses.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Subject to the confidential clauses. But in a broad and general way a court that is a public court can hardly be termed a star chamber court-not very well. It was not the public quality of the star chamber which won for it that name. This is no more a star chamber court than the advisory tariff board was a star chamber court. Why is it there is such feeling about this legislation? One denunciation is that it is ridiculous. Well, if it is ridiculous, the responsibility rests with us. If it is useless, then why spend two or three days in opposing it? If it is harmless-as it is said to be-then why take all this time trying to prove that it is harmless? Time will demonstrate whether it is harmless or not. I have been very frank with the committee. I concede that very large powers are conferred, because very large responsibilities are being accepted, and very

Tariff Board

large efforts towards a given end are being made. Every now and then I hear hon. gentlemen opposite say there is some sinister meaning behind this, and they ask what is meant by it. I can only say to the committee that this means exactly what it says. When the right hon. gentleman suggests, why don't we pass a few sections and say that is the end of it, I ask why did Australia elaborate its position?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is not following Australia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But why did Australia
elaborate its position?


James Layton Ralston: Because it was a question as to whether it should be voluntary or compulsory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In India a statute was
passed with respect to one commodity, namely, steel, and 'the tariff was fixed for a given time. The evidence was published. I read it in England-I do not know whether I brought it with me-and I have no doubt the right hon. leader of the opposition is familiar with it. It is a most illuminating volume as to the methods pursued for ascertaining the facts. However great the difference may be between us with respect to this, cannot we realize that there is no sinister object behind this legislation? This bill represents a very great deal of toil, the perusal of many statutes, and an honest endeavour to secure an enactment that would at least represent the good qualities and virtues of all existing legislation, and eliminate, that which was evil and useless. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that this will not work successfully. It may not, but if it does not it will not be because we have not tried to make it so. I have had strong convictions on this matter for longer years than I care to think of as I look back upon them, and having the opportunity I have endeavoured to crystallize those convictions into legislation, not as perfect as I should like it to be because of the pressure of time, but it represents an earnest effort to pass a statute whose operations will protect alike the consumer and the producer on the one hand, and on the other the public in the larger sense as representing the state itself. That is what we are trying to do. Why cannot we discuss the bill in that sense?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my- right hon. friend that I do not think I would be as suspicious of the legislation as I am or have the feeling about it that I have if it contained a provision that the parties themselves might appear before the court,

make application t.o be heard and have any question inquired into that they wished. But that is not the bill before us. This is legislation which will give my right hon. friend alone power to say what is to go before the court. He says he has been thinking over this matter for a long time-I believe he is right. He says he wants to give protection to the manufacturer, to the consumer and to labour-I believe that is true. But let me say this to him. These people are all able to protect themselves if you give them a chance; I do not think we need a new protector in this country. I do not think the interests of manufacturers, of labour and of consumers should be only under the guardianship of my right hon. friend, no matter how sincere he may be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not quite fair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is fair,
because my right hon. friend knows, and has laid it down to-day as a principle, that all the investigations under this act depend in the first instance upon his say-so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, within the limits of the act itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend admits it, and that being the case I say I am frankly suspicious as to the good the measure will accomplish. If it were a measure freely conferring powers upon individuals to appear and be heard when they felt they had a grievance I would have an entirely different view in regard to it.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed ait eight o'clock.


Olof Hanson: When the committee rose at six
o'clock we were dealing with subsection 10 of section 5.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Chairman, I intend
to move an amendment to this subsection, which deals with confidential evidence. I submit that such a provision is entirely without precedent in legislation of this kind, and that it could be very largely dispensed with particularly in view of the explanation given by the Prime Minister in regard to the way in which the board will function.
As was pointed out just before recess, this subsection provides for a penalty on summary conviction of SI,000 or twelve months' imprisonment. That penalty is imposed upon not simply the members of the board, its offi-

Tariff Board
cials, or those who are present and whose duty it-is to refrain from making public any matter subject to confidence, but as the subsection is drafted it imposes the penalty upon anyone who may happen to have information and who parts with it in such a way as to make it available for the use of any business competitor or rival of the person, firm or corporation submitting it. The general term "confidential" is not exact enough to be put into a statute which imposes such a penalty as this. The decision whether or not the information is confidential will rest with a court of summary jurisdiction, which may consist of two justices of the peace. Such a power put in the hands of a court of this nature is far in excess of that contained in any statute. The only one concerned is the competitor or rival of the person, firm or corporation before the board. If a person, firm or corporation were appearing before the board to ask for a duty there would be every likelihood that their competitors and rivals would be there as well, asking for a duty in connection with the same commodity. It seems to me that the competitor or rival is the very one who would have to know all the facts. He would be before the board assisting in the presentation of the facts, and I fail to see what the draftsman of this section had in mind when he restricted "confidential information" to the sort of information which might get to a competitor or rival.
No information should be confidential in the sense that it should be kept out of the report of the board and thus withheld from parliament unless it be information which would be considered confidential in a court of record. Information as to costs is not confidential. Such information must be before this House of Commons in order that it may determine whether the industry in connection with which duties are to be imposed or increased is entitled to that duty or is earning sufficient to enable it to carry on without the protection such a duty would afford. Costs of production cannot be considered as confidential, and if my right hon. friend has that in mind I submit that he would be depriving parliament of one of the important elements in connection with tariff schedules. However, I do not think my right hon. friend has that in mind, because he excepts any information brought out at a hearing of the board when the board is taking the place of the exchequer court or other courts provided for in the Customs Tariff Act, that is. a proceeding against any person, firm or combination of persons or firms for conspiracy in connection with the nrice of goods 22110-2251
or in connection with anything having to do with the exploitation of the consumer.
If this is to be a court of record, the rules which govern such courts should apply. The proceedings must be open to the public, except in two cases, with which my right hon. friend is familiar. First, the proceedings are not open where it would be against public .morals to make them public, and second, where a trade or secret process is involved, the very object of having a trade or secret process would be defeated if the person possessing it were forced to put in upon the public record. It is a well known principle of law that the administration of justice cannot be made the instrument or vehicle for defeating justice, and that would happen if a person were forced to make public a trade secret. I submit that this is the only class of evidence which should be considered as confidential. This rule applies in the Australian act and is contained in the regulations in connection with the United States tariff board; in those cases everything else is made public, and I submit the same rule should apply here.
From what my right hon. friend has said it would appear there is to be no prejudice to anyone appearing before the board. The board will conduct the examinations and it will be tender and gentle enough to see that no one is forced to give any information which might be prejudicial in the sense that it would be disclosing information advantageous to his competitors. The whole thing is in the hands of the board. In the first place the minister directs or requests the board, and then the board itself conducts the examination so that there need be no fear on the part of anybody that they will be forced to disclose something that will be to their detriment in connection with any competitor. The amendment which I propose will ensure to the man who has a trade or secret process the same protection that he has in a court of record; that is to say, he will not be forced to give away information with regard to that trade or secret process. But I want to go one step further. If he is willing, in connection with the inquiry, to give particulars of his trade or secret process, waiving the privilege which otherwise would be accorded him, then the court for this purpose should be cleared, the public excluded for the time being in order that information with regard to trade or secret processes might not be made a matter of general knowledge. But it must be remembered that the owner of the trade or secret process has the matter in his own hands; he may not waive the right or privi-

Tariff Board
lege and he may not be forced to give evidence. Therefore I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for Hants-Kings, to amend section 5 by striking out subsection 10 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
(10) (a) Nothing in this act shall make it compulsory for a witness to disclose to the board any trade or secret process of manurac-tore.	.
(b) In case any witness is willing to waive the protection of clause (a) of this subsection the board may exclude the public from any hearing while the evidence of such witness respecting such trade or secret process is being given.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I hope it will not be thought that because I have not risen before I have not had occasion to object strenuously to some of the arguments put forward on the other side. This amendment indicates to me-and I say this with charity-that there is an attempt on the part of some hon. members, forgetful of the law as it stands, to offer as much opposition as possible to the passage of this bill. I am sorry to make a statement of that kind in the presence of the hon. gentleman who spoke last, but he knows as well as I or any other hon. member that no one in business can expect that the conduct of his affairs, the way he gains an advantage, if he gains one, shall be spread before his competitors. There is no question on that score, and so far as legislation on this point is concerned, it has been on the statute books for a long period of time. It passed the revision before the last one, but I have not had opportunity to look the matter up. My hon. friend knows, because we have had it mentioned before, that it is against the statute law of this country for the Department of Customs to show any invoice to anyone, no matter who he may be, unless under a subpoena or an order of the court.


James Layton Ralston: What has that to do with this?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If my hon. friend does not understand, I think I can very soon make my point clear to him. If this amendment were to receive the sanction of this house, what would it mean? It would mean that except in the case of a trade secret or secret process, everything would be public. The inference would be, if this subsection were deleted and replaced by my hon. friend's suggested amendment, that invoices-this illustration just occurred to me because it was referred to last night-would then be the property of the public and if brought in evidence before the tariff board would be open

to the public. How ridiculous that would be! The customs branch of the Department of National Revenue during the administration of the previous Liberal government, prior to that under the adminstration of a Conservative government, if you call it such, and now under the administration of a Conservative government, has gained the confidence of the public. When we ask for information and expect to get it, they know it comes to us and to us alone. It is a splendid thing when the business of this country is carried on honestly and efficiently, and yet when every man in business knows no one can take advantage of him by using information given to the customs; otherwise all kinds of unfair competition would be set on foot.
What about the collection of income tax, if I may refer to it? The same thing might arise in connection with an investigation under this very clause that we have before us now. The income tax branch under both the former government and the present administration has maintained secrecy. There is a penalty for divulging information, and I believe this country collects hundreds of thousands of dollars because it is known that information can be given to the Department of National Revenue without any fear of its leaking out. If it does leak out, very drastic measures should be taken to deal with such a situation, and therefore there are penalties similar to those in this bill. I think the only thing I have to do to show the absolute futility of an amendment of this kind is to put it to any hon. member who is in business to say whether or not he would prefer, in the conduct of his business, that what he reveals and what he must reveal to the crown should be made known to his competitors. I know of no line of business, even in the professions, where one is compelled, or where it is thought to be fair dealing, to give, to competitors information in regard to transactions in connection with private business. The amendment goes a certain distance, but it does not go far enough. It would strike at section 182 of the Customs Act; it would strike at the provision of the Income Tax Act which says that the business of any man shall be confidential as long as he is within the law and does not seek to step outside it. I ask that this one-leigged amendment, which does not go far enough, be defeated, and that the section of the bill, which goes further should be adopted.


James Layton Ralston: Following the example of my hon. friend, I shall endeavour to be charitable too. If he had read the section he would not have indulged in the worrisome

Tariff Board
portrayal of the difficulties of the manufacturer as he feared they would be found as the result of this amendment. May I point out that this amendment has not a solitary thing to do with the Income Tax Act; it has not a solitary thing to do with the Customs Act. It leaves them exactly as they were before. If my hon. friend had read the section, as he has not-and that is why I am charitable

he would know that. I will read the amendment for my hon. friend again.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I have read the section and the amendment, and this is later legislation than the Customs Act.


James Layton Ralston: Then I shall have to withdraw my expression that I shall endeavour to be charitable.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am not asking for charity.


James Layton Ralston: Nor am I. This amendment says:
Nothing in this act shall make it compulsory for a witness to disclose to the board any trade or secret process of manufacture.
This amendment and this act simply mean that if someone is asking for duties in order, to use the expression we have heard so often in this house, that the cost of production in this country may be equalized with the cost of production somewhere else, he shall have to tell his costs of production. That information will have to be put on the record and be available not only to the board but to this house when the tariff schedules are brought down. There is nothing unusual about that. It has been in this country ever since it was a country. Manufacturers and those who have been asking for duties have always been expected to give their costs; otherwise a case could not be made. Does my hon. friend think we should act blindly in connection with these matters, that we should not know what the costs are when we are asked to impose duties that will equalize the cost of production? I submit that the term "ridiculous" which my hon. friend used is properly applicable to that proposition, if that is the proposition he is making. Ail that is being done here is to provide that when a man comes before the tariff board, which is a fact finding board, to which is referred this question of the equalization of the cost of production, to which is referred the question of how much of an increase of duty is to be given in order that the cost of production may be equalized-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not "is to be given."


James Layton Ralston: The board which will
recommend how much of an increase of duty-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not that either.


James Layton Ralston: How much should be
given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not even that.


James Layton Ralston: We have been over the section time and time again, and the house knows and the country knows what its meaning is.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member evidently does not understand it, or else he is misrepresenting it.


James Layton Ralston: I have read it half a
dozen times, and I can read it again, but the house and the country understand it to mean what I said. This board is to make a finding of fact, is to say what, in their opinion, is the increase of duty that shall be allowed in order to equalize the costs of production. If we have understood anything, we have understood that. Before that is done, surely we must have information as to costs.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The board must.


James Layton Ralston: I have pointed out once or twice that the competitor is probably in exactly the same box with the gentleman who is making the application, and I do not think there is any particular reason why a man should be protected against his competitor when they are both applying for the same thing. I submit that in a court, as the Minister of National Revenue well knows, these things are not confidential. Nowhere else are they confidential. Why should they be confidential before the board? Nobody is asking anybody to make an application against his will. The Finance minister first of all has to decide whether anjffiody shall be asked even a single question; he need not make a reference to the board at all; the board need not ask a single question if they do not want to, and they can prevent any questions being asked. Is there any more protection that could be thrown around people who are asking for an increase in the tariff schedules?
My right hon. friend missed altogether what I tried to say. In the Irish act and in the Australian act you will find exactly this same principle and nothing more. There is no protection against confidential information in those acts, except as to secret processes, and in the Irish act I believe there is no protection of any kind. In the United States,
Tariff Board

where there would be a good deal of competition, and where the argument which my hon. friend made a few moments ago might apply, the only protection in their act is that no information shall be divulged that refers to any trade or secret process.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is more than that.
Just read the section.


James Layton Ralston: Section 335 of the United States Tariff Act provides:
It shall be unlawful for any member of the commission, or for any employee, agent, or clerk of the commission, or any other officer or employee of the United States, to divulge, or to make known in any manner whatever not provided for by law, to any person, the trade secrets or processes of any person, firm, copartnership, corporation, or association embraced in any examination or investigation conducted by the commission, or by order of the commission, or by order of any member thereof.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the section
I am talking about.


James Layton Ralston: It is what I am talking about.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the section constituting the commission.


James Layton Ralston: If there is any other section I wish my right hon. friend would refer me to it. It goes on:
Any offence against the provisions of this section shall be a misdemeanor and be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court, and such offender shall also be dismissed from office or discharged from employment.
There is a provision which has to do only with trade secrets and only with the employees of the board. It does not go the length of saying that confidential information cannot be made available to the competitor of somebody who is applying for an increase in the tariff. Further than that, it does not suggest for one minute, as this bill does, that somebody else who has nothing whatever to do with the board shall be subjected to fine and imprisonment. With that assurance I submit to my hon. friend that the strong expressions he has used and the apprehensions he has in mind are not well founded.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman's amendment precludes the board from obtaining this information from witnesses before them without their consent.


James Layton Ralston: Certainly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Personally I desire the board to be placed in a position to obtain all information which it may regard as relevant.

There should be no prohibition against the board obtaining any information that it regards as relevant and material to the inquiry it has in hand. The hon. gentleman reverses that and says, by this amendment, that hereafter a manufacturer or other witness before the board shall not be compelled to disclose the real facts with regard to his manufacturing processes or many other matters which enter into the cost of production.


James Layton Ralston: Not many other matters; just that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I know enough about manufacturing to know that a number of matters which are very relevant indeed would be precluded under this amendment. So far as I am concerned I certainly could not consent to this amendment. The very basis of the whole proposed enactment is that in making legitimate inquiries the board shall have all information, and if information is withheld it shall be in a position to compel its disclosure. The hon. gentleman's amendment would prevent that.


James Layton Ralston: All that my hon. friend is saying is that my amendment goes further than he would go in protecting the manufacturer. I am sure that I did not expect that objection from the other side of the house. With all deference to my hon. friend the Secretary of State, this amendment does not deal with a whole lot of things to which my hon. friend has alluded. It deals with just one thing, that a man shall not be compelled to give his trade or secret processes to the board.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The difference between us is that under the bill as it stands the applicant is compelled to disclose to the board everything. He cannot hide behind some objection of his own that this or that or some other fact desired would disclose some secret process.


James Layton Ralston: I have looked at this with some care, and I wish to assure my right hon. friend that the matter has been very fully considered. . This is one of the cases outside of the matter of morals of which I spoke a minute ago, and outside of some matters expressly provided for by statute concerning young persons where courts are quick to see to it that nobody is prejudiced who has to give evidence before them. The reason is that once a secret process is revealed and the details given, the very object of that secret process is entirely lost. I have moved my amendment in the form of the provision in that respect in the Australian act, but I have gone a step further and have sought to waive

Tariff Board
the privilege of that section where the witness is willing to give the information, in which case the public shall be excluded while the evidence respecting trade or secret process is being given.
Let me go one step further. Where the public is excluded from the court room, in other words where a trial before a court of justice is held in camera, my hon. friend knows as well as I do that it is contempt of court to discuss anything which takes place. In such a case the applicant before this board, or whatever he may be called, would be surrounded with protection in regard to trade or secret processes. I admit quite frankly that this section is intended only to make such proceedings confidential, but I cannot conceive of anything mentioned in this bill which should be regarded as confidential in view of the fact that it has to be acted upon in the forming of a tariff schedule.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section read by the hon. gentleman was a section dealing with punishment for breach of the observance of confidential relationships.


James Layton Ralston: Which section?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section dealing with the punishment of those who disclose confidential information. I read from a report which I have not now before me, but which will be found at page 3186 of Hansard, setting forth what the United States tariff commission did on the 12th of March of this year. It was from their act that this section is framed. At that time I referred .to an application for a reduction of duty on edible gelatin, and these are the words of the report:
The costs of production of the single Nether-land concern for the calendar year 1929, were obtained directly from its books.
To guard against disclosure of the Netherlands company's costs, either directly or inferentially, from the average cost of the domestic product, the commission has omitted the detailed cost data from this report.
If such information had been included the commission would have been doing what should not be done, namely, disclosing to the world the nature of a business. It is not intended that that should be done, but it is intended that the board shall get every form of information which may be necessary to arrive at a proper conclusion. There are some members of this committee, as there are people in all countries, who regard it as a matter of profound satisfaction to be able to nose into other people's affairs. That is always so. In this instance it is provided that no limitation shall be placed upon the knowledge which the commission may secure. If the knowledge disclosed is of a confidential character, then that confidence must be respected, and that is the action which was taken by the American commission in pursuance of the powers conferred upon it. That is the only way in which business can be carried on.
The hon. gentleman refers to the circumstances in court where the nature of the trial is such that the proceedings are held in camera. It is perfectly true that courts are hedged around with the safeguards he has mentioned, but it is also true that similar precautions are taken with respect to bank accounts. The English statute has been copied. It is also true that in courts of justice in such circumstances as my hon. friend has mentioned, unless it be essentia! to proceed otherwise because of fraud or for some other reason, names required in evidence are merely written on slips of paper, and various other similar precautions are taken.
The purpose of this provision is that without restriction or limitation the information shall be given to the commission. That knowledge, however, shall not be disclosed, because it might represent years of toil and the profit therefrom might be destroyed not only by competitors but by others.


James Layton Ralston: That is not met in the
bill, that is just the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is met here.


James Layton Ralston: I think not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not met here? I shall
read the section:
Should evidence or information which is in its nature confidential, relating to the business or affairs of any person, firm or corporation, be given or elicited in the course of any inquiry, the evidence or information shall not be made public in such a manner-
That contemplates the information being made public.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, go on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -as to be available for the use of any business competitor or rival of the person, firm or corporation, respectively.


James Layton Ralston: That is the only man
from whom he is protected. My right hon. friend said that others were included.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, this section also
protects against the disclosure of that evidence to others. That is what the punitive powers are for, just as they are in the American statute. This section combines three things:

Tariff Board
(a) it ensures the obtaining of complete information;- (b) it limits the publicity of such information, to the board, and (c) it punishes for publication to other than "the board. -


James Layton Ralston: No, for publication to a
competitor.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the punishment is
to any person.


Mr. RALS  TON@: But the publication is to a competitor. I presume my right hon. friend thinks he has made his point and has come to a decision. But the question is whether or not information which is absolutely essential to determine whether or not a duty shall be granted and tariff protection thereby afforded is to be available to this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer to that is
very simple. If the information is of a confidential character, it is to be retained in the minds of the commissioners and not referred to in the report, just as was done in the American report in the case of edible gelatin. Comparisons may be instituted, but the information in the minds of the commissioners may not be disclosed.


James Layton Ralston: How could my hon. friend institute a comparison if he had not the facts? I do not understand that. We have tp determine now whether or not the house is to decide on the facts which are presented, but the information with regard to cost is left out. If the American commission say they withhold the information I will venture the opinion that the evidence was given to a congressional committee or someone having to do with tariff matters. My right hon. friend has not yet produced the section to which I thought he was going to refer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My books are in the east block, but I read from the report.


James Layton Ralston: But the report did not suggest it was being done under the authority of the statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, that is what it was done under.


James Layton Ralston: I think my right hon. friend's remarks with regard to people minding other people's business are quite gratuitous. .Every day before the courts facts concerning the business of private litigants are presented in connection with which remedies have to be applied; the courts must ascertain those facts in order to apply the remedy. There is no doubt whatever that when some one comes to this parliament seeking tariff protection or an increase of duties already in effect, parliament should have knowledge of the facts.

How that can be so if they state the facts to a commission and the commission in turn does not pass the information on to parliament so that a vote -may be taken in the matter is something I find it difficult to understand. My right hon. friend says he is protecting industry from disclosure, but the section provides only that the information so disclosed shall hot be available to a competitor, and he is the only man against whom protection is given. The competitor is just as much interested as the applicant is in getting the same treatment with regard to tariff.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The question is on the amendment.	[DOT]


Edward James Young: No, the committee is not yet ready for the question. No hon. member on this side of the house has any desire to nose into other people's business.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward James Young: And when an applicant comes before the government or the tariff board and asks for a handout from the public treasury in the nature of high tariff, then his business is no longer private, but it is our business. We are here to guard the business of the public, and when the. public is asked to make a contribution to the business of .an individual, it is the public's business to learn something about the business of that individual.
My right hon. friend says that costs will be treated as confidential. The section of the bill contains the words "information which is in its nature confidential." We know from our experience this session that the government has treated as confidential a good many things which are not of a confidential nature, l or instance I placed a motion on the order paper asking for the production of certain papers which had passed between the government and certain oil refineries. That information was refused on the ground that it was of a confidential character. All I wanted to know was what the oil refineries had aske.d for, and I am informed by the government that such information is confidential. It seems that hon. members on this side of the house are not to know what was asked for. I have reason to believe, that information which was given to the government in no confidential manner is being treated as confidential and is being denied this house.
This section of the bill provides that if any information is given to the board of a confidential nature, and if anyone reveals that information to the public or to some one who would make it available for that man's competitor, he would be liable to imprisonment. I cited a case in the house not long ago where a

Tariff Board
certain manufacturer refused to give information to the board in regard to his production costs except in confidence. The other party before the board said:	"We can figure that
out ourselves, we can get the information otherwise, we do not need to get it from him." Under this subsection, if he had done that he would have made himself liable to imprisonment.
Mr, BENNETT:	No.


Edward James Young: If a man reveals certain
information how are you to know the source of it? He might say, "I did not get it from the board, I worked it out myself." The minister under this act is attempting to set up a board which he hopes will enjoy the confidence of the people.
An lion. MEMBER: So it will.


Edward James Young: I think I am safe in saying that the confidence the people will have in the board will be in proportion to the confidence that the board will have in the people. If the attitude, is taken that the public is not entitled to any information, that all that is expected of the public is that it shall pay the shot,-if the board should feel no more confidence than that in the public, then the first time that board makes a decision against what [DOT]is conceived to be the public interest' the board will be regarded as rotten. If the minister desires to inspire confidence in the board, he should at least show confidence in the public.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does not the right hon.
Prime Minister think that the word "wilfully" should be inserted before the word "violates"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think it is
necessary in this case.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have in mind a case where somebody before the board might think that evidence which came out in an inquiry was not in its nature confidential, and he might publish it in the firm belief that it was in the public interest, and yet under this subsection he might be prosecuted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Olof Hanson: Those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Olof Hanson: Contrary-minded will please say
"no."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Layton Ralston: There is no need to railroad this legislation through	the committee.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Hanson,	York-
Sunbury):	I am not trying to railroad it
through the committee. Stand up if you want to speak.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member for
Ilants-Kings was on his feet.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Hanson,	York-
Sunbury):	No, he was leaning on his chair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Hanson,	York-
Sunbury):	Go ahead.


James Layton Ralston: I submit the suggestion
made by the member for Hants-Kings is a [DOT] perfectly proper one. In a penal statute the word wilful is usually employed, and you do not simply penalize somebody for violating a section by disclosing confidential information when he does not know it is confidential.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Hants-Kings I answered. I told him I did not think the insertion of the word was necessary in this case. The reason is simple, The. evidence or information is known to be confidential because the section provides it must so be, otherwise the public get it. If anyone thus knows that the evidence or information is confidential, and deliberately makes it known, it is not necessary to say that he does so wilfully, because every man knows the consequence of his own act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Information may come out in the course of a public inquiry and be in its nature confidential, and yet if it is published by any person present in the belief that it is not in its nature confidential he is liable under the act. Certainly, 'he should not be subject to twelve months' imprisonment in such a case unless there: is some wilful violation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Wilfulness is not the
point.
Amendment (Mr. Ralston) negatived.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That subsection 10 of section 5 be amended by inserting the word "wilfully" before the word "violates" in line fifteen.
Amendment (Mr. Usley) negatived.


Mr. RHODES:: Mr. Chairman, I propose:
That subsection 10 of section 5 be amended by inserting the words "no more than" after the word "to" in line eighteen.
Amendment (Mr. Rhodes) agreed to.
Subsection 10 as amended agreed to on division.	1
Subsection 11 agreed to.
Tariff Board

On section 5, subsection 12-Sessions and conduct of proceedings.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the right hon. Prime
Minister make the appropriate amendment here that he promised?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think it is
necessary, but I said if it is the mind of the committee that they should be published in the Canada Gazette, it should be done.


Samuel Factor: The public may be
interested in the rules and regulations.


Alan Webster Neill: It would give a greater
measure of information to the public. I understood the Prime Minister to say he would accept the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say I would
unless the committee thought it desirable.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I am not
familiar with the exact wording quoted by the Prime Minister this afternoon but I would-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am drafting the
amendment.


Olof Hanson: Subsection 12 will stand. We will proceed with section 6.


Edward James Young: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Much consideration has been given that point, and it is not thought any useful purpose would be served by this being done. Consider the reports that have been published and the thousands of dollars expended in their .preparation and printing, in connection with the old tariff board; what use have they been? What service has been rendered? The evidence will be laid before parliament and if a parliamentary committee thinks it desirable to pulblish the evidence it will be published. The report is another matter; under the act the report is dealt with in this way:
Whenever a report lias been made under this act, a copy thereof and a copy of the evidence, if any, taken, and of the information obtained (except such evidence and information as was of a confidential character under subsection 10 of section 5 hereof) in connection therewith shall be laid before parliament by the minister within fifteen days after the opening of the next session thereafter, or within fifteen days after the making of the report if parliament is then in session.
Parliament will then decide what evidence it is desirable to print with respect to those proceedings. I think that is the proper and economical way in which to deal with this matter. I gave a good deal of consideration to the point, and when I looked at the volumes printed in connection with the old advisory board, I asked myself what value they have been, and I thought the thousands of dollars aould be better used at this time. If it is thought desirable to print the evidence it will be printed, as I have said.
Amendment (Mr. Young) negatived on division.
Subsection 12 of section 5 stands.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Secretary to board.
Subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) agreed to.
On section 7, subsection 5-Officers, clerks and employees.


John Livingstone Brown: Subsection 5 reads as
follows:
There shall be employed in the service of the board such officers, clerks and other employees as the governor in council may see fit to appoint, and they shall respectively receive salaries or remuneration as may be approved by the governor in council.
This parliament, in its wisdom, has passed a civil service act, and while it may be true that certain government officers are not under that act, yet I think it is a principle to which this house should hold, and the act should be extended as far as possible to cover all officials in the public service. I think that is especially true in regard to the employees of

Tariff Board
this board, since it has been indicated by the Prime Minister that in all probability this will be a permanent board. It will probably last at least ten years, and undoubtedly will consist of gentlemen who are in harmony with the views of the Prime Minister in tariff matters. If this amendment is not adopted it will leave the appointment of the officers and employees of the board in the hands of the governor in council, and I think in view of all the facts and in view of the situation which will undoubtedly arise, these officers, clerks and employees should be appointed by the Civil Service Commission. Therefore I move in amendment:
That section 7 be amended by striking out subsection 5 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
15) There may be appointed in the manner authorized by law such officers, clerks and other employees as the board shall deem necessary for the conduct of the business of the board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a matter to which much consideration has been given, and I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. friend. Our own experience has taught us that in a matter requiring technical advisers it is desirable to have the board make its own recommendations, from inquiries the members of the board may make. The late advisory board selected its own employees, who were paid out of the public revenue.


James Layton Ralston: Not the clerks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation employed its own people and paid them.
Mi'. RALSTON:	That was an order in
council board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. I quite sympathize with what the hon. gentleman has said but I could not ask the board to do other than choose the instruments with which it is going to work, and the government must assume responsibility for the appoinments.


Ernest Lapointe: It is not the board;
it is the governor in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the governor in
council necessarily must do that.


Ernest Lapointe: But there is nothing
which says they must be selected by the board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, there are two
clauses. First, in subsection 6, the technical advisers and officers are appointed on the recommendation of the Board. Subsection (5) refers to the clerks, and subsection (7) gives the board disciplinary powers. I think many reasons were advanced a few days ago
why we must have recourse to this form of lappointment. If, as my hon. friend suggests, the board is not going to last very long lanyway, it might be better that it should be this way than the other way. Difficulties have been experienced because of the release of employees who are under the Civil Service Act and for whom positions cannot be made, inotably the private secretaries of ministers.


Edward James Young: Is that the reason for this Iform of appointment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the reason is an obvious one. The board will have heavy responsibility and will be better able to select Itheir own employees than the Civil Service Commission.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree with my right hon. friend so far as expert technicians are leoncemed, but with regard to clerks and Stenographers I do not see why they should Ibe exempt from the provisions of the law. iMy right hon. friend has imitated the American law in all its bad features, but he has not imitated the provisions of that law which lare fair. Under the American law the experts are appointed in the manner suggested iby this bill, but all ordinary employees are appointed by the civil service commission.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Prime Minister has said that it is only fair that the board should have the chance to select its own employees. Subsection 6 provides only for employees of a technical character, and I do not think anyone can object, but subsection 5 is based upon an entirely different principle. The board has nothing to say as to the selection lof its own staff. I understand the minister has based this subsection upon section 7 of the bill of 1912, which section provided that the commission with the approval of the governor in council appointed its own staff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Apparently the right hon. gentleman in redrafting that section has deliberately changed the principle contained therein and has taken away from the board any voice in the selection of its own staff. In giving the reasons a few months ago for that subsection the right hon. gentleman told the committee that he thought the board rather than the Civil Service Commission should have a voice in the selection of its staff. But in this bill the board while having a voice in the selection of technical assistants under subsection 6 has no voice in the selection of clerks, stenographers, and other employees under section 5.
Tariff Board

; Mr. BENNETT: I am quite willing that
those words be added.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That the principle contained in the act of 1912 should be restored?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact, when this bill was drafted I did consider the two classes. The class in subsection 6 is differentiated from the class in subsection 5, but I see n,o reason why there should be this difference.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There might be added the words "on the recommendation of the board".


James Layton Ralston: That would not meet the suggestion which was made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course not.


James Layton Ralston: Has the Prime Minister any objection to having stenographers and clerks appointed in the usual way?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: There are what are known as stenographers' pools and long eligible lists from which suitable employees can be taken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I made inquiry and that is why the section is in the form in which it. is, although it is an oversight that it is drafted differently from subsection 6. I made inquiry of those who have to do with tariff matters and I was informed by a gentleman who has had much experience that it is not easy to get any stenographer familiar with tariff matters. This gentleman was good enough to mention to me a certain person who had by long experience qualified himself to deal with matters of this kind. I have had a particular person in my service continuously for seventeen years and I must say that I would find it extremely difficult to take someone assigned to me and hope to have the work turned out in the manner in which I would want it turned out. In connection with stenographers and clerks the board may have in mind particular individuals who are better qualified than anyone else to deal with matters of this kind. It may develop later that these employees could be put into the civil service. I think hon. members who have had any experience, professional and otherwise, will see the force of my argument.


James Layton Ralston: Except that it was all
done away with when the Civil Service Com; mission was appointed. I have tried to accept what vpy right hon. friend has said,

both from a professional standpoint and otherwise, but the Civil Service Commission has been adopted and properly qualified employees could be obtained by giving to the commission a requisition setting out the qualifications desired. The procedure followed is for the department to send an examiner to determine whether or not a candidate is suitably qualified. I think that principle could be followed and it is a pity that my right hon. friend should violate it as far as, shall I say the ordinary members of the staff are concerned.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, all that is necessary in order to obtain the properly qualified employees is to see that the examination provided by the Civil Service Commission is agreed to by the board so that all the considerations necessary to the obtaining of qualified candidates shall be met. There should be no difficulty in reconciling the views of the right hon. gentleman with the views of those who wish to preserve an anti-patronage system.
Amendment (Mr. Brown) negatived on division.


Peter Heenan: I understand the Prime
Minister made a suggestion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member is
preparing his amendment. We have just done with one amendment but there is still another one in connection with the subsection.


Olof Hanson: Shall subsection 5 carry?


James Lorimer Ilsley: In view of the defeat of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Ljisgar, which amendment I think should have passed, I move:
That section 7 be amended by striking out subsection 5 thereof and substituting the following therefor:
"(5) There shall be employed in the service of the board such officers, clerks and other employees as the board with the approval of the governor in council may see fit to appoint and they shall respectively receive such salaries and remuneration as may be approved by the governor in council upon the recommendation of the board."
That is the language of the 1912 act, with the word "board"' substituted for the word "commission."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is agreed to.
Amendment (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Subsections 6 and 7 agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.

Tariff Board
On section 5, subsection 12-Sessions and conduct of proceedings.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I move:
That subsection 12 of section 5 be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"and may make such rules and regulations as it may deem expedient for the conduct of its proceedings, not inconsistent with the provisions of this act. Such rules and regulations shall be published in the Canada Gazette immediately upon the promulgation thereof."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as 'amended agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Regulations.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: After the amendment
that has been moved by the Secretary of State to Subsection 12 of section 5, is there any necessity for section 10?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not quite the same thing. One deals with the conduct of the proceedings of the board, and the other with the provisions of the act as a whole. In one instance the board makes the regulations and they are approved by the governor in council. In the other the governor in council makes them because it is an administrative act on the part of the executive.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Should these regulations not foe published like the others?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggested last year-and I suppose I am to blame-that all these should be published. But this is not one of the matters that affect the public. This is purely the administrative side. It is the governor in council as distinguished from the proceedings in the court itself. That is why the amendment moved by the Secretary of State has just been adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7, subsection 5-Officers, clerks and employees.
Olof Hanson: Mr. Ilsley moves:
That section 7 be amended by striking out subsection 5 thereof and substituting the following therefor:
"(5) There shall be employed in the service of the board such officers, clei'lcs and other employees as the board with the approval of the governor in council may see fit to appoint, and they shall respectively receive such salaries and remuneration as may be approved by the governor in council upon the recommendation of the board."


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: So far as we can understand the amendment at this end of the chamber, the recommendation of the board would apply not to appointments, but only to salaries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Both,


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Part II-Tariff board substituted for board of customs.
Section 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Publication of decisions.
James Layton Ralston: This deals with the decision of the tariff board as substituted for the board of customs. Is it initended that the decision of the tariff board shall be reviewable by the minister as was the decision of the board of customs?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My bon. friend has not used quite the exact term.


James Layton Ralston: Approved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Must be approved by the minister. So far as the tariff board is concerned, the report has neither to be approved nor disapproved. Action may or may not be taken.


James Layton Ralston: I am talking now about
the decision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change from the law as it stands in that regard.


James Layton Ralston: The answer is that the
decision of the tariff board must be approved by the minister, as was the decision of the Board of Customs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change in
that regard.	,


James Layton Ralston: As I understand the
matter, one of the indices of a court of record is that the record of its proceedings is conclusive. Before, we were talking about a board of customs. Now we have a decision of a court of record. I want to be sure that the decision of that court of record is not supplanted in requiring the approval of the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is hardly necessary to take up the time of the committee to point out that this is the conferring of an additional power to that for which it was created, in order to expedite the conduct of public business, the tariff board being an alternative board to deal with this matter.


James Layton Ralston: A substitute.
Tariff Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: A substitute board to
deal with the matter. In that instance it is a designated body rather than a court dealing with it. It deals with it as a designated body rather than as a court.


James Layton Ralston: It is still a court of record.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not in dealing with this. It is as the persona designata it deals with this matter.


James Layton Ralston: It is still a court of record.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But not qua this matter.


Ernest Lapointe: It is subject to the
revision of the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a queer court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not sit as a
court in this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the bill was introduced, the hon. member for North Waterloo asked this question as reported in Hansard of May 15, at page 1640:
Mr. Euler: Perhaps this question may have already been asked and answered. Under the old customs board there was an appeal to the governor in council. Will that be possible under the new legislation?
Mr. Bennett: Not as it reads at the moment.
Mr. Euler:	But there is an appeal?
Mr. Bennett:	Not at the moment in
the bill as prepared. The provision is that it shall not come into force until an order in council is passed. The bill provides that the board shall cause its decisions to be published in the Canada Gazette, and part two provides that it shall not come into force until an order in council has been passed by the governor in council. It is left that way in order that the house may discuss the matter freely and fully and conclude what action should be taken in that regard.
Under the law as it is to-day there is an appeal from the board of customs to the governor in council. The Secretary of State the other evening rather took issue with me on that score and said that the appeal was to the minister. May I read to him the section of the Customs Act that I had in mind?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was speaking from
memory at the time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but my
hon. friend spoke with the same positiveness as he usually does, and I felt a little chastised when he directed his remark to me. I want to read to him section 54 of chapter 42 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, as follows:
Whenever any difference arises or whenever any doubt exists as to whether any or what rate of duty is payable on any class of goods,
IMr. Ralston.]
and there is no previous decision upon the question by any competent tribunal binding throughout Canada, the Board of Customs may declare the rate of duty payable on the class of goods in question, or that such goods are exempt from duty, subject in each case to an appeal within sixty days from date of such declaration, by any person interested, to the governor in council, and any such declaration of the board of customs when approved by the minister after the expiration of sixty days from the date thereof, or any such declaration when made by any order in council upon appeal, shall have force and effect as if the same had been sanctioned by statute.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is exactly what I had in mind at first, that it must be subject to the approval of the minister, and there was an appeal to the governor in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understood my hon. friend to be emphasizing the appeal to the minister but denying the appeal to the governor in council.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minister must approve, then the appeal is to the governor in council. That is what I had in mind. I will withdraw it if I am wrong.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend would not intentionally say anything that was wrong, and I do not think for one minute that he did so in this instance. It is section 54 of the Customs Act that I was quoting. To-day, when there has been an appeal, the board of customs decides, and within sixty days the minister may approve its decision. If the minister approves, the whole matter is published in the Canada Gazette, and becomes practically the law. On the other hand, if parties wish to appeal to the governor in council they may do so, and the decision of the governor in council is final and becomes the law.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understood that to be the case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister stated, I think it was on the second reading of the bill, that there was no provision for appeal to the governor in council. I want to make quite sure that the appeal does remain to the governor in council as is provided in section 54 of the Customs Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: First of all, section 3 of the Customs Act provides:
There shall be a board of customs, which shall consist of the commissioner of customs or any officer for the time being acting as such, who shall be the chairman of the board,
And so forth. Then subsection 2 says:
2. The board of customs shall have such powers and perform such duties as are assigned to it by any act of the parliament of Canada or by the governor in council.

Tariff Board
3. Three members of the board, of which one member shall be either the commissioner of customs, or the officer for the time being acting as commissioner of customs, shall form a quorum and be competent to transact the business of the board at any meeting thereof.
Section 54 of the Customs Act provides:
Whenever any difference arises or whenever any doubt exists as to whether any or what rate of duty is payable on any class of goods, and there is no previous decision upon the question by any competent tribunal, binding throughout Canada, the board of customs may declare the rate of duty payable on the class of goods in question .... subject in each case to an appeal within sixty days from date of such declaration, by any person interested, to the governor in council.
If no appeal is taken within the sixty days, the minister approves the decision of the board, and that becomes binding on all parties. If appeal is taken and there is a reversal of the view of the board of customs, that reversal is published in the Canada Gazette, and that is the end of it.
Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of this bill provide that on proclamation the powers and functions and duties of the customs board shall be assigned to and be transacted by the tariff board constituted by this act, and the board shall cause its decision in any case brought before it to be published in the Canada Gazette. The governor in council may make regulations as may be deemed necessary for carrying out the .provisions of part II of the bill. Under these provisions section 3 of the Customs Act would be repealed from and after the date of the proclamation. There would then be under the Customs Act no such thing as a board of customs; section 54 would also go along with it, and there would be no appeal to the governor in council. I promised the h'on. member for North Waterloo the other evening that I would look into that question. My view now is at variance with the view I first held, because the effect of these provisions is that when the proclamation is made section 3 of the Customs Act is repealed, and there is no such thing as the board of customs under the Customs Act, the tariff board taking its place.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is most unfortunate. That is the whole point. My right hon. friend now say3 that whereas heretofore the right of appeal to the governor in council has been reserved to anyone who felt that with respect to rates of duty the board of customs had given a decision not in the interests of those he represented, under this bill that right is done away with. I think that is quite wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will explain that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Probably my right hon. friend will say as the Minister of National Revenue said the other day, that the minister has to approve. I think I can speak for all governments when I say that the Minister of National Revenue is very likely to take the same view as the customs board or any body substituted for it, whereas the cabinet, representative of all classes in the country of agriculture and every branch of trade and commerce, may take a very different view when a matter is under review before it. As my friend the ex-Minister of Justice reminds me, that has happened before. We can speak rather feelingly upon that point. The governor in council, having a wider interest to consider and a larger view to take, is more likely to take a different view from the Minister of National Revenue, who is so closely associated with his board of customs. If there is any doubt about that appeal to the governor in council remaining, I think the Prime Minister ought to hold this section and see to it that when this court passes on any matter that affects a rate of duty there shall remain for a period of sixty days the right of appeal to the cabinet as a whole before that decision has the effect of law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I said the other evening, this is an endeavour to substitute an independent tribunal for a political tribunal -that is, the governor in council being always a political tribunal and the tariff board not being a political body. I said the other evening, and I say still, that if it is the view of the committee that we should provide for an appeal to the governor in council, as has been the case under former acts, I am perfectly willing that that should be inserted. But I did think, and I am still strongly of the opinion, that the statute would be better for not making that provision. You have in the one instance a political body, governed by all the considerations that influence political bodies; and we all know just what the pressure of contending interests may be to get a minister to make a recommendation to council. As against that, we have this body which is not interested in political matters, and makes its decisions free from political influence.


Ernest Lapointe: The same thing happens in appeals from the railway board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, and that is
why one of the hon. gentleman's colleagues said that there should be a limitation.
sm
Tariff Board


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank the
Prime Minister for undertaking to reconsider the matter with a view to preserving the right of appeal. :


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say, if the committee
so desires. It is an open-minded committee.
Mr. Mackenzie king: Quite so. i do
not know that one needs to attach to the word "political" the sinister meaning-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not sinister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -which my
right hon. friend is rather placing upon it. In many of these matters that affect different parts of the country in different ways, and affect different classes in different ways, there is need to reconcile opposing views, and a strictly legal body, by giving just a legal interpretation, may make a terrible mess of the whole situation so far as the broad effect upon the country as a whole is concerned. I believe the 1 Secretary of State spoke the other evening of the governor in council as a non-partisan body, and I thought he was Stretching the point rather far with regard to his own administration; but still it is a final court of appeal. It represents all parts of the Country and all classes, and I do think that in these matters affecting taxation, as tariffs do, it is wise to preserve that right of appeal.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What I meant to say was
that I had occasion not long ago to look at all appeals from the Board of Railway Commissioners to the governor in council. I went through every one, and certainly the rules governing those appeals, and the manner in which the appeals were decided, do not bear the character or quality of decisions emanating from a partisan body.


Ernest Lapointe: That is quite right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend the Secretary of State is now joining with me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One thing has been overlooked, and that is that there still remains on the part of any person aggrieved with respect to a decision as to rates of duty the right of action to recover the duty. One of the most important actions was one brought many years ago to recover moneys paid under protest with respect to a certain classification. This bill does not purport in any sense to confer greater powers of taxation than exist under the statute itself. As it now stands a body of civil servants make the decision with respect to interpretation of tariff items; and if the minister approves, after sixty days the decision becomes law. If on the other hand a person who does not agree with the finding of the commissioners sees fit to appeal to the gover-
nor in council, the governor in council may allow or disallow the appeal, as the case may be. Part II of this bill, as I said the other day, substitutes for the civil servants comprising the customs board, who are permanent officials of the department and necessarily have an interest in its administration, this tariff board, which is-I hope I am not offensive in saying this-a non-political body. If desired, from that body an appeal could be taken to the governor in council; or it might be said that the decision of that body was subject to the approval of the governor in council. If approval is not given, then the findings fail to take effect. If approval is given, that is the end of it. As the section reads, however, I think it is extremely doubtful whether there is any right of appeal to the governor in council. I say to my right hon. friend that if the committee is of the opinion that an appeal should be provided, I am content that it should be so. If my right hon. friend wishes to test the feeling of the committee, apart altogether from any party views, I have an open mind in the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I appeal to the committee regardless altogether of party consideration, because this final decision or appeal for some little time at least will be left entirely to my hon. friends. As the bill now stands any decision will be subject only to the approval of the minister, but a case may arise in which the court has given a decision with respect to its interpretation of the application of a certain rate of duty. Hon. gentlemen opposite, or some whom they may represent, may feel that that decision, while no doubt made with the best of intent, is unfair. In the interests of primary or manufacturing industries they may feel it desirable to have the cabinet as a whole review the situation, the cabinet including a minister of agriculture, a minister of trade and commerce-ministers from all parts of Canada who may take a broader view of the matter. Not in a partisan sense, but from the point of view of the country as a whole, those ministers may take a broad view of what should govern in a situation of that kind. I believe that right of appeal should be retained, because without revealing any cabinet secrets I can say from experience that time and again the cabinet as a whole has taken a view different from that of the minister of customs when he has sided with the board of customs. In taking that view they felt they were acting in the interests of the public as a whole.
Mr. RYCIvMAN:	We have not yet had
the whole story. Section 11, subsection 1, has the effect of merely transferring to the

Tariff Board
tariff board all the powers, responsibilities and duties of the board of customs. My right hon. friend referred to section 54 of the Customs Act which covers a small ambit of customs transactions and law. When does it allow an appeal to the governor in council? Section 54 provides that if any difference arises as to the rate of duty there may be after sixty days an appeal to the governor in council. The other- section which I have no doubt was in the mind of the Secretary of State when he made his statement is subsection 4 of section 38, and in my opinion this subsection is of more importance than is section 54. It is as follows:
The board of customs may review the decision of any appraiser or collector as to the principal markets of the country, or as to the fair market value of goods for duty purposes,-
That is, I submit, the main ground of difference, the fair market value of goods for duty purposes.
-and the decision of the board of customs in regard to such principal markets, and the value of goods for duty purposes in any case or class of cases shall, when approved by the minister, be final and conclusive, except as otherwise provided in this act.


James Layton Ralston: What section is that?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is section 38.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
one my hon. friend had in mind the other night?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: As I understand it, this bill proposes to transfer to the tariff board all the powers and functions at present enjoyed by the board of customs. If there was an appeal from the minister I submit there would be an appeal if this proposed legislation becomes law. I can quite understand the anomaly suggested by the right hon. leader of the opposition that the decision of the tariff board acting as a customs board would have to receive the sanction of the minister. I submit no appeal which exists now and will exist when this bill becomes law, if it does become law, is lost by the mere substitution of the tariff board for the board of customs.


James Layton Ralston: What is section 3 of the act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 3 of the act
constitutes the board of customs.


James Layton Ralston: Section 3 is repealed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the section creating the board. Obviously the board would disappear with the proclamation that this statute had come into force.


James Layton Ralston: That does not confer any powers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Section 3 says there
shall be a board of customs and states of what it shall consist. That board shall have power to perform such duties as are assigned to it by any act of the parliament of Canada or by the governor in council. The section provides also that:
Three members of the board, of which one member shall be either the commissioner of customs, or the officer for the time being acting as commissioner of customs, shall form a quorum, and be competent to transact the business of the board at any meeting thereof, whether regular or special, called by the chairman.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I move, seconded by Mr. Ryekman;
That subsection 2 of section 11 be amended by adding thereto the following words:
Any right of appeal from decisions of the board of customs shall continue as provided by the Customs Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that makes it
clear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is notwithstanding that this statute will repeal that part of the act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It only repeals section 3.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That covers it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend is such an eminent lawyer that I accept his opinion without question.
Amendment (Mr. Cahan) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 12 and 14 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.



WAYS AND MEANS


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move that
you do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means. My hon. friend from Southeast Grey


BEYISKD EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Disarmament Conference
[Stage Direction]
(Miss Macphail) had advised me that on such a motion she proposed to make some observations, and I arranged with her accordingly. So I assume before you leave the chair she will make those observations.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very
briefly about the approaching world disarmament conference to be held in Geneva in February 1932. It is a conference long anticipated and hoped for, and I felt while the house was in session we should have some discussion upon it.
I think the importance of this disarmament conference can scarcely be exaggerated. Lord Robert Cecil, who has given such wonderful devotion to. the cause of disarmament, and is probably the greatest authority in the world on it, spoke of the conference as follows:
It is one of those crucial events in the history of the world that must either succeed or fail.
I feel that it is the most important thing that we have faced in a long time. If it fails, the faith of people in the sanctity of international agreements will be blasted; and I think it is not too much to say that the future of the League of Nations hangs upon the success of this conference.
At the close of the world war, the allies, as they were then called-our group of nations -disarmed Germany and her associates, and it was distinctly understood that having done that the allies would proceed to disarm themselves. There is no doubt about it that in the covenant of the league and in the peace treaty this was distinctly stated, and though now we have gone a long time past the signing of the treaty of Versailles and the setting up of the League of Nations, we have not moved on to do what we then said we would do. I will put on Hansard the preamble of the covenant of the league, because in it is pointed out clearly our international obligation in regard to disarmament, and if we have respect for treaty obligations we can do nothing but carry out the solemn promises we then made. This is the preamble:
The high contracting parties in order to promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war, by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between nations, by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among governments, and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another, agree to this covenant of the League of Nations.

Article 8 of the covenant lays down very clearly that the members of the league shall formulate disarmament plans. I will read the first paragraph:
The members of the league recognize that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations.
While I am not going to deal with the particular subject of increased armament; armaments to-day are greater than they were when this clause was written. It is also true that in part V of the peace treaty we sacredly promise, if we regard our promise as sacred, to disarm ourselves when we had disarmed our enemies. The opening clause of part V of the treaty of Versailles reads:
In order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval and air clauses. . . .
And those clauses follow. In June of 1919 Mr. Clemenceau gave the following assurance
to Germany:
The allied and associated powers wish to make clear that their requirements in regard to German armaments were not made solely with the object of rendering it impossible to resume her policy of military aggression. They are also the first step towards the reduction and limitation of armaments, which they seek to bring about as one of the most fruitful preventatives of war, and which it will be one of the first duties of the League of Nations to promote.
Then there is the Kellogg pact as well. I need not give the exact wording, but in that pact we say we will never again use war as an instrument of national policy, and surely that means we are going to disarm. By all those promises we have made by international agreement we solemnly promise again and again to disarm. Not only that, but the council, the assemblies and the different committees of the League of Nations have, from year to year since 1919, dealt with disarmament, but still we are more heavily armed throughout the world than we were at that time.
I am not going to take time to go into the rather long drawn out and discouraging work of the preparatory disarmament commission which was set up by the League of Nations in 1925, and on which were representatives of the United States, Turkey and Russia. That commission finally made its report last winter -December, 1930-and they are ready now to submit a draft convention to the world disarmament conference which, as I have said, will meet in Geneva in February of 1932.

Disarmament Conference
While we may not be as happy as we should like to be over the draft convention I think we may take the word of those who know most about it that the draft convention is such that any degree of disarmament can be written into it. Lord Robert Cecil, in commenting upon it, just at the conclusion of the deliberations of the commission, said:
The conclusion to be derived from these weeks of strenuous work is that disarmament is a perfectly practicable policy. The issue now passes from the hands of the commission to those of the public. Do they or do they not desire that this policy shall be adopted? It only remains for an enlightened public opinion to insist that this greatest of all reforms shall be carried out.
Right Hon. Arthur Henderson, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Great Britain, speaking of disarmament in Queen's Hall on February 9 of this year, said almost the same thing:
The figures will depend upon the public opinion of the world. At the disarmament conference the governments will do what the peoples want. If the peoples want disarmament, they can have it. If they will exert their will they can compel results.
It is certain that the public opinion of the world is ahead of the action that has been taken in regard to disarmament, and I think it is also ahead of the opinion of the governments of the world in that regard. Right Hon. Arthur Henderson expressed that thought, when he gave what is called the Burge lecture, printed by the Oxford Press, in these words:
I do not fear what the peoples will say and think about us if we can but reach a disarmament agreement. . . . My doubts, my fears, are these: That the peoples will not understand the chance that lies before them; that they will not grasp the opportunity they have been given to fulfil the purpose which they all desire; that they will not make the governments understand that their delegations to the conference cannot be too bold, that they cannot go too far to suit their nations.
There is no doubt at all that Great Britain is most anxious, as I think every other thinking nation is anxious, that there may be real results from * the conference to be held next February. Lord Robert Cecil says he would like to see a great many nations take a stand for a twenty-five per cent cut all round. I do not know enough about it to know whether that is enough to start, but I do feel that Lord Robert Cecil knows a great deal about it. However, we do know that if we can reduce by a substantial amount the expenditures of the world in armaments it will be a gain for everyone and we will have relatively as much security as we have now, even for those who depend upon armaments for security.
22110-226J
There are very many ways in which one could show how earnest the people of Great Britain are in connection with this subject. Next Saturday a great mass meeting on disarmament is being held in one of the great London halls, and that meeting is to be addressed by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, by Mr. Stanley Baldwin and by Mr. Lloyd George. So you see they are not making it a party question there, and they are not leaving it just to the rank and file of the people. The first meeting they had in connection with disarmament was addressed by Right Hon. Arthur Henderson, from whose words I quoted a moment ago. This is the second large London meeting, and it is to be addressed by the three great leaders in the British House of Commons. I feel they are doing more than we have done here, but surely we can do no less than to say clearly and publicly-and I think our leading men should be careful to say it publicly-that we want to do our share in bringing about disarmament. These speeches to be made next Saturday will be recorded on sound films, and we will see and hear these three gentlemen in our own theatres very shortly.
I shall take only a very short time, because I hope some other hon. member will want to say something in connection with this matter. Lord Robert Cecil has written a most timely article in Time and Tide of April 25, 1931. He goes on to outline the possibilities'of what might happen, and says that it will be a catastrophe if success does not come out of it. He says the conference might break up without reaching any agreement, which seems unlikely, but he goes on to say that when we think of 1914 we must remember that anything may happen. So he does not want to take any chances. In the second place, he says, the conference may result in a mere codification of armaments at their present level, and that means failure. He goes on to say that because of our treaty obligations-if we have respect for those obligations-there is absolutely no way out; we must disarm. We hear a great deal of talk about scraps of paper in this country, and many references to the fact that Germany did not respect her treaties. Up to the present we 'have not respected our treaties with her, and it is time we began doing in relation to disarmament. I do not want to quote a great deal from this article, because it would take too long, but supposing the conference does fail; only one thing can happen, and that is a race in armaments^
Disarmament Conference
[Stage Direction]
In commenting upon this possibility Lord Cecil says:
It is, then, no exaggeration to say that the most probable political consequences of an unsuccessful disarmament conference next year are that Europe will fall into two armed forces, and that the competition in armaments will revive; competition not merely between individual states, but, what is far worse, between two powerful groups of states manoeuvring for superiority.
Then may I give just one last quotation from Lord Cecil, because I do feel that possibly no one has done as much as he. He said:
Succeed we must. The alternative is too sinister for any man or woman of good sense and good will to contemplate. And there is a way to- succeed. Let those who share the convictions which I have expressed refuse to be sidetrioked by expert objections about the technical ", alue of this particular form of armament or that, and concentrate upon the one form of reduction of armaments which the ordinary citizen can understand and which comes within the scope of every parliament. Let them demand a definite cut in the total military expenditure of the powers represented at the conference. I believe that it is perfectly reasonable and possible-with dogged perseverance-to achieve at the 1932 conference an allround reduction of 25 per cent in the military budgets of those countries which did not have reductions imposed upon them by the treaties. This would be a first step

but a considerable step-towards that international equality which all serious students of European affairs foresee and accept.
Should this conference not succeed it would not be possible to go on increasing armaments over the world and still! keep Germany and her allies disarmed to the degree imposed by the treaty. That would be neither possible nor right. If we are not going to keep our word then we should not bind- Germany to an agreement which she made on the understanding that we would .
I believe much is being done in Canada and throughout the [DOT]world at the present moment to arouse public opinion upon this question and focus that opinion upon the governments of the different countries. But all the good1 work of the people will come to naught if a delegation is sent to this conference which is not of the very highest calibre obtainable, not equipped to take part in a very difficult task. I think the Prime Minister and the government are serious on this subject and I feed sure they will want to send a delegation which will prove to be of real assistance an this work. In my opinion that delegation need not foe made up of members of the government, nor even of members of this House of Commons. The Prime Minister and the government may not agree with me, but that is my opinion. The Calibre of (Miss Maophsil.]
these delegates is very important. They need to be not only well equipped mentally but they should believe in disarmament iby international agreement and1 be able to see the necessity of immediate action. If this matter goes another ten years, it will be ten years too late. A delegation could be sent from Canada composed of people who have made a detailed study of this subject. I have in mind four eminent gentlemen,, whom I would like to name as the Canadian delegation. As this matter is not in any sense a party matter it would be much better if our delegation were not made up of members of one political party. I repeat, that would not matter so much, but the delegates should believe in disarmament by international agreement. They Aould not be military experts, because to send military experts would be the most futile thing to do.
I hope some other hon. member of the house will feel inclined to discuss this matter. We have talked a great deal about matters not so important, and I feel that as private individuals and as members of the house we should do everything we can to make this conference a success. On the power of the individual, I would like to quote some wise words of Sir Robert Borden, recently written:
Who are responsible for the world's future peace? Wh°.- if not you and I and every individual unit in each nation? The sum of individual influences constitutes the public opinion of the nation: the public opinion of each nation enters into that of the world which determines war or peace.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I desire to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), and to support the request she has made on behalf of this great cause of disarmament. It is indeed a happy coincidence that she has started this discussion during the very week when a meeting is being held in Albert Hall in London at which the three leaders of the great political parties in England are to speak. Speaking in this house on the resolution to approve the general act for the pacific settlement of international disputes, I called attention to that coming conference on disarmament, and tried to impress the house with the necessity of Canada's being prepared to do her share at that conference. I called attention to the fact that in Great Britain the various parties in the British House of Commons were represented on an imperial defence committee, to arrange the representation to the coming conference and prepare the case for Great Britain.
We are facing many important problems. Unemployment has been referred to in this

Disarmament Conference
house from the national viewpoint, but it is an international problem. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was kind enough to let me have the report of the International Labour Conference, and I find that the whole time of that conference was occupied in the discussion of international unemployment and the making of an effort not only to find the causes but to apply the remedies. The problems which will be discussed at the international disarmament conference are of the utmost importance. I believe that the attention of this house and of the people of Canada generally has been drawn to the importance of the convention, and if it is not successful I am afraid that the edifice of international peace erected during the past ten years will be shaken to its very foundation.
The great work of preparation has been commenced. The hon. member for Southeast Grey referred to the draft convention which has been accepted and which is to be submitted by the preparatory conference to the various countries concerned. Reaiding the draft convention I notice that the personnel suggested, and as to which limitations will be made, is to be military in character, including customs officials, police of all kinds, forest guards and so forth. The same applies in connection with the air forces. An attempt will be made to limit the number and the horse-power of aeroplanes to be used in times of war even though machines not complying with these limitations are being used for civil purposes. But perhaps the most important feature is the creation of a permanent disarmament body or commission which will see to it that, the various peoples live up to the agreement that will be reached and will submit to the League of Nations instances of any infractions that may take place. Viscount Robert Cecil was a member of that conference, is was Hugh Gibson, United States ambassador to Belgium, who generally represents the United States in international conferences, and Count Bemstorff, the German representative. Each one of them emphasized the necessity of arousing public opinion in the various countries to the importance of the conference. The representatives of the various countries, including the men and women who will represent Canada at the conference, will be in some way the custodians of peace for the Canadian people. They will work for the lives and happiness not only of the present generation, but of generations that are yet unborn. But Mr. Speaker, experts and delegates at conferences cannot save us in spite of ourselves. Public opinion must be behind the movement, the scheme and the conference. Peace after
all is to a large extent a process of education. There was a time when kings could make wars with mercenary soldiers, hired troops, but those times are now past. In this democratic world, war cannot be successfully waged without the support of an overwhelming public opinion in the countries engaged therein. A policy of peace is not only an expression of views; it is a state of mind. It is a condition which is created amongst the various masses and classes in a country. Words of peace are needed, but they must be backed by deeds of peace.
I was pleased the other day to read that Ihe American Legion had adopted a resolution in support of this disarmament conference and asked the United States representative to work for its success. They know what war means. I think Canadians generally should not and must not forget the pledges that were given to those who fought during the great war. "Never again" was the rallying cry. The soldiers who fought the war were told that they were fighting to end all wars and that their sacrifices would be made for peace. They fought on account of those pledges, and those pledges must be redeemed even more than those concerning pensions or material indemnities or other things of that kind.
May I add that Canada is perhaps more interested than any other country in the world in the cause of universal peace. We are a new country; we have a great future; there is nothing to block our progress except wars, and we all know that wars in which we would be engaged cannot come on account of anything for which we would be responsible. We would not be the cause of any war, but we are interested in the maintenance of peace by other countries, because we know we would probably have to take part in war if it came. Canada has taken the leadership in the British Empire in accepting arbitration, which has now been accepted by all the members of the British commonwealth of nations. I believe Canada should also take the leadership in this question of general disarmament, and we ought to do our best in order that the men who represent us at the conference shall speak the mind of all Canadians and endeavour to establishd universal peace.
May I in conclusion read the words of a great soldier who is also a great statesman? I refer to General Smuts, who said last year:
Mankind has, as it were, at one bound and in the short space of ten years, jumped from the old order to the new, across a gulf which may yet prove to be the greatest divide in human history. . . . What has been done can never be undone. One epoch closes in the history of the world and another opens.
Disarmament Conference

I join with the hon. member for Southeast Grey in asking the government to see to it that Canada does her share at that conference so that as a result of its labours this great divide spoken of by General Smuts may be crossed. Let the government appoint suitable representatives, men who believe in peace-because if they think wars are necessary they cannot work for the great cause of peace. Let the government appoint representatives who have the backing of Canada, and we shall all try to support them, to give them a mandate which will be concurred in by the people in the various sections of the country, so that they may go to that conference and speak there the united mind of the Canadian people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The development of democracy depends upon the maintenance of peace. War is destructive of all democratic forms of government. The declaration that this country desires to maintain peace is not sufficient. It is idle to think that permanent and lasting peace can come in our time merely by our making declarations and speeches. We have passed in the house and elsewhere resolutions in favour of peace; we have become parties to treaties of arbitration, and we have joined with other nations in declaring that so far as we are concerned war is renounced as an instrument of national policy. But all these renunciations, all these declarations, all these resolutions in favour of arbitration and peaceful settlement of dispute, either by recourse to law in world courts or other peaceful means, are useless except to the extent that they influence people's minds to think in terms of peace. If we are to have peace we must have it by cultivating and maintaining the spirit of peace, not the spirit of war. The warlike spirit is not consistent with the maintenance of peace, and the spirit of peace is an attitude of mind that comes from continuous education. It is therefore useful that we should from time to time make declarations so that the youth of the country may see the glories of peace as distinguished from the heroic achievements of war.
No man who reads history, no one who is familiar with the growth of civilization and with the heroic achievements of men who have given their lives on battlefields in every part of the world for high principles and great causes, can fail to realize that their example has inspired generations in days gone by and will continue to inspire noble achievements that are consistent with the courage and enterprise of our races. But in this age we realize

that war on any scale is destructive not only of the nations that engage in it but of the world at large. There can be no war of any importance now that doe3 not become general in its effects and influences. There can be no war in these days of scientific achievement in the use of poisonous gases, artillery, tanks and aerial warfare that is not fatal to the very development of civilization itself. We now realize that far from being a virtue war is the negation of all virtues and is destructive of the world's civilization. But in the face of all that has been said, as illustrating the point I desire to make, it will be found that to-day amongst the European nations there are many men under arms; equipment is being provided for war; men are talking in terms of the next great conflict, as though we had not been at the world's Gethsemane.
How are we to bring about the end we have in mind? We must do it, as I have said, by creating the will to peace, which comes from continuous educational effort. I said on one occasion in this city that we were paying a tribute to a great man for what he had done for the cause of peace. It is idle to think that we can ever achieve our end unless we destroy the means by which these wrongs are wrought, and that means disarmament, but disarmament, as was pointed out the other day by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, cannot be a one-sided thing. Hence it is that the conference to which the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) has referred becomes a matter of transcendent importance to the world at large. It is no longer a question of this nation or that. It is a question of the world itself. It is a question of the maintenance of our institutions, the maintenance of the life of our civilization. If this committee believes, and the public believe, as I am inclined to think they do, that peace can be brought about only by disarmament, it follows that disarmament must be achieved as soon as possible. But a one-sided disarmament is not possible. How is it possible to think in terms of disarmament if one nation has a million soldiers under aims and another has none? How is it possible to have disarmament when one country is in a position to ignite in a second a great conflagration, while another country will be destroyed by that very conflagration? No prairie fire of which we have ever heard could spread like the conflagration of military operations in communities divided only by imaginary lines. That being so, disarmament must be a worldwide state of mind.

New Westminster Penitentiary
This country in the northern half of this continent, this young democracy with its ten millions of people, freed from the horrors of all probability of war within its borders, its shores protected by the application of doctrines of an international character, has very little to disarm. I doubt if a disarmament conference could indicate any point at which we could disarm; for a police force is essential if peace is to be maintained and law and order preserved. The police force must be adequate to the task that is thrust upon it, namely, the preservation of law and order and the security of life and property. These things can be achieved only by an adequate and a disciplined and controlled police force. I do not think it can be said that either now or at any other time since the war we have had in this country more than an adequate police force for the maintenance of law and order and the security of life and property.
If all this be true, the extent to which Canadians can make a real contribution to the cause of disarmament is of course measured by the influence which they may exercise at any international gathering. The extent to which that influence becomes potent is not wholly measured by the number of muskets that it is possible for a country to create and maintain.


Miss MACPHAIL:: You would not call
that disarmament, would you?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that unfortunately
the influence of countries has frequently been measured in that way. I am satisfied that this country, this new democracy, may exercise a real and a potent influence in international councils for the cause of peace. I pointed out this afternoon, as I frequently have in the past, and as I have heard my right hon. friend opposite and the hon. member who has just spoken frequently point out, that this country in international councils exercises an influence and an authority far beyond the extent of its population, its area or its material resources. It does that because it is itself a striking example of how peace may be maintained within one's own borders amongst people having their origins in different races, the one settled originally on the banks of the St. Lawrence, and the other on the shores of Massachusetts; and yet they have been able to fuse into one common sentiment their love of peace and their desire for the growth of democratic institutions. To the extent that our influence has brought peace and prosperity at home among men and women of divers races and creeds and of divers orders in life, to that extent it has increased from day to
day amongst the peoples of the world in international councils. The gentleman whom we honoured to-day as president of the League of Nations, coming from Canada in the early history of that organization, has been a potent factor in stimulating public interest in the movement for world peace and in bringing the name of Canada to the forefront amongst those communities whose influence has always been on the side of organized peace. That I think is common ground with us all.
I can only say this to the hon. member for Southeast Grey: That in so far as it may be possible, having regard to the time of year at which this conference is held, this country will worthily discharge every obligation that rests upon it in that regard, and I trust that the representations we will offer will not be unworthy of the great traditions of Canada in her struggle to maintain peace, in her belief in peaceful methods for the settlement of disputes, in her conviction that by recourse to judicial and arbitral methods the differences of peoples having been settled, the differences of nations may also be concluded. With that hope and that inspiration and that conviction this government, when the conference is held, will do its duty by the Canadian people.


NEW WESTMINSTER PENITENTIARY
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the house for a few minutes while I bring to its attention a matter of great importance to the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
I have telegrams and different communications here from New Westminster to-day to the effect that an investigation is to be held into affairs in connection with the penitentiary at New Westminster, principally with respect to some dismissals that occurred in 1928, when Inspector Jackson, now in charge of Kingston penitentiary, was temporarily in charge of the penitentiary at New Westminster. I am informed that the dismissals of two men in particular form the basis of this investigation. 1 would like to point out that there have been other dismissals, seven I believe, and those seven dismissals took place during the temporary charge of Inspector Jackson. These men had I believe asked for an inquiry, which had not been granted. I had not the honour to represent the New Westminster constituency in this house at the time these dismissals took place, or I would have pressed for an inquiry at that time. These men had given valuable service ranging from ten to over seventeen yearn, and were dismissed because at the time

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the regulations governing the penitentiary were, to use that word, violated by those higher up. They were refused an inquiry at that time. I am going to ask the minister now if he will be kind enough to tell me whether an inquiry wild be held, and if so I should like such an inquiry to be of the fullest nature possible.
There is a further injustice concerning which many of the men are afraid to speak, namely that of long hours. Those men are working eleven hours at a stretch and are afraid to complain lest their complaints lead to dismissals. If an inquiry is to take place I should like an investigation to be conducted concerning the hours worked. I think however the injustice done to those men who have lost from $1,000 to $2,000 and were unjustly dismissed after serving from ten to twenty years should call for the fullest possible inquiry. I should like the government to be kind enough to make a statement regarding the matter.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: In reply to my hon. friend I shall make a brief statement. No inquiry has been instituted. My hon. friend is dealing with a newspaper rumour which was telegraphed to Ottawa yesterday or the day before.


Thomas Reid: I received the telegram to-day.


Hugh Guthrie: And the contradiction was published to-day. No commission has been appointed. I have heard of some of the complaints about which my hon. friend has just spoken, and would say that these matters are being considered by the department.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of ways and means, Mr. MacDonald (South Cape Breton) in the chair.


CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT
Richard Bedford Bennett: Customs tariff-we shall deal with the administrative sections.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it my right hon. friend's intention to move the resolutions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend will formally move the resolutions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I thought that tonight I would deal with the customs tariff resolutions, considering first the administrative sections.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it is my right hon. friend's intention to consider the cus-

toms tariff resolutions I should like to say a few words now; probably it will save some time later'. My remarks will be directed to the views entertained by hon. members on this side of the house in regard to the consideration at this time of the proposed extensive changes in the customs tariff. On behalf of the opposition I should like to protest most strenuously upon being asked at this stage of the session to consider the vast changes proposed by the budget in the customs tariff of Canada. I take no exception to the government bringing in any changes it wishes to make in the tariff but I do submit in the public interest, unless those changes be other than nominal, or very limited in character, they should not have been brought in at this session of parliament, which was so late in meeting, and where there was no possibility of adequate discussion taking place until midsummer.
My right hon. friend has frequently stated that this is his first year in office. From the point of view of the general public I believe he has made the very serious mistake of trying to do in one year more than other ministries have sought to do not only in the life-time of one parliament 'but in that of several parliaments. He has not been satisfied with making changes in the tariff in a manner which he could himself explain, but he has sought to alter the complete tariff schedules of the country in a way which absolutely defies comprehension. If hon. members wish to applaud that statement I wish they would do so; however, that is the fact. Regarding the special session as part of the present one, the Prime Minister has sought in his first year in office to alter at least two-thirds-I think I am right when I say two-thirds-of the total tariff items of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a slight exaggeration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would onehalf be any nearer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister states that a half would be within the mark.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nearer the mark.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He is seeking
to alter half the customs tariff items at a session of parliament which comes within his first year of office, and to make those extensive changes in a way which renders it wholly impossible for the House of Commons adequately to discuss them or for that matter, to

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
discuss them at all. That is the exception I take to the action of my right hon. friend at this session and at the special session.
Hon. members on this side of the house feel that at the special session he should not have introduced any tariff changes. At the special session he had no mandate to revise the tariff, but he 'took advantage of the fact that an Imperial conference was being held in London to end discussion in a manner which to all intents and purposes amounted to closure, and as a result the tariff changes then proposed were scarcely discussed at all. He promised at that time that we should have ample opportunity at this session to consider the effect of the changes then put into effect, but that opportunity has not yet come, although we have reached the 8th day of July. We have not yet had an opportunity to consider any of the changes involved in the resolutions which at the moment are before the committee. I have no doubt my right hon. friend will say that we have been discussing the tariff bill and one or two other measures, but such comment would be entirely beside the point. My right hon. friend has the direction of the business of government, and had he wished to be fair to the interests concerned and to the people of Canada at large he would have done one of two things: either brought down his budget early in the session and afforded ample opportunity for discussion throughout the early weeks of the session, or waited until next year. Had he taken the latter course he would have had plenty of time to prepare his tariff changes and submit them at the beginning of a new session. Obviously in mid-summer, having regard to conditions prevailing in the country and to the temperature of this chamber, it will not be possible for hon. members to devote any considerable length of time to an intelligent discussion of the proposed changes.
First of all, if my right hon. friend intended to make such extensive changes he should have called the session at an earlier day; secondly, he should 'have brought down his budget earlier in the session, and thirdly, he should have given us a chance to discuss these resolutions at a time much earlier than the present. That is the first protest which I wish to make most emphatically.
I desire next to protest with equal emphasis at my right hon. friend asking this parliament to make extensive tariff changes without any preliminary investigation whatever with respect to their significance. This action on his part constitutes a departure from the. practice in Canada for yeans past under either Liberal
or Conservative administrations. For many years where a government contemplated other than nominal changes the ministry of the day appointed a committee of the cabinet to go through the country and conduct what were known as tariff hearings. Interested parties were allowed to appear before the ministers and make their representations with respect to what were considered by them to be necessary changes, and those opposed to such changes were given an opportunity to present their side of the question. In other words before any important changes in tariff schedules were made all parties were heard by a committee of the cabinet of the day. It was found that to send a committee of cabinet ministers through the country was not the most satisfactory way of dealing with the situation, and in the day of Sir Robert Borden, the then Minister of Finance, Sir Thomas White, announced to the house that a tariff commission would be appointed for ithe purpose of hearing representations as to increases or decreases in tariff, to give all parties interested an opportunity of being heard before- not after-the changes were made. That board was not. created formally by Sir Thomas White, the then Minister of Finance, he giving as an excuse that matters were running along so satisfactorily at the time that there was no necessity for any tariff changes of a material character, and hence no need for haste in the appointment of the board. The war intervened, and of course that was another reason why the board then proposed was not appointed.
When the Liberal administration came into office in 1921 a few changes were made in the first few years. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice. (Mr. Lapointe) reminds me that after Sir Robert Borden had resigned and Mr. Meighen was at the head of affairs, Sir Henry Drayton, as Minister of Finance, went through the country holding tariff hearings, with a view to the revisions that the government proposed to make later on. Every person was entitled to appear before him, and those who had opposing views were invited to express them. Then Mr. Fielding became Minister of Finance. 1 need not remind hon. members of the wide experience that Mr. Fielding had as Minister of Finance, and what that experience was worth to Canada; nor need I remind my right hon. friend of the great care which Mr. Fielding exercised before he made a single tariff change to see to it that all the .parties who might be materially affected were given a hearing before himself personally or before officers of his department who were in immediate touch with him.
3556	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
When far-reaching changes were, proposed, such as the changes in the tariff on the [implements of production and later with respect to motor vehicles and the like, the government of the day gave, the fullest opportunity to the parties affected by those changes to be heard, and their views were fully known to the ministry as a whole and through the ministry expressed to parliament before those changes in the tariff actually were made.
Later the government appointed an advisory tariff board for the purpose of hearing the representations of those likely to be affected by the proposed tariff changes. It was the policy of the government that when an application was received with respect to an increase or decrease of the tariff, or when the ministry had in mind, for reasons of policy, making changes in the tariff, to refer the matter in the first instance to the tariff board. Then, the tariff board announced its hearings, which were held in public, and the parties in interest were allowed to appear and make their representations. Subsequently the board made its report to the minister, so that he had before him the point of view of all parties before he came into the house to present his proposed tariff changes.
The so-called Dunning budget, which went further in the matter of tariff changes than any other changes proposed by the late government, was not the result of a few hours or a few weeks study; it was the result of careful investigation that had gone on for.a period of two or three years.
Mr. R\ ERSON: An election budget.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was not an election budget at all. At the time the Dunning budget was being prepared the intention was that the government of the day would be represented at the Imperial conference and that the election would not take place until a year after that time. But circumstances alter cases, and it so happened that the election came, as hon. gentlemen know, somewhat sooner than otherwise would have been the case. But the tariff board had been considering very carefully for a period of between two and three years the changes that were subsequently embodied in the Dunning budget.
What is the position with respect to the tariff changes that the Minister of Finance is now asking the house to consider? None of these changes has been considered by anyone except the Prime Minister himself-even if he has given them consideration. I do not believe he has had time to give them consideration. They are the most drastic tariff changes that have ever been proposed in

parliament. Whether considered from the point of view of the number of articles that are being changed or in relation to the extent to which the tariff rates themselves are increased, I think my right hon. friend has, from the point of view of the business interests of the country, done the most extraordinary thing that has ever been done by any minister of the crown. He has suddenly launched upon parliament vast changes, affecting half of the tariff structure, with the result that there is not a manufacturer, there is not a consumer, there is not a workingman who has any real sense of security at the moment with respect to the position of industry in this country. He has been making changes in such a precipitate manner that almost every few days he has had by order in council to cancel or amend those changes. In addition to that he has given to himself and his colleagues power to alter the tariff by order in council, so that what is done one day by parliament is altered the next day by the cabinet. I say that nothing of the kind has ever happened in the history of Canada before, and I cannot express too strongly the sense of injustice which I believe the country is labouring under through having its whole financial and commercial structure to some extent disarranged if not temporarily shattered, as a consequence of the violent changes in the tariff which my right hon. friend has made.
May I point out this further fact, that while under previous governments there was some opportunity for parties to be heard, the Prime Minister himself as a part of his own method of dealing with these matters has swept away entirely any possible consideration in advance of the changes he is proposing, vast as they are. It must be recalled that even the changes proposed in the resolutions we are considering have already been made and that the new rates of duty promised by them have been in force for some time. The Prime Minister abolished entirely the tariff board that was in existence when he came into office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says, ''hear, hear." But, as I pointed out the other day, if he wanted any kind of investigation even by his own officers, there was a vacancy in the chairmanship of the board and he could have retired the other two members, and reconstituted the board to suit himself. To that board he might have referred the changes he was about to make, and the board might have advertised the fact that certain matters of the tariff were under consideration and given parties materially

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
affected an opportunity to be heard. But my right hon. friend did not do that. He swept the board out of existence, substituting nothing for it. He did not even give his own colleagues an opportunity of considering what he was doing, but by a stroke of the pen he gave instructions as to how the tariff was to be increased and changed, and then, presented it to parliament to be enacted within two weeks. That was at the special session last September.
This session he brings in a bill which he calls a bill to create a tariff board, but he takes care to see that all these tariff changes now being proposed, which go to make up half the total tariff, are made before that board is called into existence. So the effect of these changes is not going to be known at all until it is felt in the actual operation of the tariff itself.
May I say this to hon. members who think this kind of thing is helping the manufacturer, that in manufacturing one man's finished product is another man's raw material, and if you are going to permit tariff changes to be made in manufactured articles without any investigation in the first instance, you are operating in the dark as to the effect on manufacturing generally throughout the country. I think already my right hon. friend has heard from a good many interests as to the effect his tariff is going to have on their own and other manufacturing interests as a result of lack of carefid and thoughtful consideration being given to changes before they were made.
But there is a point I must stress even more strongly in regard to the changes my right hon. friend is making to-day, and that is the effect of what he announced in this house to-day and which has become apparent to the country for the first time-that the tariff board he is now creating, the one we have been discussing for the last two or three days, is not to be a tariff board before which interests affected by these tariff changes are to be allowed to appear and be heard; it is a tariff board which in its operations will be confined just to those particular things which he himself refers to it. In other words, these changes are not only to be made in the manner they are now being made, without any preliminary investigation whatever, but after they have been made, no matter how aggrieved the parties may be, whether they be manufacturers, workmen, consumers, agriculturists-in a word, whether they be engaged in mining, lumbering, fishing and agriculture, or in any branches of the manufacturing industry, unless it suits the will, the wish, the caprice of my right hon. friend there can be no investigation whatever into the effects of
these tariff changes. That is entirely wrong, and I do not think it can be defended on any ground whatever. I want to protest in the strongest possible way against the tariff being changed in this ruthless fashion, and at the same time against the lack of opportunity for redress being afforded to the parties themselves once the changes are made.
I know what my right hon. friend has in mind; he has said, "I am going to have a tariff policy which will prevent any commodities coming into this country which can be produced or manufactured in Canada, and I am going to put my tariff up to such an extent as to make that effective."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite say "hear, hear", so there is no dispute about it. That means, as far as international trade is concerned, that it is to be cut off completely so long as there is a possibility of anything being manufactured or produced in this country. I do not believe the people of Canada have any conception of what my right hon. friend is seeking to do. I have done him the justice all along of saying I thought he had in his own mind a pretty clear conception, but I doubted very much if his own followers had an idea of what he intends to do. He thinks his particular policy is going to work out for the good of the country. I have given him credit for sincerity in believing that making Canada into an economic unit will be of great service to the country. But before any such policy is put into farce there should be afforded to this parliament the most ample opportunity for debate and discussion. I am perfectly sure that if we had an opportunity to discuss this policy on its merits many hon. gentlemen opposite who to-day applaud the Prime Minister for what they believe he is doing in such heroic fashion would be the first to ask him to move a little more slowly.
May I say that the changes my right hon. friend is making to-day are revolutionary in character. I think I am right in saying that changes with respect to economic matters, whether they affect prices, wages or the development of industry, should be along the line of evolution rather than of revolution. You cannot rip and tear up an existing system in a day or in a year without bringing about very serious consequences.


Eccles James Gott: You did it before.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish my
hon. friend would allow me to speak; I am trying to make a dispassionate appeal to the
_	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
committee. If my hon. friend had a little more experience in public life perhaps he would not be so rude. The country is entitled to know what the Prime Minister is seeking to do. I think his own followers are also entitled to know, but I say honestly that I do not believe they know even yet. I say this in no offensive way; what I am saying now is being said in the presence of the Prime Minister himself, and if it is untrue I hope when he replies he will make it perfectly clear that it is not correct.
I repeat, the policy of the Prime Minister is so to restrict trade that commodities from other countries will mot 'be permitted to come into Canada if they can be produced or manufactured here. That policy is based on a conviction in the mind of my right hon. friend that trade must take place only as the result of some absolute advantage in production which one country possesses to the exclusion of another. I believe he is entirely wrong. Trade is based on no such doctrine. Trade is based on the doctrine of relative advantage, arising out of comparative costs of production. Countries have certain special advantages over other countries in the matter of production, and they devote their capital and labour more exclusively to the things in which they have that advantage rather than to those other things in which they are not so fortunate. They bring into their country even some things which they could produce or manufacture but which they could not begin to produce or manufacture at the cost at which they can be produced elsewhere. To make a simple illustration, if an individual has $100,000 to invest he might invest it in something which has a natural advantage in his own country in the matter of production or manufacture, and he would as a consequence be more or less sure of a return on his money. On the other hand he might put that $100,000 into something that has no special advantage, and probably he would get a very small return or none at all. International trade is nothing more than the result of that kind of thing on a vast scale. Production and manufacturing in a nation is the result of investment going into those particular fields in which special advantages are possessed, so that when trade is carried on internationally and there is more produced in any country than can be consumed there, the surplus is sent abroad in exchange for surplus products of other countries and the things which cannot be produced in that particular country under the same natural advantage.
My right hon. friend's policy is depriving the country of all the great advantages that

come from extended international trade, and that despite the fact that for years past the policies of governments have been so tO' develop the naitional economic life of Canada as to make possible a vast international trade. Large expenditures have been made by this parliament on our railways and steamships, whereby travel and trade are expanded to all parts of the world. There has been a policy in the Department of Trade and Commerce under which agents are sent to different countries. Later there has been a development in the matter of opening legations to assist in the discussion of international problems, and so on. The whole development of communication between different parts of the empire has been with a view to expanding trade within the empire and beyond its borders. To-day we have the projected development of the St. Lawrence waterway, not in relation to a purely national trade confined to Canada alone but in relation to a great international trade with other countries.
My right hon. friend's policies are absolutely defeating the expansion of Canadian, trade, and bringing about a crippling and restriction of trade in a manner that will be most serious so far as the future development of the trade and industry of the country is concerned.
I see it is eleven o'clock. I should like to say a few words on this matter when we resume to-morrow.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, July 9, 1931.