1931-06-26

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Matthews.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil) moved:: That the first report of the special committee appointed to consider jointly with Mr. Speaker the amending of the standing orders of the house governing the procedure to be followed in taking a division, be concurred in.


Mr. MARCIL:: Would the hon. member explain that report?


George Halsey Perley: The report
appears in the votes and proceedings of June 18. The object to which the committee gave consideration was the saving of time in the taking of divisions; several plans were suggested and we gave the matter a good deal of consideration. There are some legislative assemblies which use electrical devices for registering votes, which are shown on a large board located in the chamber. Every member has electric buttons at his desk, and when he presses a button his vote is recorded. That is the quickest way of taking a vote, but the electrical machinery is liable to get out of order and it is hardly consistent with our way of doing business; it takes away all the human interest in the division.

In other places they use a ballot box; I think that system is in force in Paris. The members pass by and drop in their ballots, but that really is no quicker than our own method and it is really a secret ballot, which would not be at all consistent with our ideas.
In Washington they have a roll call. This appeals to a great many people as a good way of taking a vote, but when we considered it in the committee we felt that the clerk would have to read out every name, whether or not the member was present, and therefore probably no time would be saved by that method.
Another system under consideration was the one followed in the House of Commons in England. There the members go into lobbies, and some of the members of the committee felt we should give that system a trial in this parliament. But in this house every member has a seat, while in the British House of Commons a great many of the members do not have seats, and so it seemed to the committee that for the present we had better try this other way of saving time.
The suggestion of the committee is that one of the officers of the house should come here when a division is taking place and tally the votes as they are called during the division, so that as soon as every member has voted the result will be ready to announce. There is always a delay while the votes are added up, and I have noticed that our own chief whip and the chief whip on the other side have the vote tallied as soon as every member has voted. The view of the committee was that we should try that system for the remainder of the session.


Mr. EULER:: Would my hon. friend give
a little fuller description of the method of procedure? I did not quite grasp his explanation.


George Halsey Perley: The idea is that we will continue as we have in the past but that there shall be another officer in the house who will sit down and tally these votes in groups of five, as is done by many individual members, as each vote is recorded, so as soon as the last member has voted the result will be ready to announce.


William Daum Euler: It will not save very much
time.


George Halsey Perley: My hon. friend
knows that after the votes are taken we have to wait while they are totalled, and none of us likes to do that. At any rate, we feel this is worth trying a few times in order to see whether it enables us to take a vote more quickly. I want to remind hon. mem-

Proceedure in Taking Divisions
bers that a great deal of the time occupied in taking a division in this house is taken in waiting for the whips to find the members and see that they are all here. After the members are here and the taking of the vote actually begins, it does not take so very long to complete it. Of course, even if we adopted the system followed in England, we would not save much time because the whips still would have to go out and get the members to come in to vote.


Mr. DUFF:: Let well enough alone.


George Halsey Perley: So it was the
opinion of the committee that we ought to try this suggestion for the rest of the session and see whether it saves enough time to make it worth while. If it is considered then that next session we should try the system followed in the English house I, for one, would be quite content.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I
hope it will be understood that the official count kept by the Clerk of the House is to remain the official record of the vote.


George Halsey Perley: Certainly.


Charles Gavan Power: And not the tally kept by
this additional officer.


George Halsey Perley: Occasionally
there might be a discrepancy, but I should not think it would mean a difference of more than one vote. Even that is hardly likely, because I have noticed that for the last three or four divisions the tallies of our whips have been exactly right. If there should be a discrepancy I think the understanding should be that the record of the Clerk of the House should govern when the vote is printed in the votes and proceedings.


Charles Gavan Power: I think there should be
provision in the rules of the house whereby any member should ask that the tally of this additional official should be checked with the record kept by the clerk. I do nof see anything else for it, because I have had the experience which I think my hon. friend has had in times gone by, of people checking these votes as they proceeded, and out of four or five who have checked no two could agree on the result.


George Halsey Perley: They are not
always as accurate as the whip on this side of the house.


William Duff: I would ask the hon. member
to allow this motion to stand for the present, until we have time to give it consideration.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: I should like to make just one observation in regard to this question. After taking part in and observing a great many votes taken in this house, I am inclined to think that part of the difficulty arises from the disorder in the chamber while the vote is being taken. I think if Your Honour would point out the necessity of obeying the rules of the house ip would help very materially. During the vote members move around; they walk from one seat to another; they enter this chamber when they should not do so. Conversation takes place all over the chamber while the vote is being recorded, and I can understand mistakes occurring by reason of this disorder. If the rules of the house in regard to keeping order while the vote is being taken were obeyed, I think time could be saved and many mistakes obviated.


Charles Marcil: Did the committee give
consideration to the question of members voting or abstaining from voting, or was that not considered?


George Halsey Perley: That was not
included in the reference.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: But that was the reason for the appointment of the committee.


George Halsey Perley: That question was not contained in the terms of reference at all.
Hon. W D. EULER (North Waterloo): As a member of that committee who was not present at the meetings at which a decision was made, certainly I do not care to criticize the outcome of the last meeting. I was present at the first meeting, which was attended by all the members of the committee. I am afraid that was not the case at the second meeting, because some of the members, including myself, had to be present at other rather important committee meetings.
I must admit being rather disappointed with the result. At the first meeting we did canvass the various methods of taking a vote. I think perhaps the one which appealed most of all was the method of pressing a button. That system was examined; apparently it was not approved, but if it could have been adopted certainly it would have saved practically all the time now required to take a vote. I am told that a vote could be recorded in the space of half a minute, and this would result in a very substantial saving of time.
Then we thought of adopting the method of the roll call, whereby the names are called in alphabetical order. I think this method also would save a great deal of time. Then we discussed the method followed in the British parliament, where members pass out into lobbies, where thev record their votes
Royal Grain Commission

My reason for being disappointed is that it seems to me the change suggested saves practically no time at all. If I understand what the hon. member has said, it saves merely the time which otherwise would be consumed by the clerk at the conclusion of the taking of the vote, which to my recollection is not more than one minute. It seems to me that the committee has not accomplished very much if that is the total result. I would like to second the view of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) that the motion might be allowed to stand for the present. I would like to inquire whether or not the committee was fully attended, but not meaning to infer that if some of us had been present the results obtained would have been more valuable.
Mr. DUFF moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 105, to amend the Interpretation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
WEST LAMBTON CENSUS On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) yesterday asked a question in connection with a return. This return was passed on June 17, was completed to-day and has been handed to the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) to be presented to the house in due course, presumably on Monday.



ROYAL GRAIN COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the discussion which took place yesterday on the Stamp report, may I be permitted to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) if he will table any correspondence, letters, telegrams and documents passing between Commissioner Justice Brown, Commissioner Sanford Evans and Mr. Pearson, the secretary of the commission, and any member TMr. Euler.]
of the government with regard to the adding of appendix XII to the report. Such information would facilitate the passing of the minister's estimates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am not
aware of any such correspondence but I will investigate and will table that which it is proper to table.



REMUNERATION PAID TO MR. SANFORD EVANS FOR HIS SERVICES

Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, during the discussion last evening in connection with the Stamp report the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) promised that before the orders of the day were called to-day he would give the house the amount of remuneration paid to Mr. Sanford Evans for his services in that connection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I promised that I would do that to-day, although I am in possession of certain additional information which is not quite complete. I understand that certain expenses have been paid, but I have not the accurate information before me.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Will the minister give that
to the house later on?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.



PRINTING OF EVIDENCE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, I have a question
to ask the head of the government based on the report of the Stamp grain commission. Will the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) inform the house if the government intends to print in full the evidence taken by the official stenographers at the different sittings of this commission, within and out of Canada?
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the matter has not been
considered and I am unable to answer the question until inquiry is made.



STATEMENT BT HON. MR. STEVENS IN REGARD TO APPENDIX XII-TELEGRAM FROM COUNSEL FOR WINNIPEG GRAIN EXCHANGE

Henry Herbert Stevens: I think in justice to a
gentleman whose name was mentioned in the discussion last night, namely, Mr. Sanford Evans, I ought to convey to the house some

Privilege-Mr. Stewart (.Edmonton)
information which I have just this moment received. It is in connection with the famous or notorious appendix XII attached to the Stamp commission report. This is a telegram from Mr. Pitblado of Winnipeg stating as follows:
Appendix XII as published in the report of the Stamp commission was filed by me with the commission as counsel for the Winnipeg grain exchange.
It goes on to say that he had handed it personally to the chairman of the commission on April 22, after having received his permission, and he cites page 2210-H of the official transcript of the evidence for April 22. The telegram continues:
None of the commissioners had any previous knowledge of my intentions to file this document. The document which I handed to Sir Josiah Stamp was identical in every respect with the document which appears as appendix XII in the published report of the commission.
This will, I think, place clearly before the house two facts: first, that the graph or appendix which is objected to was filed by Mr. Pitblado, counsel for the Winnipeg grain exchange, and, second, that there was no alteration in the document after it was filed. That is, it appears in the report as filed by him. I think it is only fair to Mr. Sanford Evans to make this statement because it was stated by me last night that as far as I knew-and I was very careful to say that I had not precise information-it was prepared' and filed by Mr. Evans. But this makes it clear that it was filed by counsel for the Winnipeg grain exchange.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: It was quite obvious to all of us on this side that Mr. Sanford Evans could not very well file a document before himself as he was a commissioner.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Might I say
to the minister that what he has said does not in any way clear up what is causing the most concern at the moment, namely, how that document finally found its way into the copy of the report as printed and presented to parliament.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are making every
effort to find out all the mechanics of the thing, but I thought it was only fair to Mr. Sanford Evans to make this statement now. I may say to my right hon. friend that any statement which was made last night by me was made in the absence of any personal knowledge of the matter. I think I made that clear in the statement I made.


William Richard Motherwell: We understood
that.
PRIVILEGE-MR. STEWART (Edmonton)
On the orders of the day:


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, it is not very frequently that I have to object to newspaper articles, and I hope that on this occasion the hon. gentleman who is reported as having made a statement last night in the city of Hamilton has, as has been the complaint of many of his colleagues, been misreported. The matter is of rather serious consequence so far as I and some of my colleagues are concerned, and I ask the indulgence of the house to read a brief statement, as follows:
Hamilton, Ont., June 25.-Charges that four cabinet ministers in the recent Liberal government at Ottawa had promised to smash the glass industry in Hamilton were levelled by C. W. Bell, K.C., M.P. for Hamilton West, addressing the Conservative convention here to-night in the federal riding of Hamilton East at which M. M. Robinson, sportsman and newspaperman, was chosen Conservative candidate to contest the riding at the by-election, August 10.
Hon. Charles Stewart, Minister of the Interior, and Hon. James Malcolm, Minister of Trade and Commerce in the King government, and two other cabinet ministers had opposed the efforts of Hamilton to build up the glass industry there, said Mr. Bell.
Referring to his efforts to aid glass manufacturers in the city, Mr. Bell said: "This is the truth of the thing. In ten or twelve visits (to government officials at Ottawa) I did all I could. Yet every time I went to them I found that a new flood of propaganda undermining the confidence of their financial backers had been poured upon them.
This went on until one day at Ottawa I was told by Mr. Stewart, the Minister of the Interior in the King administration, and Mr. Malcolm, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and two other cabinet ministers that they would never let Hamilton get its glass industry. And they said: 'We will smash your d- industry.' "


William Duff: That means "damned."


Charles A. Stewart: The article
continues:
"That, ladies and gentlemen, is the truth."
This, he declared, had been the attitude of the Liberal members at Ottawa, which had blockaded attempts made by Hamilton men to secure protection for the city's industries.
May I say that when a member of the government I never was canvassed by the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) for aid for the glass industry. When the present government cancelled by an order in council the duty which was imposed at the September session, I met the hon. member in the Chateau Laurier and had a discussion with him, but that is the only conversation I have had with him with respect to this matter.
Suspension oj War Debts


Mr. QUINN:: Why does not the hon. member wait until the hon. member for West Hamilton is in his place?


Charles A. Stewart: This press despatch has been sent throughout Canada, and I am bound to say that I hope the hon. member did not make any such statement in Hamilton; I hope he was misreported.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The hon. member should bring this matter up when the hon. member for West Hamilton is present.


Charles A. Stewart: I certainly shall do that.


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) in saying that I do not wish to doubt the accuracy of the report, but as it is not based on any conversation that I can recall, I am inclined to think that the statement attributed to the hon. member for West Hamilton is not in accordance with the facts.



SUSPENSION OF WAR DEBTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I indicated the other day that I would make a statement as soon as I was in position so to do with respect to the proposal made by President Hoover. In order that there may be no misapprehension as to the proposal as we understand it, I have committed my statement to writing.
Members of the house are familiar with President Hoover's striking proposal for the postponement during one year of all payments on intergovernmental debts, reparations and relief debts. The initiative which the United States has taken is a notable contribution to the restoration of sound economic conditions throughout the world. If carried out, the suspension of debt payments for the coming year will give a breathing space to heavily burdened countries, help to restore the confidence and hope essential to business revival, and set large sums free for economic reconstruction.
The suspension of German reparation payments would mean, so far as Canada is concerned, that our treasury will be deprived of something over $4,000,000 during the coming twelve months. In view of our own financial conditions, and in view of the fact that our expenditures on interest, on war debts, pensions, and other direct war legacies constitute some forty per cent of our whole expenditure, this is not a sum lightly to forego. The Canadian government believes, however, that the people of Canada would wish us to support the generous proposal of President Hoover, and to take our part in this endeavour to stabilize world conditions. We are prepared therefore to accept the proposal in principle, and to associate ourselves with His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom in the declaration that as soon as the proposal has been accepted by the chief creditor governments, we will be prepared to notify the Bank for International Settlements to suspend German reparation payments on Canadian accounts. We have advised His Majesty's government of Great Britain and the government of the United States accordingly.
It may be of interest to summarize the payments received by Canada on reparation account :
Reparation payments prior to Dawes plan.. ..
Reparation payments under Dawes plan:
1st year	
2nd year	
3rd year	
4th year	
5th year	
Reparation payments under Young plan:
1st year	
2nd year	
3rd year to May 31	
1930 mobilization, that is, share received from proceeds of German international loan 5J per cent payable June 1, 1965

Grand total of payments received

Perhaps some hon. members will be in- was suggested that this question might be terested in the total German payments. It asked and I have had the computation made 

Tariff Board-Mr. Bennett
from the records as they are in the Department of Finance:
The total German payments to all countries from 1918 to 1931 amount to nearly
$5,000,000,000:
Prior to 1924-	Gold Marks
Value of ceded properties.. 2,553,905,000 1920 to 31st August, 1924..	6,267,751,505
Dawes plan, September 1,
1925, to August 31, 1929.	7,970,000,000
Young plan, to March 31,
1931	 2,318,500,000
Total	 19,110,156,505
Members will also have noted that His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom has very generously expressed its readiness to give to any of the dominions which owe war debts to Great Britain the option of postponing payment for a year if they so desire. To avoid misconception, I may remind the house that Canada is not included in this category, as all the war debts owed by Canada to Great Britain and by Great Britain to Canada were settled some years ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The statement just made by the Prime Minister does not call for any comment. On the other hand it may be of advantage to citizens throughout Canada and to persons in other countries to know that with respect to the statement which the Prime Minister has just made, all parties in the house will be, I believe, in entire accord. Certainly, so far as the official opposition is concerned, we will support my right hon. friend in any steps that he may take toward international cooperation in a great measure of the kind to which he has referred.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
WHEAT PRICES-CORRESPONDENCE IN 1916-17 On the orders of the day:
William Richard Motherwell: As the government has shown a disposition to meet my complaint of yesterday regarding non-tabling of returns, I have from the chief of parliamentary papers an official statement which was prepared at my request as follows:
Date of motion-Subject:
April 22-Embargo upon certain Russian commodities.
April 29-Pegging of wheat or grain prices. May 11-Communications from Saskatchewan government since January 1, 1931.
May 18-Fixing of wheat prices in Canada. May 20-Alleged surplus remaining at conclusion of operations of board of grain supervisors for years 1917 and 1918.
May 27-Order in council appointing wheat board, etc.; order in council appointing board of grain supervisors, etc.
None of these have as yet been tabled.
I may say that we had the privilege of seeing the last two before the agriculture committee, but according to this report they have not yet been officially tabled.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to order No. 108, I
thought I gave the hon. gentleman an answer that he regarded as satisfactory in connection with the pegging of wheat prices.


William Richard Motherwell: That was divided
into two. I got half of it; the other half I did not get.



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 47, to provide for the appointment of a tariff board.
He said: I made a brief explanation of the principles of this measure when the resolution was before the house. The bill is founded upon the resolution. The bill contains two fixed principles:	first, a provision for the appointment of a tariff board with the powers that are indicated in the bill, and, second, a provision that the board may act as a court of appeal from the decisions of the customs authorities in connection with matters provided for in other legislation.
As to the necessity for the appointment of a tariff board, there seems to have been little difference between the two parties. The only difficulty is that my right hon. friend opposite saw fit to proceed by order in council based upon no statutory authority. It will perhaps be within the memory of the house that the hon Minister of Justice last year, in dealing with another matter to which attention was directed, very properly said that there must be, of course, a foundation for an order in council. That foundation must, of course, be a statutory authority. The statutory authority with respect to the order in council creating the late tariff board was non-existent, so far as any special authority was concerned. The only authority was the authority that is incidental, I suppose, to the conduct of government, and the appointment if the government so desires of assistants to the minister or to the ministry. Beyond that there was no authority for the creation of the board, and as there was no such authority, the board itself had no author-
Tariff Board-Mr. Bennett
[Stage Direction]
ity even to summons witnesses or to ask anyone to attend before it, and as its assumed power was .without sanction, we are proceeding in the only constitutional method, and that is by the enactment of a statute, which will at once define alike the constitution and the powers of the board.
This bill proposes to create a tariff board. The method of the appointment of the board is described in the bill. The board will consist of three members, a chairman and two others. The chairman will receive $12,000 per annum, and the other two members $10,000 per annum. They will hold office for a period of ten years certain, and will be eligible for reappointment.
As to the period of ten years, I gathered from what the right hon. leader of the opposition said a few days ago that he felt some objection might be taken to that provision. In my judgment it is essential that the board should hold office beyond the term of office of a government. If the principle is sound, then the members of the board should be in a position where they will not be deterred from the discharge of their duties by any thought of the personnel or of the policies of an administration. Their powers will not be political. Their powers are fact-finding powers, and just as the railway commissioners hold office for a period of years, so this body, which like the Board of Railway Commissioners is a federal court, should also hold office during a period of time that will ensure some form of continuity to the jurisprudence which they create. This board will be in every sense a judicial tribunal, charged with but one responsibility, not the making of decisions upon the facts, but the determination and report as to what the facts are, I believe it will be within the judgment of the house that the powers of the board are powers that will enable it accurately to ascertain the facts and report those facts to the government of the day.
In addition to the powers thus given, the tribunal may be used for the purpose of making investigations under the Combines Investigation Act and under the provisions of the Customs Act, which heretofore have been dealt with by another method.
Let us for a moment examine the principles that govern this tribunal in the exercise of its powers. They are dealt with largely in section 4 of the bill, and in that regard I desire to point out to the house the value that attaches to just such a body exercising the powers conferred by this section. I said the other day that the experience of the United
(Mr. Bennett.]
States in connection with their tariff commission had been both fortunate and unfortunate. One body had been found exceedingly valuable, and at another time its value was not so apparent, but recently they have reorganized the commission and I submit that in my reading of the proceedings before judicial commissions investigating facts I have seen nothing that was more complete than that which took place before that tribunal with respect, for instance, to the tariff on maple sugar and maple syrup. The report of the tariff commission on those commodities was made this year, on February 2, 11381, and how these very principles mentioned in section 4 of the bill before us are applied in practice is abundantly apparent from a perusal of that report. For instance, at page
5	of the report it is indicated that Canada is the only competing country of importance with the United States in the production of maple sugar and maple syrup. The data obtained on a former investigation was used as a basis of a report to the president transmitted on the 23rd of April, 1928, under section 315 of the Tariff Act of 1922. That report, particularly the cost data contained therein, together with information obtained by field work in the producing sections of the United States and Canada, in October, 1980, and by means of the public hearing, forms the basis of the present conclusions. The field investigation recently made was concerned primarily with determining what changes, if any, had occurred in the maple products industry since 1905. The information obtained indicated that no important changes affecting costs of production have occurred since 1925, but disclosed the necessity of making certain adjustments in the data for 1925 with respect to interest on the value of the sugar grove and the "weighing" of costs for certain areas.
Then follows a discussion of the production in the United States and Canada, and on page
6	my idea of a proper hearing before a tariff commission is indicated by the inquiries there instituted. There is an indication of the number of pounds of maple sugar produced in the United States and Canada, and the number of gallons of maple syrup. These figures are taken from official sources. Then follows a statement as to where the industry is located in the United States and Canada. The maple products industry in the United States is scattered over many states, but its commercial importance is mainly in Vermont, New York and Ohio, in which states over 70 per cent of the domestic production is made. In

Tariff Board-Mr. Bennett
Canada over 70 per cent of production is in the province of Quebec.
Then follows a statement with respect to exports and a statement with respect to imports, then a statement as to the grade and competitive character of imports; the organization of the industry; gifts and loans to the maple products industry by the government of the province of Quebec, and a determination that that was not an appreciable factor in determining the question at issue. Then there is a statement with respect to cost investigation, and the changes since 1925 in the factors affecting costs; then a statement as to adjustment in the cost data for 1925, together with the areas covered in the cost inquiry. Then follows a statement as to the farm cost of the production of maple syrup, exclusive of containers and in a table is set forth an itemized statement of the cost of producing maple syrup in the United States and Canada. The amazing fact is the detail with which the matter is considered. For example, the details provide for details of costs of producing maple sugar, as follows:
Operating costs:
Human labour.
Horse labour.
Fuel.
Taxes.
Rent.
Repairs and depreciation.
Other.
Total operating cost without interest. Marketing costs:
Human labour.
Horse labour.
Other except containers.
Total marketing cost.
Combined operating and marketing cost without interest or containers:
Computed interest on syrup equipment at 6 per cent.
_ Combined operating and marketing costs with interest but without containers.
Sales value (syrup used and sold as syrup).
A similar itemized statement is given with respect to the maple syrup industry. Then follows the conclusion, and the conclusion was that the rate of duty charged in the United States a.t that time was a higher rate than was necessary for the purpose of equalizing the costs of production, and accordingly the president made a proclamation reducing the tariff in accordance with that finding. The conclusion of the commission will be found on page 6. It is found by the investigation:
(a)	That the duties of 5£ cents per pound on maple syrup and 8 cents per pound on maple sugar do not equalize the differences in the costs of production in the United States of the said domestic articles and of the like or similar foreign articles produced in the principal competing country:
(b)	That a decrease in the rate of one and one-half cents per pound on maple syrup and
a decrease in the rate of two cents per pound on maple sugar are necessary to equalize these differences; and
(c)	That the rates of duty necessary to equalize said differences are four cents per pound on maple syrup and six cents per pound on maple sugar.
Appended to this statement of findings is a summary of information obtained in the investigation.
This statement is signed by the members of the commission. I concede that to be a report upon a case similar to cases which may arise in this country, and properly or improperly I regard these conclusions as a fair indication of the evidence which should be submitted in order to enable a tariff board to ascertain what tariffs are necessary to equalize the differences in the cost of production in Canada and elsewhere, whatever the domestic article may be. That is what the commission in the United States has been doing, and that is what we propose the tariff board in Canada shall do. It has to determine what duty is necessary to enable an adjustment to be made of the differences between the cost of the goods which compete with Canadian goods, and the Canadian goods themselves. I refer particularly to costs in the market of our principal competitors. In some particular cases before the United States tariff commission the principal competitor has not been Canada; on occasions it has been some other country. Sometimes for instance it has been Jugoslavia, and in some instances I may say that the findings have been just exactly the opposite of those to which I have directed the attention of hon. members, namely, instead of finding that the duty should be reduced to equalize the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad there has been a finding that there Should be an increase in order that such equalization might be made. In the United States the facts when found are the basis of the executive action of the president who makes his proclamation accordingly. We have not provided that any such power shall be vested in the executive in Canada. It is felt that with the present machinery of the Customs Act-
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have said "with the
present machinery of the Customs Act"-it has not always been so-with the present machinery of the Customs Act it will be possible to await the annual meeting of parliament to deal with problems with which the President of the United States has dealt by executive action. In the United States executive action taken by the president is limited to 50 per cent decrease or increase.
Tariff Board-Mr. Bennett

Parliament would exercise its own judgment through recommendations made to it by the government of the day based on the facts as found by the tribunal thus to be constituted.
In closing I admit that much depends on the personnel of the tribunal. It is of the utmost importance that the tribunal should be dissociated from political considerations and should endeavour to ascertain the facts it is asked to obtain in a way in which high-minded and honourable men would discharge their duties upon the bench. This federal court so constituted would be composed of three judges. I use the word "judges" not in the narrow sense, as appertaining to legal procedure, but I refer to men capable of receiving testimony, weighing it and drawing conclusions therefrom concerning the determination of questions of fact. I do submit that such a body armed and clothed with the authority which is conferred upon it by this bill would be able, if properly constituted- as it will be-to render a very great anti distinct service to this country. We will then be able to adjust our tariff legislation to the principles which have been applied in other countries so that the adjustments, whatever they may be, will be based upon the equalization of the differences of the cost of production at home and the costs of our competitors abroad. I cannot think that any Canadians have ever asked for favours but they have asked for fair competition. There can be no such thing as fair competition if Canadians under their present standard of living and standards of wages, are subjected to competition which comes from a body of workmen who are living under lower standards of living. One of the chief purposes of this measure is to provide that that equalization when made by the government of the day anil embodied in its tariff legislation shall be based upon a report made by this court on the facts submitted to it for determination. Perhaps most hon. members of the house will recall a letter from Mr. Darby to the Toronto Star in which that gentleman pointed out that whatever may have been its conception of its obligations at its inception the late tariff board degenerated as it was bound to do, not having behind it the sanction of any statute, and nbt having any statutory authority for its creation. Its proceedings were bound to degenerate into what Mr. Darby described as the gathering together of the members of the board with many discussions in connection with tariff matters and the making of findings without any proper appreciation of the facts.
I ask any fair-minded member of the house to read the reports of the late tariff board fMr. Bennett.]
and find in them anywhere any finding of facts such as that I have read with respect to maple sugar and maple syrup by the commission in the United States. It is of no use to frame a tariff or recommend the framing of a tariff unless such recommendation is based upon a finding of fact for which there is some substantial evidence. In my judgment the late board was defective in that regard-


Mr. BOUCHARD:: And the late tariff?


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the late board who were responsible for the late tariff. That is the reason we have had to change it; that is the very reason. Further, that is the reason we will continue to change it until such time -whenever it may be, as I shall submit to this house next week-until such time at least as there is an equalization of the differences between the costs of production abroad and these costs at home.
Without going into detail on the second reading I have outlined at least the principles governing the bill. We have endeavoured to ask the board to undertake, if it is not fully engaged with other activities, investigations under the Combines Investigation Act as distinguished from the provisions of the Customs Act which provides, as will be remembered, for certain investigations to be made when allegations are made apart altogether from the Combines Act, but under the Customs Act itself.
With great confidence in the use to which this measure may be put and the earnest belief that it will be of the greatest possible value to Canadians in all walks of life in ascertaining facts upon which equalization of costs may be determined and tariff action taken, I move the second reading of the bill,


Charles A. Stewart: Before the right hon. Prime Minister takes his seat, may I ask a question respecting the power to be conferred upon the proposed new board. I understand the Prime Minister to say that the new board would act as an appeal board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend from
West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) will look at page 2 of the bill, and refer to section 4 paragraph 3 he will observe that the board would be empowered to make inquiries under the customs tariff. The appeal power is provided for on page 6 of the bill where it is stated that the tariff board will be substituted for the board of customs. Those two sections are not analogous at all and are not the same thing. Rulings on appeal as made by the

Tariff Board-Mr. Ilsley
board of customs as now constituted are really made by the same gentleman as made the original ruling. The present bill constitutes an endeavour to substitute the new board to act in place of the board of customs.


Mr. J. L. ILSLEY (Hants-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising is to move an amendment to the motion for tlio second reading of this bill.
Before so doing however, I should like to discuss a few of the features of the bill, including its general principles, and I should like also to refer to some of the observations by the Prime Minister. At the outset I think we can agree that there should at all times be a body of qualified persons charged with the duty of gathering information and finding facts on which the government can base its tariff. As a matter of fact the last administration, realizing that, set up by order in council a tariff advisory board, which gathered facts and rendered very important service in getting information for the ministry upon which they could base their tariffs. Perhaps for the matter of record I should read the order in council under which that board was set up. This is P.C.530:
The committee of the privy council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, advise that for the purpose of advising the Minister of Finance in regard to tariff, taxation, and other related matters, there be established an Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation consisting of:
The Rt. Hon. George Perry Graham, Brock-ville, Ontario, chairman;
Alfred Lambert, manufacturer, Montreal,
P.Q.;	^
Donald Gordon McKenzie, farmer, Winnipeg, Man.	_
The committee, on the same recommendation further advise that the following regulations be prescribed with reference to the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation:
(1)	The duties of the board shall be to inquire into and hear representations on all matters pertaining to the tariff and other forms of taxation, as may be directed by the Minister of Finance, and to advise the minister in regard thereto.
(2)	The said board shall be under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance, who may make such regulations and give such instructions as he deems expedient or necessary to carry out the purpose and intention thereof.
(3)	The board shall hold meetings ivhenever it appears to the board to be necessary or desirable and also whenever required by the Minister of Finance to hold meetings.
(4)	The board shall avail themselves of information and advice from such officers of the Departments of Agriculture, Customs and Excise, External Affairs, Finance, Labour, Trade and Commerce, or other departments of the public service, as may be able to be of assistance to the board.
(5)	The Minister of Finance, on the recommendation of the chairman of the board, may engage competent persons possessing special
knowledge to assist the board and may similarly engage such clerical assistants as may be necessary and such persons and clerical assistants may be paid for their services at a rate to be determined by the Minister of Finance.
The committee further advise that any expenditure necessary for the purposes of the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation be made out of Vote No. 313 of The Appropriation Act, 1926.
The order in council, as I understand, was passed under the inherent authority of the government to deal with such matters, and the setting up of a tariff board was sanctioned by the votes which year by year the house passed for that purpose.
Now, the present government have abolished that board by rescinding that order in council and have introduced Bill No. 47 which is now before us for consideration. Under this bill it is proposed to set up a tariff board which is to have four classes of function: first, to make inquiries under direction of the minister into certain matters pertaining to tariffs and to report to the minister-that perhaps should be called its most important function; second, to hold certain inquiries under the Customs Tariff Act; third, to hold certain inquiries under the Combines Investigation Act; fourth, to assume and take over the functions, powers and duties of the board of customs. I do not propose to say anything about the three classes of functions last named, but there are a few observations I wish to make upon the first and most important function of the board to be set up by this legislation, that of making inquiries under the direction of the Minister of Finance upon tariff matters and reporting to him thereon.
This bill is based upon Bill No. 88, which was introduced in 1912 by Sir Thomas White, then Minister of Finance. That bill was amended in many particulars during the course of several long discussions in the session of that year. Amendments were suggested by a good many private members, and it may be interesting to recall some of their names. Hon. D. D. McKenzie, Hon. A. K. Maclean, Hon. E. M. Macdonald, Hon. William Pugsley, and Mr John Sinclair who at that time was member for Guysborough. The amendments suggested by these gentlemen were adapted by Sir Thomas White and are part of the bill now before us. Certain amendments were also suggested by the Senate, and these too, were adopted and are also incorporated in the present measure. There were other amendments suggested by the Senate which Sir Thomas White could not see his way clear to adopt, and for that reason the bill did not become law in 1912.
Tariff Board-Mr. Ilsley

Having given some study to the original bill, to the amendments which were suggested during its passage through the house and adopted, and to the amendments suggested by the Senate, and to the present bill which introduces several entirely new elements, I submit that in so far as the bill incorporates the provisions of Sir Thomas White's measure there is very little objectionable in it; in so far as it incorporates the amendments to which I have referred there is very little objection to it; but in so far as it incorporates several very important new principles there is a great deal of objection, and during the few minutes at my disposal I want to point out what I consider the most objectionable features of these additions which have been made to the bill by the present Minister of Finance.
Among these objectionable features is the introduction of the principle of equalization of costs, to which the right hon. Minister of Finance has referred. He has laid great stress upon that. As a matter of fact he has inserted in this bill certain words incorporating that principle for the first time They are to be found in section 4, subsection 1 (b), giving the board power to report:
-what increases or decreases in rates of duty are required to equalize differences in the cost of production.
That is a new element in our tariff board legislation. It did not appear in the bill of 1912, it did not appear in any of the amendments and it does not appear in the powers conferred upon the Tariff Advisory Board in 1926 by the order in council which I have quoted.
Apparently the board that is being set up now is to undertake as its main business the ascertaining of what rates of duty will equalize the cost of production here and abroad. On that point, as to whether that is a proper basis on which to build a tariff, and a proper set of functions for a tariff board to exercise, we have very high authority. They set up in the United States in 1916 a tariff commission. The first chairman of that commission was Professor F. W. Taussig, of Harvard university, then, and now, probably the most eminent economist in North America. He was chairman of the commission for the first three years of its existence. The second chairman was Professor Thomas Walker Page, professor of economics at the university of Virginia and later chairman of the council of the Institute of Economics. These two gentlemen having not only economic training, but also having practical experience in the framing of tariffs, have stated in books
[Mr. Hsley.l
that they have written just what they think of the principle which is introduced in this bill for the first time, and is to be the basis of our tariffs in the future if we accept and adopt the principle. I want to refer first to what Professor Taussig says in this book Tariff History of the United States, edition of 1930, page 363:
The Republican platform contained a new version of the principle on which protection was to proceed: paraded, to be sure, as the "true" or "long-established" Republican doctrine, but, nevertheless, in its precision of statement substantially new. The doctrine was laid down as follows: "In all protective legislation the true principle of protection is best maintained by the imposition of such duties as will equal the difference between the cost of production at home and abroad, together with a reasonable profit to American industries."
This notion, very little heard of before, played a surprisingly large part in the discussions of 1908-09, and was hailed in many quarters as the definitive solution of the tariff question.
It is to-day; it has been so stated by the Prime Minister this afternoon.
It has an engaging appearance of moderation; yet it leads logically to the most extreme results. It seems to say,-no favours, no undue protection, nothing but equalization of conditions. Yet little acumen is needed to see that, carried out consistently, it means simple prohibition and complete stoppage of foreign trade.
Then later in the book, at pages 480 and 481, Professor Taussig says:
The notion of equalizing costs of production had become a sort of fetish among the protectionists. I Bay nothing here of its weakness from the point of view of economic principle, having indicated elsewhere that it seems to me fatally unsound as a matter of tenable or consistent theory. It is the question of practicability in administration that was now raised by its being set up in the tariff law. The rule was proclaimed, and an endeavour was made to apply it, quite without regard to the most obvious realities. It is difficult enough to ascertain costs of production in the United States. True, with compulsory adoption of uniform methods of cost accounting by American establishments; with a large staff of accountants to examine books and check returns from a considerable number in each branch of industry; with some careful procedure for arriving at a mean between the high cost and the low cost producers-representative figures can be secured for American articles of a standard sort. But can it be imagined that any officials in the United States could do this sort of thing for foreign products? That foreign producers would permit such a control of their accounts and figures as alone, would make it possible to ascertain trustworthy comparable figures for the competitive articles in foreign countries? These difficulties, great enough in case of standardized articles, obviously become immensely greater with specialties, and perhaps most difficult of all with goods produced at joint cost ("by-products"). These classes include many of the

Tariff Board-Mr. Ilsley
contested items for which resort to the flexible powers was likely to be sought. A biased or subservient tariff commission might make a pretence of having found accurate figures. A basis of well-ascertained fact is almost impossible to find, or if found, to keep up to date. Those who advocated this as a "scientific" solution of the tariff question were obsessed by formula and surprisingly unable to face the realities.
That is the statement of Professor Taussig, to whom I have heard the right hon. gentleman pay tribute as the leading economist of North America. Then the evidence of Professor Page, in his book called Making the Tariff in the United States, edition of 1924, is found at page 99:
The conclusion cannot be escaped that it is rarely possible to ascertain accurately the difference in costs of production at home and abroad. To use as the basis of a general tariff act a thing so fleeting, evasive, and shadowy would be neither right nor possible.
So my first objection to this act, incorporating these words as it does for the first time, and adopting also for the first time that principle upon which it puts our tariff, is that it is based upon a false and exploded economic principle. Then I have another objection to that provision in the act; it is that under -this act, for the first time in our history, the board is empowered to recommend or to find specific rates of duty. They are enabled to say that a duty of 30 per cent is required instead of a duty of 20 per cent, or that a rate of 20 per cent is necessary instead of a rate of 30 per cent, in order to equalize the costs of production here and abroad. There can be no question that this is merely an opinion which they will form. When they come to a conclusion like that they will not be acting as a fact-finding body but as an opinion-forming body. When they form an opinion under such circumstances, and make that opinion known, the minister, the government, the house and the country will consider that they have recommended that a certain rate of duty be imposed, and we will have come to the position from which all parties have said we must keep away; that is, the position of setting up a duty-making body.
I might quote Sir Thomas White on that point; his words were very emphatic. At column 6810 of Hansard of April 1, 1912, he said:
There is not one word in that section with reference to the questions of duty ....
He was talking about his own bill; he could not have said the same thing about this bill.
.... increase of duty, or reduction of duty; there is not one word in regard to tariff duties.
The main object and purpose of the tariff commission is not to raise duties, is not to advise even with regard to raising of duties, it is not to lower duties or to advise in regard to the lowering of duties necessary. The sole object of this commission, as has been stated in this . house a hundred times, if it has been stated once during the course of the debate, is to ascertain economic facts upon which this government, which has not delegated and cannot delegate its constitutional powers to any outside body, may come to a conclusion in regard to the question of duties or in regard to its tariff policy.
I think it is a very fundamental objection to the bill which the right hon. Minister of Finance has introduced into this house that he departs from those principles laid down by Sir Thomas White, which have been held by both parties up to this time, and that we are really setting up a tariff-making body if we pass the bill in its present form.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the explanatory note to this bill he lays down the same principle.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The same principles laid
down by Sir Thomas White in 1912 are laid down in the explanatory note to the bill introduced by the right hon. Minister of Finance:
The purpose of this bill is to create a tariff board. It is not the intention to delegate to the board the duty and responsibility resting upon the government of originating bills for the raising of revenue, which will remain precisely as at present. The intention is to secure, as a result of the work of the board, a constantly increasing body of information which will be of service to the government and parliament.
I submit, sir, that the bill goes far beyond that. There is another feature of this bill which I submit is utterly indefensible; that is the provision to the effect that no member of the board shall be eligible to be a candidate for election to the House of Commons of Canada until after the expiration of two yearn from the date he ceases to be a member of the board.
Let us consider that for a moment. When the Prime Minister framed that section and put it in his bill he must have contemplated the possibility that in the future some appointee to this board would act so corruptly, as to use his position as a member of the board-which, be it remembered, is a high judicial position, as the Prime Minister has emphasized-to curry favour with prospective constituents unless he is debarred from doing so by this provision. That is a very sinister implication, because what is the duty of the members of the board? It is their duty to find facts, according to the Prime Minister. The implication is that unless you prevent
Tariff Board-Mr. llsley

them from standing for election within two 3rears after they cease to be members of the board there is a danger that they will find falsehoods instead of facts; that they will make themselves worse than perjurers, unless they are restrained from doing so by something in the nature of this provision.
With all deference, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is a reflection upon Canadians; it is an aspersion upon Canadian institutions; it is a slur upon prospective appointees to the board. Moreover, if the principle is introduced into this act it cannot stop there; it must be introduced into other acts as well. What is to be said of the Board of Railway Commissioners? This tariff board is to be merely a fact-finding body, according to the Prime Minister, but the Board of Railway Commissioners is a decision-making body on matters which affect the pockets of whole countrysides, whole provinces, whole districts and sections of the dominion. One can imagine a situation coming up like that suggested by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), the people of a province might be clamouring for lower rail rates on some particular commodity and be feeling very strongly upon the subject. If we are to take it for granted that when we set up these judicial bodies the members thereof are going to act corruptly, what is to prevent the members of the Board of Railway Commissioners from identifying themselves with some popular clamour and thereby making themselves undefeatable political candidates? If we are going to introduce an element such as this into our tariff board legislation, we will have to introduce it into our railway board legislation and amend the Railway Act, but no one would ever think of doing that. Not only that, but there is the Pension Act and the members of the pension board, the members of the pension tribunal and of the pension appeal court. Members of those bodies decide most important questions and upon their decisions depend the payment of large sums of money to applicants for pensions. If we are going to assume that men who are appointed to these positions are going to act corruptly, and we give concrete expression to our assumption by introducing such a section into the act, we will have to amend the Pension Act and the act providing for the setting up of the pension tribunals and other bodies. The same applies to the Canada Farm Loan Board, as well as to the judiciary of Canada. There is no more reason for having an objectionable section such as this in the bill before the house than there is for putting a similar section in the Judges Act. I say

in all conscience to the Prime Minister that there cannot be any good reason for introducing this objectionable feature into this important legislation.
Another feature of the bill which I think calls for a little comment is in connection with what might be termed the secrecy sections. There is nothing in the bill to provide that the proceedings before this tribunal shall be public; there is nothing in the bill to provide that the proceedings are to be printed and distributed from day to day so that the public will know what is going on. Moreover, there is a very remarkable provision in the bill that if any person makes public any information which is in its nature confidential that person will be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding SI,000 or to twelve months' imprisonment. That is a change from the bill as introduced by Sir Thomas White. There was a provision in that bill that the commission itself should not make public information which was in its nature confidential, but this bill apparently does not have in mind the commission itself, it has in mind some person who may be present, perhaps representing before the board the consuming public or some interested party and who goes out and makes public something which has come out in evidence before the board which he may think in all good faith ought to be made public. If he does that and if it is eventually decided that that evidence was in its nature confidential, he then becomes liable to a penalty of $1,000 or twelve months' imprisonment. He does not even need to be a wilful violator in order to be convicted if violating the harsh penalty provisions of the bill. It seems to me that this provision is just as indefensible as the others to which I have referred if indeed it is not more so.
Another provision of the bill to which I think the attention of the house should be called, is what might be termed the patronage section. In the act of 1912 it was provided that the staff of the board was to be selected by the governor in council upon the recommendation of the board itself. At that time there was no Civil Service Commission possessing the powers of the present commission; since that time the commission has been set up but instead of leaving the selection of the staff of this board to this commission, which would be the normal and natural thing to do, this bill takes not a forward step but a retrograde step by providing that the staff of the board is to be selected by the governor in council, not even

Tariff Board-Mr. Ilsley
on the recommendation of the board itself. In other words, the selection of the staff is placed under political patronage instead of leaving it to the Civil Service Commission or at least to the recommendation of the board itself.


Mr. SPENCER:: Was the staff of the old
board appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have no idea.
The final feature of the act to which I desire to refer, and which seems to me to be the major defect in the act, is that provision which refers to the tenure of office of the members of the board. Under - the provisions of this bill the government is setting up a board which is to hold office for ten year3. This -board is to advise the present or successive ministers of finance upon the most controversial matter in Canadian politics,- the tariff. This is a matter which will be discussed in election campaigns, in the house, and upon which the governments cf the day will have strong views. If ever it were necessary that a board enjoy the confidence of the administration, it is necessary that a board such as this should enjoy that- confidence. The right hon. Prime Minister spoke the other night about the necessity of the High Commissioner to England enjoying the confidence of the administration and reflecting its spirit and attitude, but there is a thousand times more reason why a board which is to advise upon tariffs should at all times enjoy the confidence of the administration. I do not think any hon. member can doubt that statement. It would be most anomalous if we had a low tariff government being advised by a high tariff board, or a high tariff government being advised by a low tariff board. This is not a new problem, it has been considered in other countries, and it was considered in this country back in 1922 when Sir Thomas White introduced his bill. He provided that the tenure of office should be five years, but when the Senate introduced an amendment that the board hold office during pleasure, he very sensibly and wisely adopted that amendment, realizing no doubt the force of the objections to a long tenure of office of a board which would be advising upon the tariff.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: If this board is to
be a purely fact finding body, would it make any difference?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am glad my hon. friend
asked that question. I tried to make it clear during the early part of my remarks that this 22110-196
board cannot be a purely fact finding body; it is to be an opinion forming body, whether it says forty per cent or thirty per cent. It should be remembered that this is the first bill in the history of this country under which a body is to be formed to find percentages. This board is to be empowered to fix percentages for the tariff and whether they find forty per cent or twenty per cent depends very largely upon their views and their politics; it certainly depends upon whether they are protectionists or free traders, high protectionists, low protectionists or tariff for revenue men. There cannot be any doubt about that.
Mr. LUCHKO'VICH:	Did not the same
thing apply to the former tariff board?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Prime Minister did
not listen a week to that board; he did not pay any attention to it. He abolished the tariff advisory board.


Charles Gavan Power: That board had no authority to make percentages.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) points out that that board did not possess anything like the powers which are being conferred upon this board by this legislation.
This matter has been considered by other countries and it is most interesting to see what other countries have done. I do not think the tariff is as controversial an issue in the United States as it is in Canada; it does not bulk so large in the United States as in Canadian politics, but even there, when they put through their tariff commission act it provided that of the six members of the board, three should be Republicans and three Democrats. They provided further that there should be overlapping terms of the six who were appointed; one was appointed for two years, one for four years, one for six years, one for eight years, one for ten years and one for twelve years. That is what they provided for in the United States to meet just such objections as this. I wonder what the Prime Minister would say to a proposal such as this, that we have a board of four or six members, one-half to be nominated by himself and the other half to be nominated by the leader of the opposition. If we were to put such a proposition as tha-t before him, he would say just what he said in regard to the High Commissioner, namely, that he could not have confidence in such a board as that; it did not reflect the mind of the administration. Supposing we went further and proposed that under this act a board be nominated and

Tariff Board-Mr. Ilsley

set up entirely by the leader of the opposition. What would the Prime Minister say to such a proposition as that? His objection to the first proposition would be weak as compared with his objection to the latter. He would regard it as nonsensical that he should call in the leader of the opposition to select a board to advise him on tariff matters. Yet. that is just the situation that will likely arise before many years have elapsed. In other words, we are going to have high tariff men selected by this administration advising a low tariff administration on questions of tariff. This will not work only one way. If in ten years time a Liberal administration is in power and has the selection of this commission, and then if, later, the Conservative party should come into power again, rve shall have a high tariff party and administration being advised in all probability by a low tariff commission. The more one considers the question, the more one realizes how unworkable and anomalous this proposal is. There is nothing like it anywhere else in the world that I can find.
I have investigated to find out what has happened in other British dominions, and in three other self-governing British dominions they have tariff boards. In Australia they have a tariff board which was appointed in 1981 and anyone interested in it will find it provided for in act No. 21 of the statutes of Australia for that year. That board is to consist of three persons appointed by the governor general for not less than one year nor for more than five years. They are eligible for reappointment, but appointed for a very short term. In South Africa a board of trade and industries was set up which had the powers of a tariff board. It consists of four members who are to be appointed for terms not exceeding three years. That will be found in act No. 33 of the statutes of South Africa for 1924. Then in the Irish Free State a tariff commission act was passed in 1926. That commission consists of three members who are appointed for two years. Therefore, in the three self-governing British dominions which have tariff boards, they have tied the tenure down to so short a term that the members practically hold office during pleasure. I venture to say that the tariff is not nearly so controversial a matter in any of those British dominions as it is in Canada, yet in this British dominion we propose to set up a longterm tariff board which, in the event of a change of administration, will prove to be utterly unworkable. It is not like other boards such as the board of pension commissioners or others that have been set up for ten years;
 .
they are not advising upon controversial matters. They are boards that can function just the same way whether one administration or another is in office. But I do not see how any hon. member can escape the force of that objection to this board.


Charles Gavan Power: It dictates tariff policy.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It dictates tariff policy and taxation to the administration of the day, and to do this it ought to enjoy the confidence of the administration. I mentioned what they did in the United States and in several selfgoverning British dominions to get over the trouble. I might mention what was done in certain foreign countries. They got around or escaped the difficulty by appointing the members of those commissions on the advice of certain independent agencies in the country representing different views and interests. For instance, in the Argentine Republic the commission was created in 1916 and it included representatives from the industrial union, the Argentine Rural Society and the Chamber of Commerce of Buenos Aires. In Spain a permanent commission was appointed composed of representatives of agriculture, industry, labour and the government. The German tariff commission, not a permanent commission, but a very great one which made an investigation into the whole tariff prior to the general revision of 1902, consisted of thirty members, of whom five were appointed upon recommendation of the German Agricultural Association, five upon the recommendation of the German Association of Chambers of Commerce, and five upon the recommendation of the Central Association of German Manufacturers. It would not be so bad if it were proposed to select this tariff board by some such method as that; but if it is to be appointed by the government of the day and is therefore to reflect their views which are at this time most extreme, then it certainly must not be fastened upon succeeding administrations; otherwise it is going to be worse than nothing; its usefulness will disappear entirely. I therefore beg to move, seconded by Mr. Gray:
That this hill he not now read a second time but that it he resolved that any tariff board entrusted with the duties set out in this bill, and more particularly with making inquiry into and reporting on matters pertaining to tariff and taxation, should at all times he such as to enjoy the confidence of the government of the day, and that accordingly the members of such board, unless appointed upon the recommendation of independent agencies representing different views or interests, should hold office only during pleasure.

Tariff Board-Miss Macphail


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: The hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley) was worried about what would happen if a low tariff government were in power when a high tariff commission was still functioning. I can imagine a low tariff party, but really I have not enough imagination to conceive of a low tariff government. Of course it, would, I grant you, be difficult if such a situation existed. I view rather with alarm the setting up of a board of the character outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), because it would seem to me it would be just the further entrenching of the protectionist interests. If the members of the board were to be appointed by the present government, all would undoubtedly be protectionists, because the government is quite honestly a protectionist group. When we are told by the Prime Minister that it would be a fact-finding body, I am led to ask: What are facts? How can one' divorce completely opinions, bias, from facts? We hear in the house many statements which the people who make them I am sure consider to be facts; that is the consolation each of us has. But to say that they are facts is quite another thing.
There has been [DOT] a good deal of reference made by the Prime Minister to the tariff board in the United States. I want to quote from a gentleman who was a member of that board for a good while and who resigned from it because he did not believe it was a fact finding body, because he believed that it was a biased board and made recommendations in favour of the protectionist policy. Before doing so possibly I had better say that, after all, when the tariff board has found what it calls facts and has made its recommendations to the government and the government has acted on them and brought down their tariff policy, that tariff policy must in the last analysis be voted on by the parliament of Canada, or rather by the government since the government has a majority in parliament and can put the government's policies through no matter what other parties may think. The board itself, outside of parliament, cannot surely be made responsible for the tariff policy of this country. How much better it would be if we had a parliament that fairly represented the economic interests in this country, deciding upon the tariff policies that would be best for the people in general.
I want to quote from the Literary Digest of March 31, 1928. It reviews the recommendations of the United States tariff board, and quotes statements by Mr. Edward P. Costigan, who was a member of that board, but re-22110-196J
signed. He charged that President Coo'lidge had been reorganizing the commission, contrary to the purpose of the law, by successively appointing protectionist commissioners, and he named Commissioners Marvin, Brossard and Lowell. He said of them:
They stand to-day a united tariff band, steadily pressing for higher tariff rates and against important reductions, reckless on occasions in their treatment of facts and the law.
That is exactly what I would expect, that being 'biased they would be reckless in the treatment of facts against their own particular bias. Mr. Costigan went on to speak of Chairman Marvin in particular. He said that he was a "tireless and fanatical protectionist, known in Washington as a tariff lobbyist for New England protected interests." Out of the thirty-two recommendations the tariff board had made up to that time, the president acted on twenty-three: eighteen being for increases and five for decreases of little importance. He names them. They were decreases on mill-feeds, bob-white quail, paint brush handles, cresylic acid and phenol. Those were all the decreases.
Mr. Costigan further stated that the commission had failed to live up to its obligations to report on the effect of the tariff on the industries and labour of the United States, and that "an open-minded performance of this task by the commission would have disclosed the use of various tariff fallacies to mislead farmers and industrial workers in the United States."
Mr. Costigan goes on to say, and I fully agree with him in this:
As a rule, tariff duties are more advantageous to most branches of manufacture than to most branches of agriculture; that tariff duties are not likely to bestow equal benefits on both; and that, so far as the articles are produced by the great majority of our farmers are concerned, prices are usually determined by market, especially world-market conditions, rather than by tariff barriers.
I feel that that was true before, and that it would be much more true under the new act that the agriculturists of this country, the industrial workers and the general consumers would not have an equal chance before the board. They are not as well organized, for one thing. They do not benefit from protection to anything like the same extent. I think that any thinking person will admit, though not politically perhaps, that protection is of no use to the mixed farmer in Canada, the general farmer who puts his product upon the export market. Protection simply means that he must pay more for the things that he needs, and he is not organized in a way that enables him to make effective
Tariff Board.-Mr. Young

representations before the tariff board. So the tariff board in my opinion would only further entrench the protectionists, if that can be done, and would make conditions for agriculture in Canada more difficult than they are at the moment, and the position of our agriculturists is already painfully difficult. So I am entirely opposed to the setting up of a board of the sort proposed. Whether or not I am in favour of the amendment I am not sure, as I have only heard it read hastily once.


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: I am in
hearty agreement, for once, with the Prime Minister, that we should have a tariff board. The making of tariffs in this country has had a somewhat varied history. In the old days we contracted the disease from the Americans. Not knowing much about framing tariff schedules, we simply copied theirs, and after consulting with some Canadian manufacturers as to what modifications should be made in the American schedules to suit their purpose, that became our tariff law. Any changes made from then on for some years were made somewhat in this wise:	A manufacturer desiring some change in the tariff would appear before the Minister of Finance. He would lay his case before him, pointing out what he considered to be his needs, and the finance minister, using the best judgment he had, and with what little knowledge he had of that particular industry and of other industries likely to be affected by the change, would make the change if he thought it advisable. That sometimes resulted in tariff changes being made which had the effect of helping one industry and ruining another. After the mischief had been done, the minister would discover that he had raised the duty on one man's finished product and by the same act had increased the price of another man's raw material. An illustration of the blunders that might and did occur under that system of making tariffs came up during the war time, when in order to encourage the farmers of this country to grow more wheat to feed the allied armies and the peoples of Europe it was decided to put farm tractors on the free list. But those who had the framing of the tariff forgot to put the parts of tractors on the free list. At that time we had a tractor manufacturing industry in this country. It had been protected by a certain rate of duty. That duty was removed. Those who were manufacturing these tractors in this country were in the habit of bringing in manufactured parts from the United States and paying the duty. In removing the duty on tractors the government,

as I said, forgot to remove the duty on the parts, with the result that our Canadian manufacturer of tractors found himself in this position:	Bringing in tractor parts, he
had to pay a heavy duty, sometimes as high as 37 per cent, but he got no protection on his finished product. On the other hand, a farmer bringing in a tractor or a dealer bringing in a tractor to sell to a farmer could get those parts, built into a finished tractor, free of duty. The result was that the Canadian industry was put out of business.
I think we will all agree that that was not a very wise way of framing tariffs, so the Liberal government in 1926 decided that they would no longer frame tariffs in that way, but that in future any changes in the tariff would be made only after complete investigation by a fact-finding body which would look into the matter from every angle and report what they had found to the government, the government taking responsibility for whatever action it took, based upon the findings of that body. That was a step in the right direction. The board was set up, and though it was generally satisfactory there were a number of members on the government side of the house, mostly western Liberals, who had some doubts how it would work out. They reasoned this way. They said:	The
manufacturers and those who are likely to be appearing before this board seeking tariff favours are well organized, they have lots of money and are able to hire the best legal talent to present their case before the board, and they will present a mass of evidence and argument in favour of the thing they want. But who will be there to refute that evidence? Who will be there to speak for the common consumer of this country, the man who is going to have to pay for all tariff increases,-because we must remember that somebody has to pay for them? The man who is going to pay for these increases will not be represented. We considered this matter for a while and at first we thought we should go to the government and ask (hem to appoint some one to appear before the board and represent the consumer. Later we changed our plans on that point. We said, "Any man appointed by the government to represent the consumer before such a board might at some time find himself in the position where he was opposing something that the government wanted to do. He would be susceptible to pressure from the government." We thought that such a condition would never be satisfactory, and we must have a man before that board to represent the common people of Canada, a man who would be abso-

Tariff Board-Mr. Young
lutely independent of the government, because some day he might have to oppose the government. That is the reason the consumers league was organized.
Some hon. MEMBERS'. Oh, oh.


Edward James Young: For a long time my hon.
friends have been wondering who and what the Consumers League were, and why it existed. That is why we were, and why we are to-day. We were organized to represent the common people of Canada. Ten million Canadians who have nothing to gain from the tariff but who have to pay for the increases granted to manufacturers. We were organized so that we might send a man before the tariff advisory board to represent those ten million people and to bring out the facts as to how any proposed changes in the tariff would affect them. We were most fortunate in our choice of a man, because I believe we secured perhaps the best authority and the most capable man on tariff matters in Canada.
Just to give an idea of the type of man we selected I would refer hon. members to a statement made only yesterday by the Prime Minister. He said that for the last several weeks officials of his department had been busy preparing comparative tables of the new tariff schedules combined with the schedules of last September and those under the Dunning budget, and they had told him it would take weeks and weeks to finish the job. I would like to tell the right hon. gentleman that the representative of the Consumers League has been working on that particular work all alone, and he has almost completed the work and made a running commentary on the whole thing as well. It would seem therefore that the efforts of the officers of the department are not so stupendous after all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have something else to do, as well.


Edward James Young: Surely they will not set aside the business of parliament to do other work. Surely they will not say to this house, "We cannot do your work, because we have something else to do."


Richard Bedford Bennett: From day to day the regular work has to be carried on.


Edward James Young: Perhaps my right hon. friend should increase his staff; certainly there are plenty of unemployed in the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Civil Service Commission controls that.


Edward James Young: The proposed tariff board is to be a fact finding body, but in many respects it is not to be the same as the body it is intended to displace, the old tariff board. It seems further that they are to be authorized to hold secret sessions; at least information may be given to them in secret, and any person who dares to reveal any such confidential information will be subjected to very severe penalties. We take the position that any man or body of men who come before the government or before the tariff board asking for tariff increases are asking the people of this country to contribute something towards their support. They are asking permission for their special benefit, to tax the people of this country, and we hold that the people of this country and their representatives in parliament have a right to know in all cases exactly why protection is being asked. A man may come before the board and say, "I need more protection, but I will not tell you why." Or a group of men may come before parliament and say, "We need more protection, but we will not tell you why we need it, we cannot trust you." I would reply to those men, "Since you cannot trust the people, we cannot trust you and we cannot give you the protection you seek." I sat through one of the hearings of the old tariff board when the sugar men were looking for higher duties on their product. The representative of the Consumers League asked the refiners, "What does it cost you to convert raw sugar into refined sugar?" The refiners answered that such information was of a confidential nature and that the Consumers League could not be entrusted with it. The chairman of the board said, "You will not trust the board?" The representative of the sugar interest replied, "Yes, I will trust the chairman of the board, but I will trust neither the public nor Mr. Deachman." Mr. Deachman said: "It does not matter, Mr. Chairman; we can get the information without the assistance of this gentleman, I can figure it out myself." Now under an arrangement such as the one proposed in this bill, if information were refused before the board and somebody did figure it out for himself he would be exposed to a penalty if he revealed such information to the public. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that is a situation which cannot be tolerated.
I think the Prime Minister said that the aim of the bill now before the house is tc equalize the costs of production; that seems to be the essence of the bill. With that in mind I would like to take the concrete case of the ink well I now have before me. We
Tariff Board-Mr. Young

will suppose that this ink well is made in Canada and also a similar one is made in the United States. The board would investigate the cost of making it in both countries and would decide that in order to equalize production costs a duty of 20 per cent would be required because the cost of manufacture is 20 per cent higher in Canada. For that reason they would say, "Well, we will impose a duty of 20 per cent and in that way equalize production costs." Then the American manufacturer of ink wells improves his method of manufacture and to-morrow he is able to reduce his production costs 25 per cent. Under such circumstances what will the tariff board say? It will sit again, investigate the matter further and will find that a duty of 50 per cent is required to equalize production costs. What is the result? This is the result: The tariff board in effect will say to the Canadian manufacturer, "You need not modernize your factory; you need not keep yourself up to date; if your competitors in other countries improve their methods you do not need to improve yours; you may proceed in your old-fashioned way and we will see to it that the Canadian people pay you the old price for your ink wells while the rest of the world can buy them at half the price." Does anybody think it would be possible for any tariff board or any government to keep equalization costs adjusted all the time? The proposal is absurd. One might as well try to elevate and depress the land in unison with the rise and fall of the tide in order that no part of it might at any time be submerged.
I said before that we should have a tariff board, but we should lay down certain guiding principles in the framing and setting up of the board. I have outlined what I consider those principles should be: First, I believe that all hearings should be open to the public. No one has a right to go before a board and ask to be handed money of the people of Canada, and carry on such a transaction behind closed doors. The people have a right to know why changes are made. Every citizen must have the right to appear to plead his case in person, or be represented by somebody else. There must be in connection with the operation of the board, no pomp or circumstance or anything which would tend to over-awe the ordinary citizen who might wish to appear. All evidence should be printed, published and distributed; I regard that as very important. The evidence brought before the board will be acted upon by the government. The government in turn will have to bring such evidence before parliament and all hon. members of parliament will have to sanction or refuse 
the proposals. How can we form any sound judgment on those matters unless we have evidence before us. Evidence submitted only in secret to the board might lead them to one conclusion. But the same evidence, if submitted to parliament, might lead us to the very opposite conclusion. I say, therefore, that it is particularly important that the evidence should be printed and distributed.
Last but not least, it is important also, that the members of the board should be removable at will. We do not complain of the fact that the government when assuming office dismissed the old board. The Prime Minister said a few minutes ago that the board should continue after the government had changed hands. May I ask how long the last board continued after the government had changed? We on this side of the house believe in low tariff. We believe in another thing however, the right of the people to rule. We believe that if the people of Canada decide they want low tariff they have the right to low tariff; if on the contrary they decide they want high tariff they have a right to have it. But this legislation that aims to fasten a tariff board on us for ten years is deliberately designed to thwart the will of the people when they want to change their tariff policy. What would have happened if we had had a tariff board prior to the election last year fastened on the country for a term of ten years? Why did the people of Canada last July reject the Liberal government and put a Conservative government in its place? Because they wanted to try higher tariffs. And if we bad had a tariff board appointed for a decade, it would now stand in the way of the government and not permit them to carry out their policy, and in that way it would be thwarting the will of the people. The Prime Minister to-day is setting up a board for the deliberate purpose of thwarting the will of the people, if five years from now the people decide that they have had enough protection and vote the low tariff party into power. I say that is the worst feature of the bill and we must oppose it to the last ditch.


Mr. BAKER:: The hon. member agrees that the will of the people is paramount and should
be observed?


Edward James Young: Yes.


Richard Langton Baker: He says that the will of the people has been expressed for high tariffs?


Edward James Young: Yes.

Tariff Board-Mr. Lapointe


Richard Langton Baker: Then am I right in presuming that he will support the higher tariffs proposed in the budget?


Edward James Young: No. The people who elected me sent me here for one purpose, and one purpose only-to do everything possible to prevent the tariff going up. And that is what I am trying to do.


Richard Langton Baker: The hon. gentleman is not consistent.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought
that the arguments set forth by my hon. friend from Hants-King (Mr. Usley) and so admirably expressed by him would have merited some answer on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. I think it my duty to say only a word or two on account of an interruption by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) as to what would be the use of partisans sitting on a body which would be a mere fact-finding body. The right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) has said that this will be a non-political body, a body acting in an absolutely non-political way. Well, anyone who believes that commissioners could be appointed to the tariff board with no views on the tariff policy of the country is, in my opinion, visualizing a sham and a utopia. Such a non-partisan man has yet to be born. The tariff is a matter of party politics, and by all the rules of experience the men who will be appointed by the right hon. Prime Minister will share his views on the tariff policy of Canada. The tariff, whatever may be said to the contrary, cannot be taken out of politics. It will always affect certain interests and certain particular classes in the country. The elections to parliament will continue to be fought more particularly on the tariff issue, and rival candidates will express different views on that policy. The tariff is essentially the expression of a policy, and to take that policy out of politics is a contradiction even in terms. It is indeed the foremost political issue in the country, and has been so in every general election.
As to the body being merely a fact-finding tribunal, let me point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my hon. friend from Winnipeg, that the same facts arranged in a different way and expressed in a different way point very often to different conclusions. All of the facts are of necessity a complicated mass. They must be reduced to some sort of order and summation, and such a process requires and involves judgment. It
is not merely an automatic process; such a tariff board cannot be compared to an adding machine. The work will necessitate on the part of the men who axe appointed to the board some special and eminent qualifications. Why? Because they will have to exercise some judgment in the execution of their work. Indeed, the right hon. Minister of Finance says it will be a high judicial body. If it is a body of men for the mere purpose of adding and compiling facts in no regular and coordinated manner, surely we do not need to have such highly qualified gentlemen sitting on the board.
Every citizen is interested in the views, in the opinions and in the character of the men who will be appointed to this board. In the United States, as my hon. friend from Hants-Kings has pointed out, the members of the tariff commission are not appointed for ten years or for six years. Their tenure of office indeed is six years, but the act of 1930 which created the present board, provides that:
Terms of office of the commissioners first taking office after the date of the enactment of this act, shall expire, as designated by the president at the time of nomination, one at the end of each of the first six years after the date of the enactment of this act. The term of office of a successor to any such commissioner shall expire six years from the date of the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appointed, except that any commissioner appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appointed, shall be appointed for the remainder of such term.
So that in the United States every year one of these commissioners goes out and a new one is appointed to take his place. And as my hon. friend pointed out, they are bound under the act to appoint an equal number of members on the board having different political views on the matter of tariff policy; three of them must be recognized as Democrats, three as Republicans. I would also call the attention of the house to the fact that:
No commissioner shall actively engage in any other business, vocation, or employment than that of serving as a commissioner.
I do not see any such clause in the bill introduced by my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Shall devote his whole
time."


Ernest Lapointe: So mudh the better then. But even with that precaution, as recently as last year on the floor of the United States Senate the chairman of the United States tariff board was violently and bitterly criticized and taken to task owing to his affiliations with the sugar trade. In other countries my
Tariff Board-Mr. Lapointe

hon. friend has stated that representatives of opposite interests are appointed by the bodies to represent those interests on the board. That would remove some of the objections I find to this legislation. Indeed, I believe that various views should be represented on such a board in order to ensure impartiality in organizing and carrying through investigations and in interpreting the results. I believe that having a board on which all the appointeees are of one mind on such an important matter as a tariff policy constitutes in itself a danger. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister-he will pardon me for saying so- is himself extreme in his views with regard to the tariff:	He is a partisan of a high tariff,
as he has demonstrated since assuming those important offices which he now adorns. He has said to the people of Canada on various occasions that he will see that his views prevail or he will perish in the attempt. I believe that unfortunately my right hon. friend will perish in the attempt, but he is trying to fasten on the country and on his successors machinery which we would like to see perish as well.
In the United States the tariff board has 'been far from satisfactory to all interests. I hold in my hand a resolution which was passed unanimously by the National Board of Farm Organizations on February 3, 1926, and which can be found in the Congressional Record of the United States Senate for May 10, 1930. Part of this resolution is as follows:
The United States tariff commission should be abolished. Its elusive and labyrinthic method of dealing with questions of great public moment is bringing reproach on all reputable governmental agencies. Its unwarranted delay in arriving at decisions, its prejudiced treatment of parties appearing before it, its method of holding secret hearings with certain parties interested in matters before the commission when other parties understand that the hearings have been closed, all have created a situation which approaches closely to a public scandal.
A just cause cannot be harmed by publicity.
A just commission receiving proper information and arriving at proper judgments has no need of secrecy.
The legislative functions of government should be exercised only by Congress. We therefore recommend that the United States tariff commission be abolished by a special act of Congress, and that if the Congress finds it necessary, for the purpose of obtaining information relating to questions of tariff, that then some agency be created which shall be appointed by Congress and be subject to its direction and removal.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I will heartily support the amendment of the hon. member for Hants-Kings.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, there are just
one or two points I should like to emphasize. We have been told again and again that we should have a scientific tariff. It seems to me that is an absolute impossibility. I think we might as well give up the idea of having anything in the nature of what might be termed scientific in connection with our tariff. Undoubtedly all tariffs of which we have acknowledge have not been built up on any ground that could be properly designated as scientific. The fact is that as soon as we begin to talk about tariffs we get into politics, and I think we must all recognize that such financial adjustments are related to the economic life of the country, and so are and should be essentially political.
In introducing this bill the Prime Minister immediately carried us into the atmosphere of the court room. He suggested that the tariff commissioners should occupy the position of judges. That very presentation shows that he is not thinking in terms of the research laboratory but rather in legal terms, and of a situation in which the judge is supposed to adjudicate between two contending parties.


Ernest Lapointe: To exercise judgment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, to exercise
judgment between two contending parties, two contending forces or two contending ideas. I submit that this is altogether removed from the atmosphere of the scientific laboratory. In fact, conditions do not exist in connection with matters of this kind which permit of scientific treatment. We cannot possibly direct private business, under our present economic system, in accordance with the findings of such a commission. Our business people would not stand for it; those in this parliament who represent the big interests would not stand for it, so I think we might as well give up the idea that we are trying to establish a scientific tariff. I quite agree with what was said by the last speaker with regard to the impossibility of securing facts without having some theories by which to arrange those facts. I think that is admitted by all scientists. We must have some working hypothesis; otherwise the facts we collect are absolutely unrelated. As I face this vote my trouble is that the measure seems to be essentially a proposal designed to stabilize high protection; I think that is the danger. Almost all the provisions of the bill give that indication. I do not think we should do anything that will help entrench high protection.

Tariff Board-Mr. Woodsworth
I do not want to go into the general question of protective tariffs, but it does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time we are trying our level best to make trade follow or be confined within the political divisions -what has been recently termed "economic nationalism"-at the very time trade is transcending the narrower political bounds and is destined in the future more and more to act independently of those political boundaries. This simply means that a few interested parties, groups or corporations, are attempting to use governmental machinery to advance their own interests. The other day I heard of an American, who had a branch factoiy here, who asserted that he was the greatest British imperialist in Canada. I think that a very illuminating remark. I think it was quite true; those who come from the United States set up their businesses here and influence governments to make various tariff arrangements which will play into their hands. W e are deceived by the mere outward appearances and the appeals to patriotic motives which have no real basis in fact.
In introducing this bill the Prime Minister did enunciate a principle which is rather plausible; that is, that tariffs should be based on the equalization of production costs. If that were the real basis of protection I am not sure but that I could be induced to become a protectionist, because that might mean the protection of certain standards of living in this country. If that were a genuine proposal through and through I think there might be something said for protection, but that statement requires a good deal of examination. Emphasis is laid on the labour costs notwithstanding the fact that labour costs constitute only a percentage, and very often only a small percentage, of the entire cost. Further than that, there has been no guarantee in the past in any tariff legislation we have had that the standards of labour would be protected. There is one clause in the present bill, subsection (c) of section 4, which suggests possible action in that direction, but on the whole I do not think it can be said that labour is protected or likely to be protected because of high tariffs.
Indeed the danger is that the presentation by the Prime Minister tends to keep up the fiction that the tariff is guaranteeing high standards of living, which I do not think is the case. The other day the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond) made a very excellent speech. Unfortunately I could not follow him in the French language, but his remarks have been translated into English and I would direct the attention of hon.
members, especially English-speaking ones, to that speech. The hon. member for Beauharnois gave in some detail the history of the leading textile companies, and the dividends paid, and he said:
Nevertheless, dividends paid by textile companies in Canada have increased 11J per cent in 1928 as compared with the average dividend paid from 1922 to 1926.
The hon. member then gave the history of different textile companies, and in connection with the Dominion Textile Company he said:
The very first year, it paid on this common stock a dividend of $6 per share, or the equivalent of 60 per cent on this investment. The dividend was increased from year to year up to 1922, when it had reached $12 per share, which represented 120 per cent on the original investment.
And again:
From 1924 up to this date, the company has paid, without interruption, dividends which are equivalent to 150 per cent on the initial investment of $500,000, and 15 per cent on the second subscription of $2,500,000 made in 1922.
And so on with the other companies. I do not intend to take up time to give the details, but I would like to turn to the other side of the picture, to the conditions prevailing among the labour people employed in this industry. The hon. member said:
At present the worker employed in the Montreal Cottons Mills at Valleyfield receives less wages and works two or three times harder than previous to the increase in tariff. Moreover, machinery has replaced hand-labour, and while production is greater, less hands are employed.
And again:
Young girls who, in the spring of 1930, operated three warpers, machines which are used to prepare the thread to make cotton goods, were paid $30 every fortnight; now they operate six warpers and are paid less than $22.
In connection with weavers, he said:
With reference to the weavers, a worker who operated four looms and was paid $40 every fortnight, now operates six and is paid but $22 to $25 every fortnight-40 per cent less.
And so on in a number of other instances. I think it must be conceded that the tariff is not in any sense a guarantee of protection to the standard of living of the workers.
There is only one advantage which I see in tariff boards-whether like the old tariff board or the one now proposed-and that is the publicity which may come from the investigations of such a board. It does seem to me that in the present bill the publicity is being cut down considerably. One clause already has been objected to, and I take objection as well. This is what is known as the confidential

Tariff Board-Mr. Woodswcrrth
section, being subsection (10) of section 5, under which confidential evidence is not to be given to the public. I take the position taken by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). The other day I stated my position when the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) refused to give the house certain information which he said was of a confidential nature. It seems to me that as soon as any business comes asking favours of the government, which in reality is the people, the people should know the conditions which prevail in that industry. That industry is no longer a private industry, the public has become a partner in it. The public has put a certain investment into that industry and the private owner or the corporation manager has no right under those circumstances to regard the conditions of that industry as being private.
During his first presidential campaign President Wilson said that in the old days the owner of a house adopted the English principle that an Englishman's house was his castle, and always contended that what went on in his house was his business. The president then referred to the great apartment buildings which were becoming common and to the fact that the owners were trying to apply the same doctrine to the great apartment blocks. He stated that in the old country they had adopted another principle and claimed that when thirty, forty, fifty or sixty families lived in a great apartment or tenement building, it was only by accident that they were living under one roof-that the individual apartment, not the block, was the unit. The authorities took the right to police the corridors in order to see that they were kept in a sanitary condition, that they were properly lighted and so on, and to all intents and purposes the corridors of the apartment block were considered as streets which the public had a right to enter and supervise. President Wilson contended that the same thing was taking place in big business; the old conception had been that business was private, but while that might have been the case when an individual managed his own business, when it became a corporation it ceased to be private in the old sense and the utmost publicity was desirable. Even twenty years ago he took the position that the corporations had forfeited the right to the secrecy which they had hitherto claimed, and that their operations should be made public. If that is true of corporations which are not seeking any special favours from the public, it is much truer of corporations which come

to the country asking for special tariff concessions, which in reality means that they are asking the public to give certain doles in order that they may carry on their business. Such doles should not be granted without all the facts being disclosed.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) reads as follows:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that any tariff board entrusted with the duties set out in this bill, and more particularly with making inquiry into and reporting on matters pertaining to tariff and taxation, should at all times be such as to enjoy the confidence of the government of the day, and that accordingly the members of such board, unless appointed upon the recommendation of independent agencies representing different views or interests, should hold office only during pleasure.
That amendment recognizes that a tariff board is necessary in this country, and that the policy of this government should include the appointment of a properly constituted tariff board. Parliament which provides for the constitution of such a board has a right to dictate the regulations and conditions under which that board will function. This is not an amendment denying the necessity or expediency of having a tariff board in Canada; it recognizes the fact that a tariff board is essential. It however makes one qualification, namely, that the members of such board, unless appointed upon the recommendation of independent agencies, representing different views or interests, should hold office only during pleasure. It suggests the alternative of a tariff board, the members of which will be appointed on the recommendation of independent agencies representing different views or interests. Where in this country do those so-called independent agencies representing different views or interests exist? Is it to be, as suggested, according to the statute of Argentina, that this tariff board shall represent boards of trade or other political bodies scattered throughout the length and breadth of the land? I think not. I think the leader of the opposition and his party would be the first to oppose a tariff board which was appointed by the different boards of trade, by the different economic interests of this country. A board thus obtained, in view of its appointment and constitution could not properly function to carry out the purpose and intent of this legislation. Therefore I leave that element of the amendment out of consideration.

Tariff Board-Mr. Cahan
The object of the amendment is to secure the appointment of a tariff board which shall enjoy the confidence of the government of the country and hold office only during pleasure. If I understand that aright, it means that the amendment advocates the appointment of a partisan political committee which on all occasions shall act as the tariff board of this country.
* Mr. HANBURY: That is what the government is going to give us.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is the object and intent as expressed on the face of the amendment Which is now before the house. I cannot support an amendment of that kind and I shall state my reasons simply. I am no high tariff advocate, despite the gibes I sometimes receive from the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). But the House of Commons in which this government has a majority has been elected on a certain tariff policy. I do not think it is a policy of high tariffs.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is a matter of opinion and I am willing to discuss the question on almost any occasion as I have discussed it in the past. I think the essential purpose of the tariff is not to extend under all circumstances and conditions our purchases from foreign countries. If Canada is to be sustained as an independent nationality, developing from year to year and from century to century, it must in its present stage encourage the development of industry to the extent feasible for giving employment to the men, women and children of this Dominion. In so far as we deprive the people of Canada of employment for which they are suited, of employment in industry which is adapted to the conditions of this country and its northern climate, and facilitate the transfer of such employment to foreign countries, in just so far, in my opinion, is that policy antinational and prejudicial to the present and future development of our national life. The occasion, it seems to me, of the present commercial depression in Canada is that to too large an extent we have placed our wellbeing in the hands of and subject to the financial and commercial changes which take place in other countries over whose prosperity we have no control whatever. In so far as we make Canadian producers dependent at all times and under all conditions upon procuring abroad a market for their products, a market which is subject not only to financial depression but to every political whim and change of economic policy in those foreign countries,
in just so far are we giving hostages to fortune which this country cannot afford to give, and which we will not give if we adhere to a proper policy for our industrial and financial development.


Mr. VALLANCE:: May I ask a question?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not wish to be interrupted. If I have finished my remarks within forty minutes, I shall be prepared to answer any questions. I am simply stating my position. I do not contend we should undertake in Canada any industry which we are not reasonably prepared to carry on and develop. I repudiate the idea that, as has been suggested in the house, we are advocating a protective policy which tends to prohibit all interchange as between Canada and other nations, but I take the view that the government and the party supporting it have been elected on a pledge and platform that in so far as tariffs may encourage industries which are suited to the conditions and climate of this country, in so far will such industries, if they may reasonably be maintained here, be maintained under the tariff policy of this government. I know hon. gentlemen opposite are opposed to that. I have heard on every platform throughout Canada the suggestion that foreign trade is more advantageous to us than domestic trade. Canada would disappear as a country of fairly well-to-do people if we were to become a free trade nation under all conditions, at the present stage of our development. Every industry in which we are now engaged would be practically wiped out or would be subject to financial disaster if we were to adopt such a policy. Protection must be the policy of this country.


Mr. VENIOT:: I rise to a point of order.
Are we discussing the principles of tariff legislation or are we discussing this bill?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I think the
point raised by the hon. member is well founded, but before giving a ruling I should like to hear the hon. member (Mr. Cahan) on the point of order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am simply pointing out
to the house that this bill is for the appointment of a tariff board to report to the house upon tariffs, and I was developing the idea as to the relative positions of the parties on the question of tariffs, because this amendment is based solely on the view that the tariff board to be constituted shall represent the tariff policy of only one party; that in other words it shall be a partisan board. I was proceeding to state that such a partisan board could not properly function.
Tariff Board-Mr. Cahan


Peter John Veniot: It is no use discussing
tariff principles.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think the hon. member was just stating the preliminaries to his argument. I would ask him to confine himself to the motion before the chair; for the question of the tariff policy of the government has been discussed on the budget.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest to this house that the amendment is based on the idea that a partisan tariff policy is likely to be carried out under this bill which is now before the house, and I think I am quite as much in order, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman who preceded me. It is necessary to create a board which will be a fact-finding board, which will consistently and independently investigate the facts and conditions of which knowledge is necessary in order to enable the government to determine what the application of its tariff policy shall be with respect to certain commodities or certain industries. Instead of relying upon such speeches as that of the hon. member for Beauhamois (Mr. Raymond) the other day, it is necessary that we should have a tariff board which may ascertain the facts upon which the textile tariff is to be based in order to give reasonable protection to labour and industry in this country, and yet so framed as to prevent profiteering, to which I am as much opposed as any hon. gentleman on the other side of the house. Therefore I say that we must have a board upon whose findings of fact the government and the house may rely in initiating and carrying into effect the tariff policies of this country.
There is no objection to saying that this party xs a protectionist party. Of course it is. This party and this government were elected on the policy of protecting home industries to every reasonable extent, in order to encourage those industries, in order to increase employment in this country, and in order to promote and advance the national industrial and commercial life of Canada. If our tariff policy does not attain those ends the people of this country will turn this party out of office.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so, and what more do those hon. gentlemen opposite desire, who advocate entirely different policies? What more do they desire than that we should make errors in our fiscal policy? They will then publish those errors from one end of this country to the other. According to their idea, by passing this bill we are simply furnishing them with campaign propaganda for the next federal election. Well, we furnish it.

If we had not undertaken to carry into full effect our pledges and promises, despite the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite may differ from us in their opinion as to what those policies should be, they would be the first to rise in their seats, as member after member on the other side has already done, and accuse us of hypocrisy and deceit, and of not having the courage to carry into effect the policies which we placed before the country , at the last election. This government is going to cany out its pledges. It is prepared to stand or fall in this house or elsewhere upon a reasonable program of protection to the various industries of this country which is so framed as to prevent them from being driven to the wall either by sabotage of unfair competition or by the dumping of foreign products. Let gentlemen opposite accept the issue!
The government, in order to carry out its pledge, desires to be reliably informed by independent investigators with regard to essential facts. The hon. member for Hants-Kings is entirely in ei'ror, in so far as he suggests a subtle meaning to the terms of the proposed statute. This statute will not give an iota of authority to the tariff board to dictate or control the tariff policy of this country. I do not think that the tariff is such a partisan matter that it is impossible to obtain the services of members of a board who will be so free from party influences and who will appreciate to such an extent their high duties and their responsibility to this house and to the country, present and future, that they will make independent examinations and report the facts which must necessarily be ascertained in order to enable a government of either party to determine what increases or reductions should be made in the tariff. Therefore I am in favour of that board. So are hon. gentlemen opposite. But it must be a board of as independent a character and as independent in authority as it is possible for such a board to be. If this government proves incapable of appointing the proper personnel to that board, if the board functions hereafter as the partisan committee which hon. gentlemen opposite desire by this amendment, then this parliament will have ample cause seriously to object to the manner in which the board is functioning, and parliament must hold this government, and this party which supports this government, responsible therefor. But I have not so far lost faith in my fellow-countrymen as to believe that while we can procure competent men for appointment to high judicial positions, and men to accept appointments to high commissions

Tariff Board-Mr. Cahan
of state, we cannot find a sufficient number of men to fill the places on this board, who will act honestly and truthfully and conscientiously as a fact-finding commission. Such a board is necessary. I have listened to addresses in this house, in which alleged facts are assumed by members, reading from this or that document and drawing inferences from this or that statement. Such views, when expressed on either side of the house, are of no real value because those opinions are not based upon facts. I know something about the textile industry in my own province of Quebec.
Mr. ST-PERE:	I know something about
it, too.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not believe there is
any country in the world to-day where the operatives in the textile industry were better protected and received a higher wage and enjoyed a better standard of living, than they did in the province of Quebec up until the time of the depression in this industry about a year ago. I examined into the conditions, and I found that what was driving people out of employment in the very district which my hon. friend represents was the fact that cheaper labour was being employed in certain branches of the textile industry in the United States, and elsewhere, where, in addition, there were no proper regulations as to the hours of employment or the employment of children. They were using that labour to dump into the province of Quebec, chiefly through the city of Montreal and the city of Quebec, textile products which came into competition with ours and drove our textile operatives out of employment by the hundred. Is it not possible to find some men in this country who are so competent, who are sufficiently nonpartisan and sufficiently independent in character, who have had such expert experience in economic matters, that their report on such competitive conditions would be of advantage to the government and parliament? That is the aim of this bill.
I am not going to discuss any more details in connection with it; I shall not express my views as to whether the members of the board should be eligible as candidates at federal election. I am not going to discuss now to what extent the board should be allowed to receive in confidence the information given on oath before it. Every hon. member who has had any connection with industry knows that no company with regard to certain facts relating to its industry would give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, unless their evidence as to their own methods,
inventions and equipment were protected and treated as confidential. I am not going to make any observations concerning the question of patronage, as to whether or not the governor in council should appoint the, servants of the board. Those matters may be discussed subsequently. I shall not at this time state whether I think the commissioners should be appointed for ten or six years. They should be appointed for such a number of years however as would ensure the retaining of men of honest and conscientious minds, men with high qualifications who would leave their permanent employment to take positions on the board. They must be men who have had wide experience, and unless there is a certain stability to the term of their employment we will not be able to secure the services of such highly qualified men for service on the board. For those reasons I am not going to state whether they should be employed for a presidential term and a half, as is done in the United States. In that country, where the presidential term is only four years, they are appointed for six years. I am not going to say whether in Canada they should be appointed for seven or ten years, as compared with our parliamentary term of five years. I do not think, that such men of character, experience, judicial qualifications, and of scrupulous and conscientious conduct need necessarily fear that they would be, subject to the partisan influence of any government or of any political party.
This bill represents an earnest effort to take the ascertaining of facts with respect to industry in its relation to tariff out of the realm of mere political opinion and political controversy. If the new board is a failure the government must take the entire responsibility therefor, and it must take full responsibility for every specific tariff item which it brings before the house as the result of the investigations of the board.
I repudiate the idea that the board which will be constituted under the proposed statute will control the tariff of this country. Certainly it would not control my vote either as a member of the government or as a member of this house, and I am sure there are other hon. members of the government and hon. members in the house who will take exactly the same position. We are anxious however to ascertain the facts upon which proper and reasonable judgment may be based.
The amendment constitutes a vote of want of confidence in the government. While recognizing the necessity for a tariff board it recommends that such tariff board shall be

Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
a partisan committee of one political party, and nothing else. That is an amendment to which I am entirely opposed. I believe that as a government we must go on and carry into effect the tariff policy of this country. If we do not carry into effect the views which we expressed in the last election campaign, we are to be condemned. If we do not do so, we will prejudice the best interests of our people and preclude the development of our industrial life. If we fail the people of this country will withdraw their confidence from this government and elect my hon. friends opposite to carry out any policy which is suitable to their fancy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before moving the adjournment of the debate I should like to congratulate my hon. friend who has just spoken upon saving this House of Commons from losing something of its character as a deliberative assembly. Although many speeches have been made from this side of the house in reference to the important matter now before it, until my hon. friend spoke no one on the other side had ventured after the amendment had been moved to make the slightest contribution to the debate. I recall that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when in opposition remarked on more than one occasion that debate on important questions was essential and that it was desirable that both sides of an argument should be presented. Whether the excellent speech delivered by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) was so effective that no hon. gentleman on the other side was prepared to reply until the hon. member who has just spoken came to the rescue, or whether the Prime Minister had passed out the word that it was to be on his ipse dixit and on nothing else that the measure should pass, I cannot say. At any rate, the hon. member (Mr. Cahan) did at last make some contribution to the debate, and I must thank him for so doing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why cannot the right
hon. gentleman be fair with the hon. member who has just spoken? I would remind my right hon. friend that the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) was on his feet when the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) caught Mr. Speaker's eye. At the first opportunity the hon. Secretary of State replied. I wonder why my right hon. friend cannot be fair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am giving my hon. friend the whole credit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not have a chance to speak before. Remarks such as that by my right hon. friend are the things which disgrace institutions of this nature.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Don't be so
cross.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not. I repeat that that is the sort of thing that disgraces parliament.


Ernest Lapointe: What a spectacle!


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, what a spectaclemaking statements which are absolutely incorrect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is what my right hon. friend is doing just now which makes the whole thing ridiculous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It certainly does.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It certainly
does; we are in agreement at last.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Cheapening the whole
institution of parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wonder if
my right hon. friend is through muttering and mumbling.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. The right hon. gentleman has made two statements neither of which was founded on fact. I say that anyone occupying a position of trust should be a little careful of the truth.
In the first place he said no hon. member on this side of the house rose to reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Hants-Kings, and that no reply was made. May I state to him that the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) rose in his place intending to reply. However the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) caught the eye of Mr. Speaker, and proceeded to make her remarks. When she had resumed her seat another hon. member caught Mr. Speaker's eye. I asked my friend the Secretary of State to reply, but he did not have an opportunity. A statement such as that by my right hon. friend, which anyone could see was not correct, is not calculated to enhance deliberative debate upon any subject.


Ernest Lapointe: Point of order 1 What
a spectacle!	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid I hardly see my hon. friend's point of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not expect he
would.

Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But I am prepared to make all due allowance for his nervousness and irritation at this time. We have had a taste of it ever since he introduced his budget resolutions. I can imagine what he is going through as a result of representations from all quarters, and I believe the house generally will recognize that we have to allow a little latitude to his petulance at times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very cheap-and thoroughly in keeping with the right hon. gentleman's failing. I have not asked for sympathy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my right
hon. friend going to allow me to speak or does he intend to continue to mumble and growl?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will say this to the
right hon. gentleman. I have not asked for sympathy, neither will I seek it; but this I will say, that it is not unknown to me that hon. gentlemen opposite have made boasts that they would wear me out with hard work. I have known of those boasts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me assure my right hon. friend that none of us wish to wear him out. He it was who s*id: "I will perish in the attempt."


Richard Bedford Bennett: So I will.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We propose to allow him, as we have up to the present, the fullest latitude. The more latitude he takes the further astray he goes. None of us desire to curb him in any way. Do not let him imagine that for a moment.
One other word-a word of congratulation to the member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) upon the very excellent speech he made in replying to the Prime Minister. As I listened to his convincing arguments-to which no one attempted to make reply until the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George did so-1 could not help recalling an oft quoted line which appears in one of Cicero's orations: Magna vis veritatis quae facile se per se ipsa defendat. In other words: Great is the power of truth, which of itself so easily defends itself. The arguments which the hon. gentleman presented with such conviction and such force are so conclusive that anyone who reads his speech will say: The truth there speaks for itself and needs little further in the way of defence. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It being six o'clock, and
it being private members' hour from eight to nine o'clock, and as a large number of members have left, especially-shall I say?-those of the opposition, to go to Montreal-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I am told that a
large number have left the house. If the right hon. gentleman prefers, the debate can be adjourned and at nine o'clock we will take up supply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my
right hon. friend for the suggestion he has made. To my mind this is perhaps the most important measure that will be before the house, apart from the resolutions on the budget, and I think it would be advisable to have a full attendance when it is being further debated.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe I
have expressed the wish not only of those who at the moment are absent but of some also who are present. I think it would be preferable to go on with supply this evening and resume this debate at some other time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It rests entirely with my right hon. friend. If he will move the adjournment of the debate we will resume it on Monday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move the adjournment of the debate. What supply will be taken up?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Immigration would like to go on with his supply to-night, if he could, in view of the fact that he is on that important committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What other supply will
be taken up?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Trade
and Commerce might like to go on with his; if not, the Minister of National Defence, it was said last night, would like to go on with his estimates.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (for Mr. Dorion) moved the third reading of Bill No. 77, respecting the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river between the Island of Orleans and the coast of Beaupre, in the province of Quebec
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would point out that this i3 a private bill.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Is there any objection to the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) sponsoring the bill instead of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion)?
Mr. LaVERGNE: I object, Mr. Speaker; 1 have an amendment to propose.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Gagnon for Mr. Dorion moves that Bill No. 77, respecting the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river between the Island of Orleans and the coast of Beaupre, in the province of Quebec, be now read a third time.
Mr. LaVERGNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my objection is that a private bill oannot be moved by anyone but the hon. member himself.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The practice is that when an hon. member says he is authorized to act for the sponsor of a bill, the house accepts his statement and the bill is proceeded with.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I have no objection if the hon. member will consent to my amendment, but I gave notice of it only to-day. I move:
That the said bill be referred to the committee of the whole with instructions to amend it by adding the following clause:
3. No toll can be charged for the usage of said bridge to any vehicle drawn by animal or motor traction, or for its usage by passengers on foot or on horseback, or carried on any of the above mentioned vehicles.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Standing Order 113
states:
No important amendment may be proposed to any private bill, in a committee of the whole house, or at the third reading of the bill, unless one day's notice of the same has been given.
Unless one day's notice has been given the amendment cannot be received.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I understand that I am not in order, but the moving of the third reading is not in order either. That is why I asked a moment ago that the bill should stand.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In my opinion the third reading is quite in order.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 65, for t'he relief of Carl Vohwinkel. -Mr. Stirling (for Mr. Be'll, St. Antoine).
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Lillian Freedman Guttman.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Mary Ann Ventura.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Beatrice Marie Dumaresq.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of William Henry Rees.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Emily Hughes Maceuloeh.

Mr. Stirling (for Mr. Bell, St. Antoine).
On division.
, soldiers' Am SOCIETY
Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (for Mr. Dorion) moved the second reading of Bill No. 95, to incorporate the Soldiers' Aid Society.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GAGNON:: Mr. Speaker, I believe
an explanation was given on the first reading of this bill, but I might say that it is a bill to grant eartain privileges to' certain promoters. I have been instructed to ask this house to send the bill before a committee for further consideration.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to oppose the second reading of this bill, which is by no means as innocent as it looks. We have heard about wolves in sheep's clothing, and this is another instance. Ostensibly the bill is to incorporate The Soldiers' Aid Society. That sounds very beautiful, but if the bill is studied it will be found that the amount of money which will go to the soldier? will be but a small portion of that collected from the people of Canada. There might be no objection to clause 1, 2 and 3, but clause 4 gives an indication of the powers asked for. It reads as follows:
The society shall, under the provisions of this act, have power throughout Canada, subject to the approval of the attorney general of each province:
(a)	to promote the welfare of the Canadian veterans of the great war;
(b)	to print, establish, distribute and offer for sale lottery tickets, and grant prizes in cash to the winners thereof, notwithstanding any provision of the criminal code, chapter thirty-six of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, or any other statute of Canada, and, incidental and auxiliary thereto, to acquire property, printing presses and generally to engage in the printing business.
Section 7 reads as follows:
The net profits shall be distributed on the following basis; eighty-two per cent to be

Private Bills
distributed to the various veteran organizations in Canada, with the proviso that they shall take care of other veterans, who are not members of any organization. The remaining eighteen per cent shall be used by the society for administration purposes.
A short time ago a similar bill was before the other house and was defeated by a considerable majority. I think that house in so acting did itself credit and spoke the mind and will of the people of Canada. I am quite certain that when the true nature of this bill is brought to the attention of this house the support it will receive will be very meagre indeed.
I do not believe that the people of Canada have come to the position where it is necessary to depend upon the gambling instincts of the people in order to support the returned soldiers. We went into the war pledged to give the last man and the last dollar to the winning of the war. I am prepared as a member of this house to pledge all the resources of Canada in order that those who suffered and sacrificed in the great war may receive their just deserts, but I am not prepared to sacrifice the moral well being of the people of Canada for that purpose. I do not think the soldiers expect that that should be done.
I understand that the procedure in the case of a private bill is that on the second reading it is sent to the proper committee unless there is objection to the principle. I object strenuously to the principle of this bill and I oppose its second reading. I am satisfied that when the vote is taken this measure will be overwhelmingly defeated and we will hear nothing more about it.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montmagny): Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the principle of this bill, but my character may not be of the high quality of that of the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Brown). I agree with him that we are not treating our soldiers fairly, and unfortunately many of them have to live upon public charity. In order to give relief to the returned men it may be necessary some day to introduce a bill of this character, but it should be introduced by the Canadian Legion or some similar body. I know for a fact that the returns received from the army and navy veterans' sweepstakes in Quebec have been supporting the families of many soldiers. I am not opposed to lotteries, because I do not think there is anything very immoral in risking a dollar, even though one may not receive a fair return for the gamble, if it is desired to call it a gamble. I do not suppose 22110-197
that the welfare of the country will be endangered by any lottery of that description, but this bill contains a radically vicious principle. As long- as our criminal code remains as it is and is not amended, lotteries are prohibited, with only two exceptions, the Art Union of London, England, and the Art Union of Ireland, and I am certainly opposed to a private bill being introduced to permit something that is prohibited by the criminal code. This bill is introduced with the intention of giving to a certain class of citizens of this country, a so-called soldiers' aid society, the power to do what is prohibited by the criminal code. They are proceeding in the wrong way. The first thing to do would be to amend the criminal code and then to ask for the passage of a bill of this nature. Therefore, until the criminal code is amended in this regtard, I deem it my duty to oppose this bill on principle on the second reading.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I take somewhat the same stand as that taken by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), although from a rather different angle. I have no particular objection to lotteries or raffles, except that I never win anything at them- possibly that is the source of my objection'- but I rather disagree with the hon. member for Lisgar when he says he thinks he speaks the mind and will of the people. I believe at the present moment it would be popular to pass an act legitimatizing lotteries; that is the mind of the people of Canada at the present day. There are various reasons; they have burned their fingers in the stock market, land booms and oil booms, and now, with the proverbial propensity of people to gamble, they are proposing to gamble in this way. A number of winning tickets have been taken recently in Canada in some of the big world sweepstakes, and that has turned the public mind in that direction. That does not necessarily mean that because this is popular for the moment we should do what in our judgment is not in the best interest of the country. That is the way I look at the matter. I do not believe it would be to the ultimate benefit of the people of Canada.
The hon. member for Lisgar has referred to the bill which was defeated in the upper house. It was confined to lotteries on behalf of hospitals, and I think almost every hospital in British Columbia telegraphed or wrote to the members representing that province in support of that bill, possibly because they saw an immediate means of relieving them of what is very often a distressful task, that of raising money. Had that bill come to the House of Commons, I should have opposed it because

Private Bills

I do not think it would have been ultimately a success. If you are going to allow this sort of thing for a hospital or, in this case, for what is at least alleged to foe for the benefit of soldiers, you have to allow it for other purposes equally worthy. If you do not do so, the law will be ignored anyway, because there will be a sort of moral justification for doing so. That leads you on a little further until you have lotteries galore, when every little village, will be getting up a lottery for some purpose, all more or less worthy. I do not like the way in which this bill is drafted. It says it is to promote the welfare of Canadian veterans of the great war. That of course is desirable, but not by way of a lottery. As the hon. member for Lisgar says, I do not think we, have to come down to that in order to promote their welfare. Then clause 7 provides:
The net profits shall be distributed on the following basis; 82 per cent to be distributed to the various veteran organizations in Canada, with the proviso that they shall take care of other veterans, who are not members of any organization.
That seems rather a peculiar provision to insert. They are not compelled to take care of their own veterans, but they must take care of other veterans who are not members of their own organization. That is rather unhappily worded.
Unlimited lotteries would lead to abuses we do not now foresee, and I have under my hand a couple of instances which illustrate this. A day or two ago a daily paper carried a column under the heading "Lottery swindle nipped in the bud by United States police". To put it shortly, in Boston they had a scheme by which they were going to rob the people of Canada and Mexico to the extent of $2,500,000 a week. They had a fake Irish Free State sweepstate; they had printed forged tickets and they were getting ready to sell them at the rate of that value a week. The article says that the man proposed to issue 1,000,000 tickets weekly; the first batch of tickets selling at $2.50 each had been distributed already. How many people would have been absolutely stung because no prizes were going to be distributed at all? A great deal more of that sort of thing would take place and that would lead ultimately to people turning away in disgust against the whole principle of these things. They would find so much illegal action going on they would discount the whole thing, and the hospitals, which by that time would be dependent upon that source, would be left in the lurch.
I have another instance which I might give. Before I left home, in the backwoods of
[Mr. Neiil.)
British Columbia, someone brought me a book of sweepstake tickets that had been sent to him to sell. It was some sweepstake in Quebec and he asked me to find out about it. It appeared to be all right, but he was a little doubtful. I made fairly diligent inquiry among Quebec members, lawyers and so forth and not one of them had heard of that lottery. It was being sold in remote places, being apparently another instance of the kind which was discovered in Boston.
I am not opposing this from a religious point of view, but I do not think it is good policy for the people of Canada to embark on it. As we have the object lesson of the upper chamber turning down another similar bill, limited I think to one province, I do not believe it would be wise on our part to go ahead at this late stage of the session and pass this bill to-night.
Motion negatived.



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 98, respecting a certain patent application of Emma E. Tait.-Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 99, respecting the Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company.-Mr. Black (Halifax).

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
The house again in committee on Bill No. 33, to amend the Companies Act (Auditors). -Mr. Hackett.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like this bill
to stand. The Secretary of State is dealing with certain amendments to the Companies Act, and this may be incorporated therein.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Stands.



BANK ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River) moved the second reading of Bill No. 49, to amend the Bank Act.
Hugh Guthrie: Explain.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It should not be necessary for me to have to say anything in support of this bill. As we are all aware, the Bank Act as it stands, by subsection 1 of section 91, limits to 7 per cent the rate of interest which a bank may charge on loans. This may be the practice of the banks in central Canada and in the far eastern parts of this country, but in most of western Canada, on

Bank Act
account of the fact that there is no penalty clause, this provision of the Bank Act has been very largely ignored and rates of eight and sometimes nine per cent, and even as high as ten per cent have been charged. Needless to say, no business, and particularly that of agriculture, can possibly continue with such a high rate of interest being charged, and for that reason I have introduced this bill calling for a penalty to be inserted for violation of the provisions of section 91, penalizing either the bank or its officials if the law is broken in the future.
To give a few figures to show how this provision of the Bank Act is being ignored, I may say that 134 places in Alberta were canvassed, and at 105 of these places 8 per cent was being charged. At every other place, with one exception where less than 8 per cent was being charged, the rate was higher than 8 per cent, and in some cases ran as high as 10 per cent. The same story is true with regard to Saskatchewan. Of 79 places that were canvassed, 8 per cent was being charged at 53 places, and in all the others-with one exception, where 7 per cent was called for- a higher rate than 8 per cent was called for. It is quite unnecessary for me to point out how unfair it is for the banks of this country to charge these exorbitant rates of interest contrary to the law as defined in the Bank Act.
I might add that no sooner had I placed my bill on the order paper than I received considerable correspondence from all over Canada, supporting the bill which is now before the house. I shall not bother the house with reading them all, but I should like to quote from one which I think is well worth reading because it comes from a board of trade and is so wholeheartedly in favour of the bill which is now before us. It comes from the Indian Head Board of Trade, and reads:
At a meeting of our board held yesterday, a hearty endorsation of your move to have the limitation of bank interest enforced at 7 per cent was fully approved by all members.
I was instructed to write you and congratulate you on bringing down a bill of such far-reaching importance particularly to the west.
We wish you every success in this matter, and sincerely trust you will be able to make it effective.	_
We are quite sure it will meet with the entire approval and support of everyone in the west.
Yours sincerely,
Guy Watson,
Secretary, Board of Trade.
With these few words, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the house to give this bill very sympathetic consideration and support.
22110-197i


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: It should not be necessary for any member of this house to say anything in support of * measure of this kind. Its purpose is simply to make effective the original intention of parliament with respect to that clause in the-Bank Act which limits the maximum rate of interest which may be charged to seven per cent. There is no doubt in the world that parliament intended that the banks should not be permitted, under any consideration, to charge a higher rate of interest than seven per cent, but by taking advantage of technicalities the banks have been deliberately ignoring that clause of the act and have been charging in western Canada rates as high as eight and ten per cent. I know there is a common argument-I have read it many times in the press since this bill was introduced into the house-that if one places any restriction on the banks, it will curtail the amount of money available for loans, and that therefore the very people who are supposed to be helped will automatically be injured. That is an old, old argument. It was used years ago against the factory acts in England, and against practically every other reform since. I will say frankly that if a farmer cannot secure money as cheap as seven per cent, he had better not borrow at all. The bank would be doing him a kindness to refuse him a loan at a higher rate of interest. But in most cases the money is borrowed at eight per cent. That is the case in my constituency to a large extent. When a farmer who has borrowed money from a bank happens to have a bad crop and cannot pay off his indebtedness, his note is renewed at as high a rate as 10 per cent. There are many farmers in my constituency who have second mortgages on their farms to-day, which were given to the banks to secure a bank loan which the farmer was unable to meet, and these mortgages bear a rate of 10 per cent. In ordinary times, or even when business is buoyant and prices of farm commodities are reasonably high, no farmer can possibly pay off loans at such a rate as that, and at the present time, with conditions as they are, it simply means that any little equity the farmer may have in his chattels and land is absorbed. We may as well recognize and face this issue. I think in the end it will be a good thing for the banks themselves to have this provision enforced because I believe the fact that they have been permitted to charge these high rates of interest in western Canada has induced them to take chances which they should not take. They have loaned money to people to whom they should not have
Bank Act

loaned it, and for purposes for which bank money should not be loaned. It seems to me that the only effect this bill would have would be to make the banks more careful to make sure when they do loan money that the risk is a good one and that the money is to be used for proper purposes.
Of course, we shall be told that a farmer or a business man should not borrow money at these rates. But the banks are in control of the funds, and very often a farmer or business man finds at a particular time that he cannot get along without a loan, and when the money is available there is a temptation to borrow more than one really needs. But if the banks were restricted to charging a maximum of seven per cent, they would not have the margin they now have to play on at high rates of interest, and they would be very much more careful in making loans. So I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the passing of thi3 bill, thereby carrying out the original intention of parliament in this regard, would be a good thing for the banks themselves.


Mr. J. E. LAWSON (West York):: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot support this bill, because I must confess that the extremity of its provisions shocks my sense of proportion. I am indeed very sympathetic with what has been said by hon. members from western Canada in regard to farmers being charged excessive rates of interest for loans, but the Bank Act already contains a provision which puts a limitation on the rate which may be charged upon such loans. By this bill I contend that its sponsor proposes to take away from the field of civil law the provision which is now in the Bank Act as a safeguard against the exaction of exorbitant rates of interest. If the bank commits a breach of that provision of the act, the bill makes that breach a criminal offence, and not merely a criminal offence, but a very serious criminal offence, because the bill provides that it shall be an indictable offence, and the penalties prescribed are indeed heavy.


Mr. ERNST:: Is it not a form of theft?


James Earl Lawson: I think not. I suggest that it is in no sense a form of theft, for this reason: The essence of theft is that I must take from you without your knowledge and by some surreptitious means that to which I am not entitled. I do not see how a bank, through its agent or manager who sits down to negotiate with some person desiring a loan and makes a contract for such loan, can by any stretch of the imagination be considered to be indulging in any form of theft.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I suggest that the hold-up man does not use surreptitious means.


James Earl Lawson: My hon. friend from
Winnipeg North Centre is indeed keen in debate, and particularly agile mentally when he raises another contention which is beside the point I am arguing. True, the hold-up man does not use surreptitious means. His actions are those of duress, violence, or subjection of the person from whom he takes the money.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is my point.


James Earl Lawson: Now, I hope my hon. friend will not rise and tell me that that is exactly what the banks are doing, only that they are acting with a little more finesse. If my hon. friend was going to make that suggestion, I am pleased to say that I am ahead of him.
May I ask hon. members to go back for a moment to the inherent right of individuals, and in a moment I shall deal with the rights of corporations. I think we may all agree that inherently every individual has the right to make a bargain or a contract with any other individual as a matter of business relations. True, in the public interest parliament finds it necessary from time to time to interfere with that inherent right or freedom of bargaining. Parliament exercised that right in the case of those people who were exacting usurious interest, and to prevent a recurrence the Interest Act was passed by this dominion parliament. Unless however some great social wrong or injustice is being done I am unable to appreciate where there is any justification in this parliament or any other legislative body placing restrictions upon ordinary business contracts and relationships, although I confess there is a tremendous tendency in modern times so to do.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the hon. member
allow me to-


James Earl Lawson: I did not interrupt my
hon. friend when he was speaking.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: Will the hon. member allow a question?


James Earl Lawson: I shall, when I have
finished what I have to say.
Because parliament confers upon a corporation such as a bank which, in its final analysis is a creature of the statute of parliament, certain rights and privileges, we say to that corporation, "If you are to exercise these rights and privileges we will restrict to some extent your operations". With that in view we say we have the right to restrict the amount of interest which shall be charged. The statute

Bank Act
already provides that an amount of interest in excess of 7 per cent is not recoverable and cannot be recovered by a bank through the judgment of any court of law. I am not so much opposed if the sponsor of this bill thinks it might be advantageous to those whom he desires to benefit, to have the word "recoverable" changed to "charged", but for the life of me I cannot see any justification in legislating against one particular class of corporation, merely because that corporation is engaged in a certain class of business. To my mind it is not fair to constitute, as a criminal offence any action taken by a bank which would not be criminal if taken by any other corporation or by an individual. To my mind such legislation is the rankest kind of discrimination. The sooner we get away from discriminatory and paternal legislation in our parliament the better it will be for the business of Canada.
Now I am ready for any questions my hon. friends may wish to ask.


James Herbert Stitt: I had not intended at this time to speak in the house on this matter. But let me say that although the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Lawson) is on the same side of the house as I am, I disagree with him absolutely and fundamentally. I think, Mr. Speaker, that there are occasions when onerous contracts are entered into which certainly ought if possible to be prevented by parliament. I know in the constituency I represent the rate of interest is far too high, and if conditions continue as they are the interest will never be recovered. I was amazed at the illuminating information which was presented to the house by the hon. member who sponsored the bill. May I say at this point that I support the bill and I hope it will pass the house. I believe if it does pass it will be real and substantial evidence that we realize the situation in which the western farmer is placed at the present time. The gentleman who headed the firm in the city of Winnipeg with which I was articled as a law student said that he did not believe there ever was a dollar made that was worth more than 7 per cent interest-. I agree heartily with that gentleman's statement. To my mind, in view of the decrease in the price of commodities a reduction in the rate of interest to 6 per cent would be quite in keeping. For these reasons I heartily support the bill.


Mr. FRANKLIN SMOKE (Brant):: I agree with some of the statements made in support of the bill, and also with some of the remarks
of the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson). I do not like the penal clauses in the bill. In place of those Clauses I would suggest the provision should be made that any bank making a contract containing an interest rate higher than 7 per cent should not be in a position to recover on such contract.


James Earl Lawson: That is already in the act.


Franklin Smoke: If the bill receives second reading it should receive it only on condition that the committee to which the bill is referred shall have the privilege of recommending changes along the line I have suggested, or along some other line.


Edward Joseph Garland: That may be done when it is referred to the banking and commerce committee.
Hon. RAYMOND D. MORAND (East Essex):	One must sympathize with the
sponsor of the bill when the fact is realized that the maximum rate of interest has been stipulated by statute. To my mind however the chief trouble does not lie in the rate of interest charged because the contract wherein the interest charge appears is made between the man borrowing and the man lending. There should be and I think there is a big difference between the rate originally charged and the rate charged when a loan is renewed. When the bank takes advantage of the fact that the man is unable to pay his loan and tries to charge a higher rate of interest than is covered by the contract, and he not being able to borrow the money from other quarters is forced to renew his loan at a higher rate, I certainly think the bank is at fault and I have a great deal of sympathy for the borrower. I believe if the sponsors of the bill had made some change whereby the rate of renewal should not exceed the primary rate, which after all is 7 per cent in the Bank Act, they would accomplish the purpose they have in view and it would not be necessary to include in the bill such severe penalties.


Milton Neil Campbell: Might I suggest that
the real object of the bill is to carry out the original intention of parliament under the Bank Act?


Mr. MORAND:: At the present time it is quite evident in the Bank Act that more than 7 per cent is not recoverable.
Bank Act


Milton Neil Campbell: But the fact is that
the banks by a technicality ignore that provision of the act. No rate of interest is mentioned on the note, the bank claims it has discounted the note, and we find that we have no recourse under this clause in the Bank Act.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: That is something new
so far as I am concerned. On all the notes I have ever signed-and I have signed a good many-the rate of interest was always stated; in many cases it was printed on the face of the note. That is why I referred to the fact that if on your first borrowing the interest is defiinitely stated on the note, it is purely a matter of contract between the bank and the borrower. I should feel much more inclined to support the bill if it were a question of renewal instead of the original loan.


Edward Joseph Garland: Let the bill go to the banking and commerce committee.


Mr. M. J. MALONEY (South Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, I think the present is a dangerous time to interfere with our banking institutions. They may be good, or they may be bad, nevertheless when the time of stress comes we all have to resort more or less to the banks to help us through.


An hon. MEMBER:: Mostly more.


Martin James Maloney: They have their good
times; perhaps to-day they are not so good. But if at the present time Canada is financially sound, I for one feel that we may thank our banking institutions for that very desirable condition. I cannot see why we should now seek to amend an act which has been in force for so many years. True, 9 per cent may be too high a rate of interest. The usury rate is supposed to be 12 per cent, but in my experience I have never heard of a bank charging such a rate of interest.


An hon. MEMBER:: They used to charge 24 per cent in the Yukon.


Martin James Maloney: I never lived in the
Yukon. I think it would be well to defer consideration of this matter for a year or two. We all know that the banks are passing through a crisis, just the same as the rest of us are. The banks may have charged too high a rate of interest in some cases, but we in our turn may have charged more than was proper in connection with some of our transactions. For my part I cannot see my way clear to support the bill at the present time.
(Mr. Morand.)


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr Speaker, it does seem to me a startling proposition to attempt to make a purely civil transaction an indictable offence.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no doubt that the sponsor of this bill is influenced by the very best of motives and feels that conditions in his part of the country justify him in proposing legislation of this character. But to say that if on a private contract, purely legal on its face, a bank goes beyond a certain well-defined limitation-which in itself is not a high rate of interest-it should be guilty of an indictable offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 seems to me hard to justify. But the penalty does not stop there. The section continues:
-and everyone who, being a director, manager or officer of any hank, violates the said provisions shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
That certainly is very radical and drastic legislation, and of a class and character which I do not think any member of this house after giving the matter his calm judgment would care to see put upon the statute books of this country. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he withdraw the bill in view of the fact that the Bank Act will in the ordinary course of events be revised in the next two years. If I recall correctly, he was a member of the banking and commerce committee when the Bank Act was last revised, and. at that time matters germane to the subject matter of this bill were under discussion. A change was made in the provisions of the act whereby it was provided that no matter what rate might ibe charged .on the face of a bill or a contract anything exceeding 7 per cent would not be recoverable in any action. I think the conditions have not materially changed since the banking and commerce committee refused to go as far as he desired, and that therefore the necessity for this bill does not exist. I can well sympathize with anyone who is desirous of legislating against usury, but I do not consider that any case of a usurious nature has been made out. There may be exceptional cases which the hon. gentleman seeks to deal with, but he should not predicate general legislation of this character upon isolated instances, and I think he would be well advised to withdraw the bill.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will now proceed to government orders.

Supply-National Defence

The house in committee of supply, Mr. La-Vergne in the chair.
NATIONAL DEFENCE Topographic survey, $45,000.


Charles A. Stewart: Is it the
intention of the minister in any way to extend the topographic survey branch of the department? I ask the question because there are so many topographic surveyors formerly of the Department of the Interior who are out of positions.


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: That question has not been considered as yet. The estimate for this year has not been increased.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is there any hope of the present administration fusing together the topographic survey services of the various departments? I find that at least three or four different departments conduct separate topographical work, and I rather imagine that a good deal of economy could be effected and perhaps a great deal of overlapping avoided if all this work were under one department. This is a peculiar kind of work, which would lend itself to centralization, and I am satisfied that the department would find the work done very well by the present topographical branch of the Department of the Interior, which I think is the largest of the various branches carrying on that work. Has the minister considered this matter, and is there any prospect that the government will bring about a coordination of the different topographical services?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The matter is under consideration, and before next year I hope it will receive very thorough consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Naval service: to provide for the maintenance of the ships and establishments of the naval service, including the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve and the Roval Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, $3,375,000.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I think
it was the policy of the department to have two sloops built for the navy. Is there any amount in this appropriation either for one or both of those sloops?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, there is no appropriation for that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
are two destroyers in England now, are there not?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: They are on the
water now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Fully
equipped?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Fully equipped.


Mr. HANBURY:: Perhaps the minister
would explain the reduction in this item.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This item has been kept up because of the construction of the two new destroyers, the Saguenay and the Skeena. There is not as much due for that construction account this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-civil pensions, $2,645.42.
Wilfred Hanbury: I notice one pension here to Arnold Truman Townsend, which is decreased by half. What is the reason for that?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This decrease of $420 is due to provision having been made in 1930-31 for pension covering two years.


Peter John Veniot: The regular pension is $420 and it is back to that now?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Aviation-training; all expenses in connection with the general maintenance of the air force, including training personnel for civil air operations and provision of necessary facilities therefor, $2,266,000.
Peter John Veniot: Would the minister explain the reason for the decrease of $244,000?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: New aircraft purchases and new construction have been reduced to a minimum, thus enabling this reduction to be made in the estimates. The work to be done at Trenton this year consists mainly of completing construction already commenced to the stage where it will be protected from the weather; grading, drainage, water supply and so on.


Peter John Veniot: Does this include any
amount for the lighting of air mail routes?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No; that comes
under item 160, as my hon. friend will see.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Have any new planes been purchased since the government took office?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes; four months ago we bought twenty Fleet planes and six Bellancas.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Is it a fact that these planes were bought from the Consolidated Aircraft Company?
Supply-National Defence


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No; they were
bought from the Fleet Aircraft Corporation and the Bellanca Company.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Where are these planes made?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The Fleet planes are made at Fort Erie, while the Bellanca planes are being made in Montreal by the Vickers people, for the Bellanca company.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Is not the Fleet Aircraft Company an American corporation?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, not the Canadian part of it. Originally, of course, the Fleet company was an American corporation, but these planes were made by the Canadian company, and they fully complied with the Canadian content requirement.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Is it not a fact that in the past, and until the present government took office, the policy was to purchase Moths, Avro-Avians and Curtiss-Reid planes? Has that policy been changed?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The government
never had a definite policy which was restricted to any particular type of plane. They buy, after examination and report by the airmen and air engineers, the types most desirable for the use to which they are to be put.


Ross Wilfred Gray: When was the plant opened in Fort Erie?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I do not think it was very long ago; probably not over a year. The order we gave last spring was the first order given by the government to this company.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Is it not a fact that this company only assembles planes for an American corporation?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, that is not the case. We went into that very carefully; to be very frank, when the planes of this new company were brought to the notice of the department we were chary of giving support to a new airplane company in the. country. Some of our men were sent to Fort Erie particularly to look into that point and to see what was done in the way of manufacturing planes, as to whether they had the proper Canadian content. Our men were fully convinced that they could do the work properly, with Canadian workmen and at least over 50 per cent Canadian content.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I am glad to hear that statement by the minister, but I would like to know if he can tell me whether or not the British ministry have changed their policy in 
any particular with respect to the use of the Moth and Avro-Avian planes. It is my information that Moths and the Avro-Avians have been used by the British ministry for the purposes for which this ministry is using them, and that in the past we have also bought those planes. The Avro-Avian, as the minister knows, is assembled here by the Ottawa Car Company, while the Moth is assembled by the de Havilland Corporation of Toronto. Unless the minister can give a good reason for not continuing the use of machines manufactured by British corporations it would seem apparent that a change of policy has been made. If my memory serves me aright, the Fleet company is one of the corporations mentioned by the Prime Minister in his budget speech as being one of the new corporations which had come to Canada since this government came into power. It is all very well for these American companies to come to Canada but if that move is made at the expense of our British and Canadian firms who are forced to close up shop, as is virtually the case with respect to the de Havilland and Vickers companies, then I do not think the ministry should purchase planes which are practically of American manufacture. In spite of what the minister has said, I think there has been a change of policy and that this government is not following the custom adopted by the late government, nor is it following the custom of the British Air Ministry which has pioneered this whole situation since the war. I suggest that the minister should not patronize to such an extent what are in reality American corporations.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: In the first place, I do not admit that this company is any more American in nature than are some of the others. The hon. member is interested in aviation and if he would get in touch with some of our aviators at Camp Borden or with some of the officials out at Rockcliffe, I am sure that they would convince him of the wisdom of using Fleet aeroplanes. This machine corresponds more or less to the Tom Tit machine used in England. Those machines cost about $15,000, whereas this one costs about one third of that amount. I have no desire to turn myself into an advertising agency for any particular aeroplane company, but it has been the consensus of our people that we should have some of these aeroplanes for certain duties.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Will the minister assure the committee that the Fleet aeroplane is actually manufactured at Fort Erie?

Supply-National Defence


Donald Matheson Sutherland: To over 50 per cent content. The manager is a gentleman named Sanderson, a Canadian flier who was at one time at the London airport.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Who is the president of that company?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I could not tell that to my hon. friend.


Ross Wilfred Gray: How many men do they employ?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have not that information.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister assures the committee that the fifty per cent content applies to these machines; I assume the balance comes from the United States?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: As is the case with automobiles.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I have received quite a number of applications from young students residing in and out of my county asking me the qualifications necessary and the examinations to be undergone in order to join the Canadian air force. If the minister has not this information at hand, would he be good enough to send me a memorandum on the matter?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Apparently every
young fellow in the country wants to get into the air force. It is phenomenal the number of boys applying for entry to this service, but in each case I have been forced to say that there was little chance for the time being of their getting in. I will send my hon. friend the information he desires.


Eugène Fiset: Will the hon.
minister send me the same information for the civil as well as the military service?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Mr. McINTOSH:: To what does the minister attribute this rush of applications?


An hon. MEMBER:: Unemployment.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The fascination of
the air for a young fellow. He sees a machine going through the air and he wants to be in it, whereas in the old days he wanted to be an outlaw.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They want a job, do
they not?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: They are not averse to obtaining a job, but I do not think that is the main reason.


Eugène Fiset: I think the minister is quite right. The reason I have received so many applications is that a landing field has been built at Rimouski.


Wilfred Hanbury: I think the country
would be interested in having an explanation from the minister as to why there should be a reduction in the personnel of this service.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This item is closely connected with the following item, civil ail-operations. As the hon. member knows, the personnel of the civil air operations is taken from the Royal Canadian Air Force. Those operations have been cut down this year to a certain extent and some of the personnel have been let go.


Wilfred Hanbury: That was in civil operations?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: They are both the same as far as personnel is concerned.


Wilfred Hanbury: I understand that this
vote is in connection with what might be termed the permanent aviation force, and there has been a considerable reduction of personnel. Many of these young men who have been trained as the most expert aviators in the world are being obliged to leave Canada in order to find employment. While the people of Canada are not militaristic, they would much prefer, if money is to be spent upon national defence or military operations, that it should be spent upon aviation. I think the minister should give a fuller explanation of this reduction.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The only reduction being made is eight officers and twenty-three other ranks; there will be that many less than last year. The reduction in the money vote is caused by the limitation of new construction and the purchase of new aeroplanes.


Wilfred Hanbury: The minister has not
yet said why there has been a reduction. The government must have a policy in that regard and I think the country should know it.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The principal reason for the reduction is the fact that the air protection forces which the government had in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have been transferred to the provinces along with the transfer of the natural resources. Those provinces now make their own arrangements.
Supply-National Defence


Eugène Fiset: The minister said
there was a reduction of eight officers and twenty-three men. Has that reduction really taken place, or does the vote simply not provide for that number of men?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The strength will
be eight officers and twenty-three other ranks lower than was provided for last year.


Eugène Fiset: No actual dismissals have been made?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


Eugène Fiset: No provision is being made for that number of men?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There have been
no men dismissed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil air operations-flying operations for civil government departments in connection with aerial photographic surveys, forestry patrols, forestry and grain pests, transportation, etc.; control of civil aviation; establishing aerodromes and airship bases; aeronautical engineering, etc., $2,776,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not sure that this is the item under which I should ask the question I desire to ask; if it is not, perhaps the minister will excuse me and indicate the item under which I may proceed. I understand that radiotelegraph operations in northern Saskatchewan are under the control of the minister's department, and that recently the station at Prince Albert has been dismantled. Representations have been made to me as the member for Prince Albert constituency from the board of trade, the National Parks authorities and others, to the effect that the dismantling of that station carries with it great disadvantages to the park and also may be serious in view of the extended tourist traffic that is now finding its way into the park. I imagine that the Minister of the Interior will be interested in the matter from the point of view of protection of the park, and I understand the government of Saskatchewan is also interested. If the minister has not had an opportunity of conferring with his colleague, the Minister of the Interior, about the matter, may I ask that he kindly do so and take into consideration the representations of the citizens of Prince Albert as to the advisability of restoring that station? If he will do so I shall be very much obliged to him.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I shall certainly be very glad to consider it. Nine stations have been closed, namely: Norway House, Winni-pegosis, Berens River, Thicket Portage, lie

a la Crosse, Prince Albert, Pelican Narrows, High River, Grande Prairie. They are closed entirely on account of the department's discontinuing the forestiy operations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does that
mean that the province of Saskatchewan itself will take over some of that work?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: They already have
made contracts with the commercial air companies.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then it is for the province itself to look after that particular matter?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That is correct.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That means the station
at lie a la Crosse will be reestablished?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That rests with the province of Saskatchewan.


Eugène Fiset: I am not sure
whether this is the proper item, but it deals with establishing aerodromes and airship bases, and I should like to ask a question in connection with the aviation field which the department has established ait Rimouski. This is being used at the present time for civil as well as military aviation when needed. I think it is under the control of the Department of National Defence. The grading of that field has not been quite completed; some works were required to be done on it last year, either through the Department of Public Works at the request of the Department of National Defence, or through the Department of National Defence directly. I would ask the minister whether there is any intention either through the Department of National Defence or through the Post Office Department to discontinue the use of this field this year.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Not the slightest.


Eugène Fiset: Does the department intend to go on with the grading and levelling of that field?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Gradually. I do
not know what estimate there is in connection with it. It must be in pretty good shape now, because aeroplanes are landing there regularly two or three times a week.


Eugène Fiset: The reason I am asking the question is because I am aware the really well graded field is very narrow and the total field has not yet been drained or graded. It so happens that last summer we had a visit from many aeroplanes from the United States and they had some difficulty

Supply-National Defence
in landing because the landing field was not properly lighted or graded and also because the Department of Marine suspended the Marconi service notwithstanding the fact that the Marconi station was connected with the aviation field by phone. Unfortunately the service has been discontinued this year and if the minister could see his way clear to give better lighting to the field to compensate for the loss suffered by the general public through that telephone connection being severed, it would be a great help, not only for the local population but for his department as well as for the Post Office Department.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Our department of course considers the Rimouski aerodrome very important, because it is so intimately linked up with the air mail service. It is an air mail port-more than a public port; the air mail service is t'he essential thing there and I am certain it will be maintained in good shape. It must be.


Wilfred Hanbury: Does this item include any sums for landing fields in British Columbia?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It does not include any.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air mail routes-to provide for expenses in connection with establishing and maintaining air mail routes; preparation and lighting of intermediate landing fields, etc., $100,000.
Peter John Veniot: I see that this item is reduced by $800,700. Would the minister kindly explain the reduction? May I draw his attention to this fact: The late government contemplated the establishment of a route from Sudbury to Winnipeg and that would necesi-tate lighting that route to a certain exent. The object last year was to establish that route to connect the maritime provinces and Winnipeg with an air mail service to Montreal, a train service from Montreal to Sudbury or Pembroke, reaching either city at five o'clock in the morning, and then an air mail service to Winnipeg, reaching the latter city in the afternoon about one-forty, thus reducing t'he transportation time by forty-eight or fifty-two hours. An amount wa3 appropriated by the Post Office Department in order that they might call for an air mail contract. What is the situation now in regard to the matter? Was there anything last year for lighting that route?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The plans never got as far as lighting that route in northern Ontario.


Mr. YENIOT:: On what route is the cut being made?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There will undoubtedly have to be a supplementary estimate. At one time there was a great deal of uncertainty and there is still about continuing air mail service for the time being. On the strength of that supposition this vote was reduced to $100,000, but it is reduced too far and there will have to be a supplementary vote.


Peter John Veniot: I am glad to hear the minister make that statement. I will not undertake at the present time to go into any details regarding the air mail service; I will do that when the estimates of the Post Office Department are under discussion. The supplementaries, however, will not come up until after the Post Office estimates are before the committee, and therefore I would not be able to get any information there as to what routes were in mind. Perhaps the minister could give that information now.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Of course the only routes that this item includes are the lighted routes, or else projected new routes such as the Montreal to Moncton route which we are preparing to light-


Peter John Veniot: Please do not call that a new route.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: As far as lighting goes, it is. An ordinary route, such as Montreal to Toronto, which is not lighted, this department has nothing to do with; we are concerned with the lighting. It would cost probably $400,000 to maintain that lighted western airway from Winnipeg through to Lethbridge and up to Edmonton, and from Moose Jaw to Saskatoon.


Peter John Veniot: There is no lighting there
yet?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Oh yes, that is all lit, but if that lighting was turned off we could probably get along with $100,000. This route and the short distance between Hamilton and Windsor are the only lighted routes in Canada now.


Peter John Veniot: Is it the idea, if the service between Montreal and Moncton, St. John and Halifax is continued, to light that route?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Eventually, but not this year.


Peter John Veniot: Even if you kept the route up this year, I can understand that it would not be necessary to light it. Arrangements

Supply-National Defence
might be made to make train connections at Montreal, which would obviate lighting the route right through. I refer to that now in the hope that the information will be given when the post office estimates are up, as to whether that service will be continued.


Eugène Fiset: Now that the minister has the director of civil aviation before him, perhaps he may be able to give me some information as to the cancellation of that famous service known as the balloon service at Father Point. I was informed by the Department of Marine that this service had been discontinued. It was established when the R-100 came to Canada, but it has been in existence ever since. They were in telephone communication with the aviation field through the Marconi station, and the whole expense of upkeep was $75 a month divided between the three operators of the Marconi station, each paying $25 a month. I should like to know if the director of civil aviation was consulted before this service was discontinued.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That was established when the R-100 came. It is a meteorological station, and we are now getting observations from them twice a week.


Eugène Fiset: I was informed last week by the Minister of Marine that the service was being discontinued. I understand that it is quite important, and I would have been surprised if the director of civil aviation had not been in favour of such a service at so low a cost.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That comes under the Department of Marine.


Eugène Fiset: But I want the
Minister of National Defence to make some observations regarding it to the Minister of Marine. Perhaps then there will be some chance of having the service maintained.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, sir.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The minister stated that the air mail routes from Winnipeg to Lethbridge and up to Moncton and from Moose Jaw to Saskatoon were lighted. What about the air mail route from Saskatoon to North Battleford and on to Edmonton, that northern line which is in operation but is not yet lighted? What is the policy of the department in connection with that route?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Of course, that is
purely a post office matter. If the Post Office Department decides to make connections, it must be lit at night. We have

nothing to do with the policy of the Past Office Department, but we survey a route when they ask for that to be done.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Was it not the policy
of the Post Office Department to have this northern route from Saskatoon to North Battleford and Edmonton lighted?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That is the function of the post office. Under this vote we only do what we are asked to do. If they ask us to survey that route with the possibility of going on from Saskatoon to North Battleford and Edmonton, if we have the inoney to do it we will do it, but we cannot initiate the matter ourselves.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The suggestion must
come from the Post Office Department?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And then you decide
whether you will act upon it or not?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We do act upon
it if we have the money.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the minister if any desire to effect economy entered into this reduction from $900,000 to $100,000 in the vote for air mail routes?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The reduction was
undoubtedly for economy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the government has found it necessary for purposes of economy to cut $800,000 from a vote of $900,000 for something as important as air mail routes, I should think the administration ought to consider twice before they begin to make additional grants in aid to the provinces for services which it is primarily the duty of the provinces to look after.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Technical education.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have in mind particularly what I spoke of last night, the renewing of the grants in aid for vocational training, for which the Minister of Justice is providing in his bill which is before the house. We cannot expect the provinces to make any contributions from their treasuries to the air mail services, and when the federal government finds it necessary for purposes of economy to reduce from $900,000 to $100,000, the appropriation for an all-important national service such as this, charity as well as economy should begin at home. Let us cut down these grants in aid to the provinces until we can fully meet the necessities of our own services.

Supply-National Defence


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Speaking for myself,
I fully approve of the reduction in the vote for the air mail service at the present time. I believe that it is necessary and wise to keep up an air mail service in our wide northern spaces where no other means of communication exist, and where but for this service the people would be completely isolated. I doubt very much, however, the wisdom or the necessity in these times of financial stress of duplicating a perfectly satisfactory train service such as we have, for example, between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, or Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton. It is not a popular thing to say, but I have said it in other places, and I repeat it here. I fully approve of such a move on the part of the government. The air mail service is, as a matter of fact, of very little advantage where it is duplicating a fast train service. For example, I received a letter to-day that was sent me from Red Deer. It came by air mail and it took exactly to an hour the same length of time that it would have taken had it been sent by train, and so it has been with other letters that I have received by air mail from the west. There is no great saving of time, and in any case it does seem to me that we can find better uses for our federal money than in duplicating a train service that has always been found satisfactory. In some of these places served by the air mail there are fast trains running three and four and five and six times a day, and surely any business that has to be carried on between these places can be carried on by the train service. I very much approve of this reduction and I am glad to have the opportunity of stating here, as I have stated in the country, that the air mail service is totally unnecessary. It is a species of thrill that we can well afford to do without except in those wide spaces in our northern country, in Quebec, Ontario and the west, where for safety, convenience, and absolute necessity in some cases, an air mail service should be given. I am very glad to see that for the time at least, until we can afford it, this somewhat spectacular but absolutely unnecessary thrill is being cut off from our expenditure.


Peter John Veniot: I did not think that the
merits and demerits of the air mail service would be discussed to-night under this item.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: They should not be.


Peter John Veniot: I agree, and had I thought they would be I should have been prepared to meet the arguments of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I intend to give my version of the air mail service when the
post office estimates are up, and I think I shall be able to prove that the government is not taking a wise step in undertaking to cut off these services. Rather, they should be continued, and we should vote whatever extra amount is necessary to keep them up. When the time comes I think I shall be able to prove by figures that the air mail routes in Canada charging only a two-cent rate have had a surplus over expenditures. To-day with the added one cent that surplus will be increased by $120,000. With the added rate the surplus will be in the vicinity of $350,000 or $400,000. If this surplus were deducted from the present deficit, on long routes, the deficit on air mail service would not be half a million dollars or anything like it. Although the air mail service has been in operation for only two full years, hon. members may see that the quantity of first class mail being carried is increasing rapidly every year. The increase last year over the previous year was 115,000 pounds. Taking a rate of $3 a pound on the 5 cent route and $1.20 a pound on the 2 cent routes we will have $1.80 a pound under the new system for 2 cent routes. While I am on this subject may I suggest to the government that if they add the one cent to the five cent air mail rate within a year the whole air mail service of Canada will be selfsustaining.
At the proper time I shall go into the figures more thoroughly. In view of the fact that I was the one who initiated the mail service, and in view of the fact that I took great pains to follow it up and tried to administer it properly the government may see fit to take a few hints from my remarks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Department of National Defence-radio services-for the maintenance and operation of the Northwest Territories radio system, $218,000.
Charles A. Stewart: Is it proposed to make any addition to this service this year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, not as yet
anyway.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Battlefields memorials, $138,500.
Alfred Speakman: How is that work proceeding?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The Vimy memorial has been delayed, although I believe the work is proceeding. Some difficulty has been experienced in getting stone to suit the
Supply-National Defence

sculptor. As near as I can judge, however, the memorial will not be completed before 1934 or 1935, and the unveiling cannot take place until then.


Alfred Speakman: From what I have
heard I imagine the memorial will be very beautiful. I was just wondering how it was progressing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for Canada's proportionate share of the expenditure made by the Imperial War Graves Commission, including contribution to endowment fund for the permanent maintenance of cemeteries, graves and memorials, $290,000.
Donald Matheson Sutherland: This vote was originally for six and one half years. This is the end of the vote, and is for the half year.


Charles A. Stewart: There will
be a readjustment, will there not?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: A very small one,
I think.


Charles A. Stewart: Maintenance is provided for.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Part of this vote
goes for actual work, and part to endow a fund the proceeds of which constitute a maintenance fund.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for legal expenses, etc., re action in connection with regulation of aerial navigation, $10,000.
Mr. SANDERSON:: Would the minister
give us some information about this vote?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Since the war the
Dominion government has had power to administer the air force, to give licences to flyers, to pronounce on the air worthiness of ships, and to license pilots. About a year ago that power was questioned by the province of Quebec, which claimed that the matter of licensing pilots of aeroplanes, except in the case of flights between provinces, and international flights, was within provincial jurisdiction. The government disputed the claim and the question was submitted to the supreme court, which ruled that the matter was provincial in character. The decision of our supreme court has been appealed by the dominion and the case will very soon be heard before the privy council. The item before the committee is for legal expenses.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Gratuity to Alfred Dummer on retirement from the position of caretaker, Hamilton rifle range, $1,287.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is this
vote in conformity with a customary practice?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No. There are men such as the one mentioned in this vote who have been a long time at various jobs but who do not come under the supervision of the civil service. Sometimes those men are physically in pretty bad shape. This particular man was injured very severely in a fire on the rifle range at Hamilton, and because of the fact that the rifle range was discontinued and owing to the age and record of the man mentioned herein, he is entitled to receive a gratuity on retirement.


Eugène Fiset: I am afraid the
minister is creating a bad precedent. I do not refer particularly to the minister's department; I must say that in the present case I am in entire agreement. But there are certain other departments-for instance, the Post Office Department, where I asked for a gratuity for a postman who had been in the service twenty-five years and was dismissed on account of ill-health, but I was advised that in such a case there was no provision under the law for a gratuity or a pension. I see the minister is creating a precedent that may help me later on, and I want to thank him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gratuity to Desire Suetens on retirement from the position of caretaker, Craig street drill hall, Montreal, $2,272.50.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is this retiring allowance based upon the man's salary?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes. He had been caretaker of the Gray Street drill hall in Montreal for 42 years at a salary of about $900. The gratuity is computed on the basis of one year's pay for each twenty years of service.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Adjustment of war claims-National Defence -militia services, $99,500; naval services, $500.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the nature of the claims referred to?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: These are really leftovers from the war. Every now and then a man proves his claim to a separation allowance

Supply-Immigration
which through some oversight he did not get at the time; then there are war service gratuities, pay and allowances, medals, battle honours for the flags, and payments for Canadian war graves.


Eugène Fiset: It is part of the demobilization vote?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Civil government-salaries, $312,555; contingencies, $40,000.
Frederick George Sanderson: I notice there is an increase in the number of clerks from ten in 1930-31 to fifteen in 1931-32, representing an additional $7,500. In this particular department where there is no increase in the volume of departmental business the increase in the staff is rather curious.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: The raising of these additional men to the superior grade was done through the Civil Service Commission on the recommendation, I presume, of the superior officer of the division in which the clerks worked, on account of their ability and their length of service, many of them being returned soldiers and married men wrho had worked in the department a considerable time. It will be noticed that in the aggregate there is a decrease in the civil government vote.


Frederick George Sanderson: In this particular item there is really no increase in the number of the staff then?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Oh no.


Frederick George Sanderson: Although it says the staff is increased from ten to fifteen.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In the total staff there is a decrease of thirteen.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am well aware of that. There is apparently five of an increase in that one item.


Ernest Lapointe: Is it not due to the fact that some employees were promoted from an inferior grade to this grade?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, it appears so. I have not the details of what happened in the case of each clerk, but there is no doubt that was the reason.


Frederick George Sanderson: I had no desire to delay the committee; I was simply curious.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have no further information.


Mr. REID:: When this item was under discussion the other evening the minister spoke at great length about immigration into this country from Europe having ceased. I should like to ask if he has taken any steps to stop immigration from the orient.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think the hon. member could not have heard me aright when we were on this item previously. Immigration from Great Britain has not stopped and has not been restricted. The only difference is that we are not now, as was the case in the past, encouraging movements of people from Great Britain. Any Britisher who wants to come to Canada-I think I used the term before, under his own steam-without relying on Canada to coax him here and pamper him after he gets here, is as welcome as anyone else. I 'hope the time will never come when there is any restriction against people coming to this country from Great Britain.
With respect to immigrants from the continent of Europe, very rigid restrictions have been placed against the movement of those people to Canada, not because any one of the races has not very desirable people but because it is the policy of this government to exclude them until we take care of the difficulties through which we are now passing.
With respect to oriental immigration, as I presume the hon. member knows, that is governed entirely by the Chinese Immigration Act and the agreement, sometimes called a treaty, with Japan. So far as I am aware, the Chinese Immigration Act is being religiously adhered to. There are and will continue to be some few who may evade the preventive force and get into this country, but the departmental officials are alive to the necessity of strictly enforcing that law, and of course it is the policy of this government to see that it is enforced.


Thomas Reid: I should like to ask the minister if he is considering closing the door to orientals coming to this country, and so restricting oriental immigration.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Does the hon. member mean a revision of the Chinese Immigration Act?


Thomas Reid: I understand that act never has been signed.


Charles A. Stewart: It has been enforced.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I cannot quite follow the hon. member when he says he does not think the Chinese Immigration Act has been signed.
Supply-Immigration

It was passed in 1923 and the records of the department show that since that year only three Chinese immigrants have been allowed to enter Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps I might be permitted to correct my hon. friend; I just happened to have the figures in my desk. Since the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, as revised, the following have been admitted into Canada by way of exemption, covering all parts of the dominion:
Year	Number
1923		 19
1924		 66
1925		 87
1926		 56
1927		 94
1928		 65
1929		 86
1930		 14
On the other hand, if we go back beyond 1923 we find that at the port of Vancouver alone the following were admitted:
Year
Number
1912-	13
1913-	14
1914-	15
1915-	16
1916-	17
1917-	18
1918-	19
1919-	20
1920-	21
1921-	22
1922-	23
1,283
1,823
4
236
2,822
832
1,093
From 1923 on not a single oriental entered the port of Vancouver and paid the tax. These are the official figures of the Department of Immigration, so it will be seen that although the act of 1923 has not stopped this movement it has very effectively restricted the influx of Chinese, as compared to the years between 1911 and 1923.


Thomas Reid: As the minister knows, the
head tax is applied to all Chinese entering this country, and for a time it effectively stopped that movement. In British Columbia we had an influx of Chinese, of which we complain very strongly; in late years while the Chinese immigration has practically ceased, we have had an influx of Japanese. I have before me an article by the Minister of Lands of British Columbia, in which he states that the federal government has been urgently requested by British Columbia to consider the appeal of that province for the exclusion of orientals. That is why I asked the minister if that question is being considered, because I know the people of British 
Columbia have been asking for the exclusion of orientals.
To-day these people are coming to British Columbia in great numbers, both legally and, I should say in all seriousness, illegally. An article which appeared in the Vancouver Province recently stated that the authorities are taking steps to see if these people are entering the country illegally, and I should like to ask the minister if he has received any report from the immigration authorities who are supposed to be checking up on the Japanese, because my information is that many Japanese are coming into British Columbia illegally.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In 1908, I think, an agreement was entered into with Japan. It was not a treaty, I believe, but an understanding or agreement whereby, speaking from memory, 500 immigrants per year were allowed to come from Japan.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was it not
150?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Later on it was reduced
to 150, but 500 was the first number. Some three or four years ago that agreement was varied and the number cut down to 150 per year. So far as the department is concerned, and so far as the checking up of the Japanese people shows, the agreement in the main is being lived up to. Our investigating officers from time to time find some Japanese who have entered the country illegally. They are deported. I think I am not exaggerating when I say there is an average of eight or ten per month who we find have come to Canada in defiance of that agreement. Of course the hon. member very well knows, coming from that locality, the difficulties which have arisen from time to time with those coming into Canada from the orient, but so far as I am aware the preventive officers of the department are endeavouring to see that both the Chinese Immigration Act and the agreement with Japan are adhered to. Probably we will have a better picture of the population there after the census is taken. I can assure the hon. member that every effort will be made to regulate strictly the influx of orientals into British Columbia in conformity with the agreement and laws in force.


Thomas Reid: Will the census which is being taken reveal to the minister and to hon. members of the committee how many Japanese, male and female, have entered this country legally and illegally?

Supply-Immigration


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That will depend in large measure upon the census enumerators, and to what extent they can obtain that information. My own conception of the race is that the Japanese will not easily part with such information.


Thomas Reid: I have personal knowledge of many orientals having entered this country illegally. An investigation was held recently in Vancouver in connection with the hacking to death of a Japanese, and the police expressed the belief that many Japanese had made illegal entry into Canada. Will the minister investigate this matter to the fullest extent?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am rather surprised to hear the hon. member state that he has personal knowledge of a number of Japanese who have illegally entered this country, because the records in my department do not disclose any information coming from him. When information is imparted to the department to the effect that people have entered illegally, an investigation is made just as promptly as the officers can undertake it, and if the hon. member or anyone else will send to the department information such as he indicates he possesses, an investigation will be held.


Thomas Reid: The newspaper article states that the immigration authorities are checking up on this matter, and I should like to know if the minister has received their report.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not seen the press
despatch to which the hon. member has referred. The department cannot rely upon such despatches in order to institute investigations. These investigations in connection with the illegal entry of people from the orient are going on all the time, and if the hon. member has any information which would assist the department we should be glad to have it, because it might prove helpful in the conduct of such investigations.


Thomas Reid: Will the minister make an inquiry regarding this press despatch?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Thomas Reid: Another despatch I have quotes Hon. N. Lougheed, Minister of Lands in the provincial government, as saying:
As it is well known that many orientals do not register, the figures are probably below the mark.
The same despatch contains the following:
Check-up of orientals attending public schools in the province showed that while the white school population had increased only five per cent since 1927, the Japanese attendance had jumped 38 per cent. Chinese increased only three per cent.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think the situation is quite as bad as my hon. friend would have it. In times gone by the immigration officials were more or less ignorant of the so-called gentleman's agreement which existed at that time. That agreement was not in the form of a treaty, but was more or less of a vague understanding. A Japanese would come along and ask admittance under that agreement, and he would be allowed to enter without any further investigation. There was a great deal of slackness, and the Japanese came in in excess of the number permitted under the agreement. It was left largely to the honour of the other party to the agreement, and I am sorry to say that that honour was somewhat lacking. In one year as many as 1,800 have come in, whereas the agreement ostensibly confined them to 450. Along about 1925 the late government revised this gentleman's agreement and to a large extent eliminated its provisions. It was stipulated that the future immigration of Japanese would come under the same regulations as those applying to other aliens, and that they would toe subject to the same investigation, restriction and scrutiny. One exception was made in that 75 men and 75 women and children were permitted to enter each year. At that time I took a great deal of trouble to see whether or not the system was operating. I was given some opportunity to observe the methods used and I was convinced that the Immigration department was living up to the desire of the government to put every restriction upon Japanese coming into this country. When a Japanese or Chinese comes along and says he is a merchant, they do not just take his word for it; he is followed up and when it is found there is anything fraudulent in his statements, he is promptly sat upon. I remember one particular instance in connection with Chinese where they had a fake merchant business in Montreal, of all places. A man would apply for entry and certify that he was a partner in this company and had put in so much money. The immigration officers would go down to Montreal and would see this man hard at work in this company in which he was supposed to have put $500 or $2,500, I forget which. The department became sus-

Supply-Immigration

picious, and upon going back a few months later they found that this man had gone, taking his money with him, and another man had taken his place. Regulations were enacted which stopped that practice, and any man coming in as a merchant is subject to close scrutiny.
The minister said that he thought Japanese were being deported at the rate of six, seven or eight per month, but I think he will find that those men who are being sent back came in during the ^lack period I have mentioned. Every once in a while a Japanese gets the urge to visit his native country, but before obtaining a passport or a ticket entitling him to return again, he has to reveal when he came in and upon what boat. If it is found that he came in illegally, he is shipped out of the country and not allowed to return. There was a regular system in vogue to bring these Japanese into the country. They were wanted to work in the canneries up at Skeena or elsewhere in the north, but it was necessary that they be British subjects. They had a bunch of about twenty-four Japs who could speak a little English; they were dressed decently and were more or less familiar with our system. A fraudulent notary public was employed and those men were naturalized over and over again, and the certificates were sent lip to the Japanese at the canneries, who had never seen the notary public or the judge, and who had been in the country perhaps only six weeks. That sort of thing has been done away with. I think the feeling to which the hon. member for New Westminster is giving voice is what might be termed a carryover from the conditions which existed previously.
There is another factor to be considered, the enormous increase of the Japanese population in British Columbia. More trouble is caused by the stork than by the immigrant ship. These people have large families, and I think their birth rate is 38 as compared with 18 for the white man. It is that large increase which is going to cause us trouble in the future.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: How can you stop that?


Alan Webster Neill: There are methods if the
minister has the courage to adopt them. I leave that to him. The other day I think I saw that in Steveston there was a 14-room school, in 11 rooms of which the pupils were all Japanese; in two they were mixed and in one they were white. That gives an idea of how the Japanese population is increasing. The Japanese question in British Columbia is like that of the negroes in the United States; we 
have them and we must put up with them. That is the general trend of feeling in British Columbia against the orientals. I think the committee will agree I have not hesitated in the past to attack the government for slackness in carrying out the regulations, but 60 far as I know, the regulations are being pretty strictly adhered to now.


Thomas Reid: After the census is taken, if
the registration of orientals shows there are more than the official records indicate, would the minister be prepared to investigate illegal entries into British Columbia?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The investigation is going on constantly, and if in the census anything is disclosed that would seem to indicate there has been a defiance of the law, the investigation will be speeded up and pursued with vigour to determine the cause, and to deport any of those that we may find have come in illegally.


Charles A. Stewart: Having had the honour on more than one occasion to be in charge of the Immigration department, I have been much interested in this discussion I was somewhat perturbed the other night in connection with the exchanges between the minister and the hon. member for Bow River. I had visions of the day when I sat on the other side, when British Columbia members were bombarding me in regard to Chinese and Japanese immigration, and when I was forced on many occasions to take refuge by making somewhat rash promises that I found difficult to carry out because of international complications. When I heard the minister say the other night that he was going practically to shut off immigration, I began to wonder what was going to happen to men like the hon. member for Vancouver Centre behind me, the hon. member for New Westminster, the hon. member for Vegreville, the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Red Deer; and I was greatly disturbed. I rose simply to say how pleased 1 am to hear the minister state that there will be no restriction on gentlemen of that kind entering Canada even at the present time, because I wish to assure the minister the house would be in a serious plight if we did not have these hon. gentlemen in it. I was congratulating myself that I had been in control of the department when men of the calibre of those hon. gentlemen could enter. I want to assure the minister that I am heartily in support of allowing free immigration from the British Isles, and I hope it will be continued. We do get some obstreperous people from certain quarters, but,

Supply-Immigration
after all, it is a pretty good class of immigrant and I am greatly pleased they are not to be kept out.


Alan Webster Neill: As regards the question of
orientals, I forgot to make one comment to the minister, and I hope he will pay some attention to this. Under the gentleman's agreement, or what is left of it, the Japanese are allowed in, as I said, not to exceed 150 a year. As regards the Chinese the situation is practically exclusion. This is the point: when- this government came to power they very wisely passed an order in council prohibiting all immigration to our shores, but they did not make it apply to the Japanese. I think that was a mistake. The order in council was so worded that it did not apply to those who came in under treaty or other agreement. It might be put forward that the Japanese, an arrangement having been made, if not by a treaty, by an agreement, were not to be subject to this order in council. But after all the agreement was they were to be subject to the Immigration Act in every respect and if it were found necessary, under changed conditions, to prohibit all immigration, including English, Irish and Scotch, surely the Japanese themselves could not object if the same restrictions were applied to the agreement with them. They have a sense of fair play or at least of what it is wise to do, and I do not think they would have insisted on the letter of the agreement, for that is all it is, and on coming in despite the order in council. The result is that the white man is prohibited from coming here and yet he sees a certain number of orientals entering. That galls the British Columbian greatly. I am sure if the minister understood the situation, he would have no difficulty in dealing with it. The Japanese should be subject to any change in our Immigration Act; they are the same in that regard as everybody else.


Edward Joseph Garland: While the enthusiasm of the ex-Minister of the Interior is perhaps justified so far as his remarks referred to hon. members in this corner of the house, yet for his information and in order that we may not become too enthusiastic about any immigration to this country, it would be well if the minister gave the committee the total number of deportations during each of the last two years of British-born or foreign-born, that is, those not born in the British isles.


Milton Neil Campbell: While the minister is looking that up, perhaps I might ask a question. I understood him to say there were no restrictions on British immigration to 22110-1881
Canada. Will a British immigrant not be under an obligation to prove that he has work or some subsistence here ahead of him?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Of course he is, and I think those in G-reat Britain who are engaged in the immigration of people to Canada are thoroughly aware that it is futile to send to this country to-day people who have nothing to live on for a reasonable period.
Just at this juncture I want to correct the impression that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni may unwittingly have made. I do not think he would create the impression by design-that white men are excluded from Canada and yellow men are allowed in. That is not a fair statement. There is no exclusion of people from England, Ireland and Scotland. I claim a fair degree of courage myself, but I do not think I am courageous enough to try to stop a Scotchman if he wants to enter Canada; if he wanted to get in he would get in. There is no exclusion, and the British people are aware of that fact. There is a section of the British press that does not seem to appreciate it, but the officials in Great Britain, with whom we are constantly in touch, are well aware that in the regulations there is nothing that places restrictions upon British people entering Canada. The only thing we have done is to stop, in so far as we can do so, assisting with money grants and things of that kind, people coming even from Great Britain. It may be that those grants will be renewed in the future, although for my own part, with my short experience in this department, I am satisfied that it is better to go slowly and let people come to Canada of their own volition, not assisted by some charitable organization whose members are impelled perhaps by quite laudable motives from their point of view to aid people to come to Canada from Great Britain but who do not know the type of settler likely to make good in this country and who do not know Canadian conditions. Such methods only give rise to disappointment and discouragement to these newcomers, and in the last eighteen months the records are very plain. Many hundreds of British people have been sent home, and I think I am not exaggerating when I say that much more than 50 per cent of these people have asked to be sent home. I could give many illustrations, although I do not want to dwell upon this for fear I may be misinterpreted. I do not want to create the impression that we in Canada have not the highest regard for the British people and British migrants who come here, but unfortunately it is true that a great percentage of those who have been returned1 to Great
Supply-Immigration

Britain have been returned because they wanted to go back. I know of my own personal knowledge down in the office in the Jackson building last fall, that young chaps of from eighteen to twenty-two and twenty-three would come in who I felt certain could get ahead in this country, but for one reason or another they wanted to go back. In the case of the younger ones I think it was homesickness more than anything else. I remember one morning a dozen came in. They deliberately went down to the mission and got some charity and some meals and got themselves reported. I interviewed them and pointed out that if they had a little patience and probably a little more courage than they seemed to exhibit they would get along all right in Canada, and we offered them work on the farms. They told me very frankly that they wanted to go home, that they did not want to go on the farm in Canada, and some of them were homesick. I pointed out to them, when they wanted to be returned home, that Great Britain was carrying a heavy burden, that they had been sent to Canada largely at the expense of the British treasury, and that they should try to buck up. But no; we had to arrange for the deportation of them all. The unfortunate part of it, from my own personal standpoint, was that some of them who went back under circumstances such as I am detailing were met at the boat by reporters, and when I saw some of the press despatches from the old country with respect to these people I thought there was no possible hope of my escaping criticism. I made up my mind, however, to do the best I could under the circumstances, and not read the newspapers. And that is what I have done.


Alan Webster Neill: If I have misrepresented my hon. friend's action I am very sorry. But it certainly was stated very prominently in the papers at that time, indeed it was almost heralded, that one of the first actions of the present government was to stop immigration. Am I to understand that that applied only to assisted schemes of immigration?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It applied to assisted schemes of immigration.


Alan Webster Neill: Only to that?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, it went further than that, but not so far as to stop immigration. We stopped-I do not want to be extravagant in my language-misrepresenting the conditions in Canada to the British people, and we did not encourage people to come here when they would be disappointed in the conditions they would meet when they arrived. Our labour market could not absorb them. That is

as far as we went. If they wanted to come they could come. I think the government adopted a proper course in notifying them, not that they were not welcome here, but that conditions were such that they probably would have great difficulty in getting employment. That is as far as we went.


Alan Webster Neill: It is gratifying to hear the minister tell us that he stopped misrepresenting things. He was referring to the previous government?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not said that.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister said that he
thought it wise to stop misrepresenting things.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There are other people besides the late government who were interested in getting immigrants.


Alan Webster Neill: Oh yes, we are well aware of them. This order in council must have been in fairly precise language. It was not a question of giving instructions to agents to ease off, but an order in council was passed, I understand, to stop all immigration. What did that order in council say?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I probably can remember the effect of it.


Alan Webster Neill: What is the date of it?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not before me the dates of the orders in council, but I think I can remember the effect of the order in council. Under order in council P.C. 183 the following people were allowed into Canada:
(1)	A bona fide agriculturist-
I do not know why they use the term "bona fide."
Mr. BF.AUBIEN: What is the date of that order in council?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: April 8, 1926. The classes
allowed in were as follows:
(1)	A bona fide agriculturist entering Canada to farm and has sufficient means to begin farming in Canada.
(2)	A bona fide farm labourer entering Canada to follow that occupation and has reasonable assurance of employment.
(3)	A female domestic servant entering Canada to follow that occupation and has reasonable assurance of employment.
(4)	The wife or child under 18 years of age of any person legally admitted to and resident in Canada, who is in a position to receive and care for his dependents.
(5)	Any United States citizen entering Canada from the United States who shall satisfy the immigration officer in charge at the port of entry that he has sufficient means to maintain himself until employment is secured.
(6)	Any British subject entering Canada directly or indirectly from Great Britain or Ireland, Newfoundland, the United States of

Supply-Immigration
America. New Zealand, Australia or the Union of South Africa, who shall satisfy the immigration officer in charge at the port of entry that he has sufficient means to maintain himself until employment is secured:
Provided, that the only persons admissible under the authority of this clause are British subjects by reason of birth or naturalization in Great Britain or Ireland, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Australia or the Union of South Africa.
(7)	A person who has satisfied the minister that his labour or service is required in Canada.
(8)	The father or mother, the unmarried son or daughter, eighteen years of age or over, the unmarried brother or sister, of any person legally admitted to and resident in Canada, who has satisfied the minister of his willingness and ability to receive and care for such relative;
Provided, that this clause shall not apply to the relative of any resident in Canada who himself failed to observe the conditions under which he was admitted to Canada.
That is the old order in council. If my recollection serves me aright-I speak subject to correction-in the new regulation class (1) is allowed in, but it is changed to read:
(1) An agriculturist entering Canada,
And so forth.


Alan Webster Neill: What is the date of that?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: August 14, 1930. I think this was changed not in the regulations itself, but was changed by a departmental circular to our agents in the various countries. The effect of the new regulation was that we admitted an agriculturist entering Canada to farm if he had sufficient money or funds to engage and continue in the business of farming. No specific sum was mentioned, but our officers were circularized in every instance and advised that they would be charged with the responsibility of inquiring into the background of each migrant coming to Canada to see that he knew something of agriculture, and that we were not admitting people from the cities who would be hopeless in an effort to run a farm. Personally I do not know anything about farming, but I am told, and I believe it to be true, that it requires a great deal of skill and considerable experience to run a farm properly, just now anyway.
The regulations with respect to class 2, dealing with farm labourers, and class 3, dealing with female domestic servants, were repealed. Class 4 was allowed to remain; that is the wife or child under eighteen years of age of any person legally admitted to and resident in Canada, who is in a position to receive and care for his dependents. It was obvious that if a man has migrated to this country, had established himself and wanted to bring his wife and infant children here, he
should be allowed to do so, but in every case where an application is made by a man, from whatever country he may come, to bring his wife and children into Canada, I have given instructions, and I believe that they are being religiously adhered to, to inquire into what that man is doing and, if he is in industrial employment, to see whether or not his employment is likely to continue. If he is on a farm, investigations are made. At times it is difficult to be too restrictive with respect to such immigration, but I confess I am checking up with a degree of severity so that we shall not add to our present economic difficulties. The regulations with respect to the United States and Great Britain remain unchanged, with the exception that a subsequent order in council with respect to the United States excluded the people coming to Canada from that country who were not citizens of it. Before the order in council was put through many people could come in from the United States whose status in that countiy was such that if they became public charges in Canada we could not deport them back to the United States. Those people therefore were restricted by a subsequent order in council.


Alan Webster Neill: What about the nationality
of the classes to which you wrere referring? Did they have to be British, or could they be alien?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: From the United States?


Alan Webster Neill: No, the farm labourers and
the domestic servants.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The labourers and the
domestic servants are excluded, with the exception of the United States and Great Britain.


Alan Webster Neill: That applies only to European aliens?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes. Then the seventh
clause was repealed,-
A person who has satisfied the minister that his labour or service is required in Canada.
Rightly or wrongly I felt that that class would give me a great deal of anxiety, if I had the right to supersede the regulations by my own say-so. I am told that regulation No. 7 was the clause that gave rise to what was known as the permit system. I am not going to deal at length with that system, but to my mind it was probably as great a mistake as could have been made. I am told that at election .times, members are importuned by certain of their electors with regard to the issuance of permits to bring in relatives and friends, and that embarrassment results to the member if the requests are not complied with.
Supply-Immigration


James Shaver Woodsworth: Has that been
absolutely done away with.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes. Since I have been at the head of the department I have signed one permit, and that is all. It was a meritorious case, that of a student coming to one of our universities.


Thomas Reid: Can the minister tell us if
Japanese coming from Hawaii enter Canada as citizens of the United States or citizens of Japan? Great numbers come from Japan to Hawaii, from Hawaii to the United States and from the United States to British Columbia.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am told there are no
Japanese coming from the Hawaiian islands; they must come from Japan. I do not know where the hon. member got his information.


Thomas Reid: Quite a few thousand came
into British Columbia at one time from Hawaii. In one year 5,000 came in from the Hawaiian islands.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That was about 1907 or
1608?


Thomas Reid: Probably so.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The first agreement was
entered into because of the large number that were coming in. Under the first agreement from 400 to 500 came in yearly. Then in 1928 the agreement was revised by the late government and the number was cut down to about 150 a year. That is the agreement under which we are operating at present.


Thomas Reid: Are there any Japanese coming from Hawaii now?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am instructed no
Japanese have come from Hawaii for many years.


Thomas Reid: My information is that they
are given papers in the United States and come right through to British Columbia.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There have been no complaints to the department since I have been in charge. I shall inquire, however.


Thomas Reid: Very well. I shall be satisfied if the minister looks into the matter.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If the condition described
by the hon. member exists, it will be properly investigated.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I desire to enter
a protest against the attitude of some of the hon. members towards orientals. I do not want unrestricted immigration by any means. I do not think however that we help our international problems by maintaining an at-

titude such as that which has been evidenced to-night by some hon. members from British Columbia. We must remember that the oriental nations are great nations on the other side of the Pacific ocean with which we hope to develop trade relations. If we are too harsh in such matters there is a possibility of provoking a feeling of resentment on their part. I hope we will not deal too vigilantly with the people who happen to live in the oriental countries.
I wish particularly to refer to the nonencouragement of immigrants from Great Britain. The minister has made no statement concerning juvenile immigrants. I wish to invite his attention to a question passed as an order for return which appeared on the order paper under my name, and which has not yet been answered. On page 2966 of Hansard of June 24, I find the question:
Is the British Immigration and Colonization Association now operating under the administration of the Department of Immigration?
And the further question:
Is the policy to bring more British boys to Canada?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think I can answer my
hon. friend's questions. Last fall I received information from premiers of the different provinces as to how many boys those provinces could absorb. The province of Ontario asked for 200. Saskatchewan at first asked for 60, but I pointed out that I thought it desirable to cut the number down to 40. At the present time I am not sure whether they have received 38 or 40. The western provinces, with the exception of Saskatchewan, did not think that they should have any boys this year, so none came. Quebec took the same stand; New Brunswick wanted 150 and Nova Scotia 75 boys.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What societies
brought these boys in?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In Saskatchewan the government and the Church of England; in Ontario the Catholic Immigration Society, the Y.M.C.A. and some other religious and charitable organizations joined with the Ontario government to take care of 200 boys. As to the maritimes, I am not at present seized of the facts. But the movement of boys has been restricted to the desires of the provinces. I thought that was a fairly safe method to adopt this year.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the British
Immigration and Colonization Association operating under the government?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not the papers
before me to go fully into the history of

Privilege-Mr. Bell (Hamilton)
the association, but it was started about eight years ago with a view to bringing boys from Great Britain to Canada. At first their funds came mainly from British sources and were supplemented by some voluntary subscriptions by people in Canada. Later the railway companies, the British Empire Settlement board and the Canadian government contributed to the expenses of bringing the boys here and for their after care on arrival. The association operated under a dominion charter. About a year ago it fell on rather difficult times, in fact I am instructed that from its inception there was apparently a lack of business capacity on the part of the board of directors. At any rate, the money subscribed from the sources I have indicated was exhausted earlier than it should have been, with the result that late last year the company found itself in financial difficulties, and under obligation to a number of boys whom they were to look after for a certain time after their arrival in Canada. Confronted with that position last October and November, in conjunction with the heads of the department who look after colonization, I had an interview with the railway companies-they had contributed considerably more than we had to the association's funds- and we came to the conclusion that we would have practically to take over the work. We accepted the resignation of the directors, and in order to save the expense of setting up a new organization, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways supplied a certain number of the staff from their own colonization departments, and my department supplied a man who is very well qualified to carry on work of this character. That is the method we are now employing in carrying on the institution.


James Shaver Woodsworth: You have to
assume all responsibility for the boys?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We have to.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In the case of
fares that have been advanced do the government collect from the boys?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, the fare is a gift from the British Empire Settlement board.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the minister mean to say that the advances are being collected, or are not being collected?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They are not being collected, and of course no more boys have been brought out since last year.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If fares have been advanced, the government is not now collecting them?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No. I am told that at
no time have advances been made to juveniles.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then if no fares
are being taken back from the boys, some of them are being deceived, and certain persons are collecting fares when they ought not to be doing so. It is a matter for very serious investigation.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: Shall the item carry?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, Mr. Chairman, I want to ascertain the facts with regard to this matter.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, June 29, 1931.