1931-07-06

Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	Was the temporary mail contract of Mr. Donat Vaillancourt, between Black Lake and St. Ferdinand, cancelled?
2.	If so, at whose request?
3.	For what reason?
4.	Was it renewed?
5.	Were tenders called, and if not, why?

Questions


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Jos. T. Beaudoin.
3.	In the public interest.
4.	No.
5.	Instructions have been issued to invite public tenders.



ST. GERMAINE, QUE.-PARISH HALL

Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	Was the sum of $2,000, out of the moneys
provided by the Unemployment Relief Act, granted to the parish of Ste. Germaine, county of Dorchester, for the purpose of constructing a parish hall?	_
2.	If so, on whose recommendation was this grant obtained?
3.	Was the grant recommended and passed after approval by the province of Quebec unemployment relief committee?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	The $2,000 was for construction of sidewalks, sewers and municipal hall.
2	and 3. In accordance with the agreement between the Dominion government and the province of Quebec, a memorandum was submitted setting forth the public works and undertakings proposed to be carried on by the municipalities under the provisions of the Unemployment Relief Act, 1930.
The sum of $2,000 for Ste. Germaine was included in this list which, it is understood, was prepared by the provincial authorities on the recommendation of the provincial unemployment relief committee.



BANK NOTE CIRCULATION

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What was the total of chartered bank notes in circulation on 31st May, 1930?
2.	What was the total of chartered bank notes in circulation on 31st May, 1931?
3.	What was the total amount of dominion notes in circulation on 31st May, 1930?
4.	What was the total amount of dominion notes in circulation on 31st May, 1931?
5.	What was the amount of subsidiary coin held by the banks and in circulation as of 31st May, 1930?
6.	What W'as the amount of subsidiary coin held by the banks and in circulation as of 31st May, 1931?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	$1:64,710,728.
2.	$123,749,693.
3.	$169,589,259.
4.	$152,250,754.
5.	$31,471,199.
6.	$31,586,969.



STEAMER HIAWATHA

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	How many trips are performed by the steamer Hiawatha between Carleton, St. Omer and Dalhousie or Miguasha each week?
2.	Is the Hiawatha a faster steamer than
the Avonlea?	,
3.	How many passengers is the Hiawatha authorized to carry?
4.	Is the steamer Hiawatha provided with safety appliances as required by the law?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	The contract requires a total of 18 trips a week.
2.	On May 18, 1931, the inspector of subsidized steamship services inspected the "Hiawatha" and reported that in his opinion she would prove to be a faster boat than the "Avonlea."
3.	Five.
4.	Yes.



FEDERAL RELIEF-ONTARIO

Mr. SANDERSON:: 1.	What is the total amount paid out to
date by the federal government to the province of Ontario: (a) on account of the one-third payment towards direct relief; (b) on account of the government's contribution of 25 per cent towards public works undertaken by muncipali-ties?	.
2.	What was the total amount authorized to be paid to the province of Ontario on account of the 25 per cent contribution towards public works undertaken by municipalities?


Mr. GORDON:: 

*RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION-CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Were any letters sent after August 7, 1930, by any person to any minister of the crown, government official or civil servant relating to the construction of a new station building at Riviere du Loup marked private, personal or confidential after they were received by any such minister of the crown, government official or civil servant?
2.	If so, at what dates?
3.	By whom was each of said letters signed, to whom was each one addressed and what was the date of each one?


Mr. BENNETT:: I think my hon. friend might be willing to withdraw this question; I hardly think it is the kind of question he would desire to press. It is a reflection upon the civil servants and upon members of this house. I am bound to say I know of no such communications, and my colleagues tell me they know of none either. If the hon. gentleman has anything of the kind in mind he might indicate it, but otherwise I think the question might be withdrawn.


Mr. POULIOT:: I always like to be agreeable, and I will set a good Example for my right hon. friend by agreeing to his request.
Question dropped.

Questions



SHIPS TRANSFERRED FROM CANADIAN REGISTER

Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: 1.	Since January 1, 1928, how many vessels have been transferred from Canadian registry to Newfoundland registry?
2.	What are the names of such vessels and of the owners thereof?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1. Ninety-three.
2.
Official Number	Name	Date of Transfer
141415	Alcala		
138385	Alicante	30th Sept, 1928141237	Bessie M. Dugan	28th Sept. 1928.150300	Bridged and Freeman	18th Dec., 1928...141233	Charlotte M	llth Sept., 1928134403	Donald A. Creaser	141780	Eugene & Doris	29th June, 1928141382	Frank Baxter	130094	Helen G. McLean	138549	J. C. Martin	2nd Oct., 1928150405	Jennie Elizabeth	150291	Jessy & Alice	17th Oct., 1928138384	Kathleen C. Creaser	9th Nov., 1928141681	Lois A. Conrad	28th Feby., 1928138823	Madeline E. Adams	7th Dec., 1928..138640	Mary Ruth	138544	Mildred Adams	26th April, 1928130828	Phyllis L. Westhaver	20th Jan., 1928.133802	Adonia S	19th Jan 1979150294	Arichat	9th Aug. 1929141058	Bertha L. Walters	10t,h Oct.., 1929111734	Blake	15th Oct. 1929141632	Clara B. Creaser	:	16th Dec., 1929 .141283	Coral Spray	141047	Demoracy	141656	Fannie Powell II	130428'	Fanny May	153345	Freda M	141687	Giant King	29th July, 1929156722	Helen Forsey	27th Nov., 1929141683	J. E. Conrad	28th Nov., 1929126906	Jane Anderson	153084	Lucky Strike	18th Nov., 1929150416	Lucy M. Corkum	12th Mav, 1929 .1116854	Mariana	121862	Marina	8th Nov., 1929 S138839	Vlarion Elizabeth	6th Dec., 1929. I
Owner at Time of Transfer
S.	M. Tibbo, Grand Bank, Newfoundland. J. F. Parrott, Fortune Bay, Newfoundland Baxter Squary, Channell, Newfoundland Harvey & Co., Ltd., St. John's, Newfoundland
Samuel Hardy, Port aux Basque, Newfoundland
Joseph Rose, Jersey Harbour, Newfoundland
Albert Wareham, Harbour Buffett, Newfoundland
Albert Wareham, Harbour Buffett, Newfoundland Thomas J. McGuire, Montreal, Que.
Luke Andrews, Francois Isld., Newfoundland
miah Petite, English Harbour, Newfoundland Alberic E. Albert, Clair, N.B.
ajamin Keeping, Belloram, Newfoundland
William G. Kearley, Belloram, Newfoundland
Loren N. Cluett, et al J. O. Belloran, Newfoundland
ajamin Keeping, Belloram, Newfoundland
lest Collett, Harbour Buffett, Newfound land
foundland
Frank Pike, Port aux Basques, land
George H. Noseworthy, Fori foundland
Samuel Elliott, Catalina, New!
John Thornhill, Grand Bank, land
r. B. Patten & Sons, Ltd., Gi Newfoundland.
George Handrican, Grand Bank, land
rhomas J. Evans, English Har foundland
Bernard Turpin, St. Lawrence, land
George Follett, Grand Bank, land
international Grenfell Associa St. John's, Newfoundland.
iVilliam Forsey, Grand Bank, land
Gustave Pattan, Grand Bank, land
/Villiam M. McLean, Searston, land
George H. Keating, Halifaz, N
ohn F. Parrott, Fortune Bay, land
ohn J. Bose, Harbour Breton, land
>aul White, Twillingate, Newfo
Cdward M. Hollett, Great Bt foundland
[Mr. Pouliot.l

Questions
Name	Date of Transfer
	2nd Feb., 1929
	27th Dec., 1929	
	28th Oct., 1929	
	20th June, 1929 	
	21st Nov., 1929	
	8th Nov., 1929	
	
	17th Dec.,'1929	
	
	23rd April, 1930	
	4th July, 1930	
	
	
	3rd Dec., 1930	
	
	15th March, 1930	
	21st May, 1930	
	
	7th Oct., 1930	
	26th Feb., 1930	
	5th May, 1930	
	14th April, 1930	
	8th July, 1930	
	15th April, 1930	
	
	29th Dec., 1930	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	23rd Mar., 1931	
	
	12th Jan., 1931	
	15th Jan., 1931	
	20th May, 1931	
	27th Feb., 1931	
	19th May, 1931	
	
	
	9th Febl, 1931	
Marie A. Spindler		13th June, 1931	
	
	13th Jan., 1931	
	10th Feb., 1931	
	
	
	30th May, 1931	
	15th Jan., 1931	
	
	15th Jan., 1931	
	
	
	
	19th Jan., 1931	
	
Official
Number
Owner at Time of Transfer
153358
126663
152489
121812
143266
151158
134060
150802
151019
150888
141419
151078 154441
141685
156835
154900
155212
151075
141044
154797
151079 154464 156926
153089
152573
152497
153342
143344
156832
156724
land
foundland chael McDo foundland

Ansky, Grand Bank, Newfoundland
; Morts, New, Halifax, N.S. Ramea, Newland gus Ge land
Flowers Cove, Newfound-
Uiam A. Vincent, foundland
St. Georges, Newland
land
Hiseock, Flat Isld., Newfound-cDonald, Halifax, N.S.
Newfoundland
dson Bay Co., London, England.
:antio Pacific Navigation Co., Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.
in F. Parrott, St. Bernards, Newfoundland.
Meteghan Shipbuilding Co., Meteghan, N.S.
Fortune Bay Shipping Co., Ltd., Halifax, N.S.
Benjamin B. Cann, Yarmouth, N.S. Lincoln Co., Ltd., Lunenburg, N.S. Atlantic Shipping Co., Ltd., Halifax, N.S. Bernardo Shipping Co., Ltd., Halifax, N.S. Henry Rowsell, Pushthrough, Newfoundland
George Morrell, Digby, N.S.
Benjamin B. Cann, Yarmouth, N.S.
Joseph C. Penny, Halifax, N.S.
Jerry Petite, Halifax, N.S.
Thomas Y. Parker, Musquodoboit Harbour, N.S.
George M. Morrell, Digby, N.S.
George M. Morrell, Digby, N.S.
Sable Island Shipping Co., Ltd., Halifax, N.S.
J. F. Parrott, St. Bernard, Newfoundland Liverpool Shipping Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S. Matilda Shipping Co., Ltd., Lunenburg, N.S.
Egerton E. Ritcey, Lower LeHave, N.S. Chesley Boyce, Jersey Harbour, Newfoundland
George M. Morrell, Digby, N.S.
Percy K. Atkinson, Amherst, N.S.
Max Rosenbloom, Montreal, Que.
Giant King Shipping Co., Ltd., Lunenburg, N.S.
Max Rosenbloom, Montreal, Que.
Liverpool Shipping Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S. Malaga Shipping Co. Ltd., Lunenburg, N.S. Asaph YVentzell, St. Barbs, Newfoundland Auburn Co. Ltd., Lunenburg, N.S.
3396
Questions



FONDERIE DE ST. ANSEI.ME-CONTRACTS

Mr. PARENT:: [DOT]1. Were certain contracts awarded to the Fonderie de St. Anselme for supplies required by the Department of Public Works?
2.	If so, what supplies were covered by these contracts?
3.	What was the price paid?
4.	Were tenders called for in each case?
5.	If not, why not?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	No information.
2 to 5. Answered by No. 1.



RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION-REPORT

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	From September 4, 1930, to October 4, 1930, did anybody report to the Department of Railways and Canals that there was no necessity for the construction of a new station at Riviere du Loup, as with proper repairs, additions and improvements, the existing accommodation could be rendered satisfactory?
2. If so: (a) at whose request; (b) by whom: (c) at what date was such report forwarded to the Department of Railways and Canals?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Between the dates in question the matter was fully discussed as between officers of the railway and officers of the Department of Railways and Canals. In consequence, it was felt that the public interests would best be served by repairs to the present structure, and the government confirmed that view in the decision finally reached.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-HALIFAX PROMOTIONS

Mr. QUINN:: 1.	Did Mr. Blair, Mr. Lennie or Mr. Hunter, of the Department of National Revenue, advise the department at Ottawa not to make any promotions at the port of Halifax until such time as they filed their report with the department at Ottawa?
2.	Were any promotions made at the port during the investigation?
3.	If so, of whom?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	In response to departmental requisition dated the 18th April, 1929, Mr. A. E. Widdick was promoted to customs truckman by the Civil Service Commission dated the 20th June, 1929.



MAJOR JULES LAFLEUR

Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	Was Major Jules Lafleur dismissed, if so, for what reason?
2.	At whose request was he so dismissed?
[Mr. Duranleau.3


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



RIVIERE DU LOUP WHARF

Jean-François Pouliot: What was the total cost for removing trusses or arches of eastern slip at Riviere du Loup wharf in 1931 and placing them underneath to give a wider passage for automobiles?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: $390.



STEAMSHIP ROBERT CANN

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What amount did the ss. Robert Cann receive as subsidy for the year up to March 31, 1931?
2.	Did she receive any further amount?
3.	What is the amount being paid the ss. Constance or her owners, either by the month or by the year, for the service between Mulgrave and Canso?
4.	What contract, whether temporarily or otherwise, has been entered into by the government with the owners of said steamer regarding said service?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	$23,384.61, while employed as a substitute for the ss. Linton.
2.	No.
3	and 4. The Constance is being temporarily employed until her owners procure a permanent vessel for the Mulgrave and Canso service. So far no contract has been entered into and nothing has yet been paid for the service being carried on by the Constance.



* SECRETARY OF STATE-EUROPEAN TRIP

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	When did the hon. Secretary of State leave for Europe last fall?
2.	When did he come back to Ottawa?


Mr. CAHAN:: I do not know that it is
a matter of public interest when I left the country and when I returned, especially when my expenses were not a charge against the consolidated revenue of Canada. I will say, however, that I sailed from Canada on the 26th of September, 1930, and returned to Ottawa, November 24, 1930.



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR-RETIREMENTS

Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	How many:	(a) permanent; (b) temporary employees in the Department of the Interior in Ottawa have to date (a) received notice of their retirement; (b) how many have been taken in the government service in any departments; (c) how many are presently not at work?
2.	Does that total number represent all of the employees of the Department of the Interior to be let out during the current fiscal year?

Question as Order for Return
3397:


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	(a) Permanent in Ottawa, 461, temporary in Ottawa, 126; (b) permanent in Ottawa, 155, temporary in Ottawa, complete information not available; (c) although the department has been able to assist a number of those retiring to secure other employment both in the civil service and elsewhere, it is impossible to answer this question fully.
2.	Impossible to state until the survey being conducted by the Civil Service Commission is completed.



COUNTY OF TEMISCOUATA-POSTMASTERS

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who are the postmasters of the county of Temiscouata against whom inquiries of political partisanship were held?
2.	Who was the inquiry commissioner in each ease?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Antonio Sirois, Cacouna; Mme. E Hudon, Chemin Tache; Johnny April, Gironde; Joseph Michaud, La Richardiere; David Lebel, Montagne Ronde; Antoine Landry, Notre-Dame du Lac.
2.	Alphonse Garon.



WHARF REPAIRS-TEMISCOUATA COUNTY

Jean-François Pouliot: Out of the general vote for harbours and rivers what amount was allowed to repair the wharves of: (a) Cabano; (b) St. Juste du Lac; aDd (c) Notre-Dame du Lac?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The work of raising the above mentioned wharves was done by the St. John River Storage Company, under the supervision of the district engineer, Department of Public Works, at their own cost. The total cost of inspection, amounting to $192.50, was borne by the department.
The following amounts were authorized from the general vote "Harbours and Rivers, P.Q." for the present fiscal year for the installation of movable slips and wharf repairs: (a) $1,100 authorized on June 8, 1931 (movable slip), $12552 authorized on April 13, 1931 (wharf repairs); (b) village wharf, $700 authorized on June 4, 1931 (movable slip), central road wharf, $700 authorized on June 4, 1931 (movable slip); (c) $700 authorized on June 2, 1931 (movable slip).
riviere DU LOUP STATION-INSTRUCTIONS OF ACTING PRIME MINISTER


Mr. POULIOT:: 1. Did the right hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister, give instructions to the Acting
Deputy Minister of the Department of Railways and Canals to notify the Canadian National Railways that it had been decided by the Department of Railways and Canals:, (a) , not to award a contract for the construction of a new railway station at Riviere du Loup; (b) but to make repairs to the present station?
2. If so, were said instructions given in writing or verbally?


Mr. MANION:: Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave just now to question No. 20 is the answer to this question. It applies in exactly the same way, since this is practically the same question. *


Jean-François Pouliot: I will trust my hon. friend for the answer. I have not seen it yet, but he appears to be in a good mood to-day and I will try to follow his example.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Has the Dominion of Canada effected its ratification to the Berne convention as revised at Rome on June 2, 1928?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	What procedure was followed to effect such ratification?
4.	Did the Dominion of Canada; of its own right, adhere to such convention, or was such ratification effected through the intermediary of any British authority in London?
5.	In the latter event, through what British
intermediary?	_
6.	Will the ratification he promulgated in Canada?
7.	If so, how and when?
8.	What are the names of the various nations that now adhere to the Berne convention as revised at Rome on June 2, 1928?
9.	Will the names of said countries appear in the preamble to schedule "A" of The Copyright Amendment Act 1931, if not, what is the way of determining under the terms of The Copyright Act 1931 what countries (under chapter 32 of the revised statutes of Canada as amended by the said amending act) are co-adherents to the said revised convention with Canada?
10.	Is The Copyright Amendment Act 1931 now in force, if so_, since what date; if not, when and how will it come into force?
11.	Is there an official English translation of the text of the Berne convention as revised at Rome on June 2, 1928?
12.	Is there a British translation of said text?
13.	Is it copyrighted?
14.	Is there an American translation of said text?
15.	Is it copyrighted?
16.	What English translation is used as schedule "A" of the English version of The Copyright Amendment Act 1931?
Unopposed Motions

17.	Do any articles of the Berne convention as revised at Rome on June 2, 1928, now have full force and effect in Canada?
18.	If so, under what dispositions of The Copyright Amendment Act 1931?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. YENIOT (for Mr. Marcil):: For a copy of the report of the investigation held by Mr. Sirois, commissioner, into the case of Bernard Porlier, light, keeper at Maria, Bonaventure county, Quebec.



DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION-REPORT OF W. R. LITTLE

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


Mr. GORDON:: I will ask the mover to
allow this matter to stand again until tomorrow. I have not had an opportunity to look into it, but I will try to do so this evening.
Motion stands.



CHARLES MOREAU

Mr. VENIOT (for Mr. Power):: For a copy of all correspondence, documents, reports of examination, rating and marks obtained by each competitor, recommendations in favour of any competitor by members of parliament, or others, with respect to an examination held in Quebec during the month of April or May, 1931, and in particular the marks obtained by Charles Moreau, a disabled exsoldier, for the position of caretaker, Department of Public Works, Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Quebec South (Mr. Power) spoke to me about this. I understand that the Civil Service Commission has no objection to giving answers and it is for that body in its sole discretion to determine what action shall be taken. The government has no objection.



PORT OF HALIFAX-CUSTOMS INVESTIGATION

Mr. QUINN:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters or telegrams forwarded to, or received from the Department of National Revenue, in connection with the investigation of the Customs department and officials at the port of Halifax, Nova Scotia.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member
indicate when.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The investigation three years ago, 1928.
IMr. Chevrier.]



C. E. THIBAULT

Mr. HURTUBISE (for Mr. Brasset):: For a copy of all reports, affidavits, correspondence and other documents, regarding the appointment of C. E. Thibault, of Grande-Riviere, in the county of Gaspe, as subcollector of customs and excise at Chandler, Quebec; also all correspondence, affidavits and other documents relating to the dismissal of the said C. E. Thibault.



GEORGES BINET

Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: For a copy of all reports, correspondence and other documents, in connection with the dismissal of Georges Binet, Etang du Nord, Magdalen islands, as preventive officer for the Department of Customs and Excise.



BIVIERE DU LOUP STATION

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the resolution of the executive committee of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways forwarded to the Department of Railways and Canals on or about September 4, 1930, and recommending acceptance of tenders for the construction of the proposed new railway station at Riviere du Loup.



ARTHUR G. LOVITT

Felix Patrick Quinn: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, or telegrams to, or from the Department of Customs or National Revenue relative to the appointment of the late Arthur G. Lovitt, as inspector of customs at the port of Halifax.



HALIFAX-REPORT OF CUSTOMS FINDINGS

Felix Patrick Quinn: For a copy of report made by the assistant commissioner, Mr. Blair; chief inspector, Mr. Lennie, and investigator, Mr. George Hunter, of the Department of National Revenue of certin customs findings at the port of Halifax.



LOUIS LAMB

Mr. BARBER (for Mr. Senn):: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents, regarding the dismissal of one Louis Lamb from the position of customs examiner at the port of Bridgeburg, on or about January 16, 1926.



INTERVIEW WITH MESSRS. DUBE AND BERUBE

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of telegrams and letters from the hon. Minister of Marine and his secretary to Mr. C. E. Dube and Mr. Leo Berube, arranging an interview with them in Ottawa on October 6, 1930.
Motion stands.

Motion for Papers



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Mr. DONNELLY (for Mr. Sanderson):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and documents, exchanged between the Minister of Labour and the mayors of, Toronto, London, Kitchener, Ottawa and Hamilton, with respect to unemployment relief since September 1, 1930.



NORTH YORK CENSUS COMMISSIONERS

John Livingstone Brown: For a return showing:

1.	The names and addresses of census commissioners appointed for the North York federal constituency in taking the present census.
2.	The area allotted to each.
3.	The names and addresses of enumerators appointed in each district and, generally speaking, the territory covered by each.
4.	The salaries and other remuneration of commissioners and enumerators; how many of these commissioners and enumerators are returned men; their names and addresses; who recommended these appointments, and the correspondence dealing therewith.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between (a) the right honourable Prime Minister, (b) the honourable Minister of Marine, (c) the honourable Postmaster General, (d) the honourable Solicitor General, (e) the honourable Secretary of State, (f) the private secretary or assistant-secretary of each one of them and Mr. C. E. Dube, regarding the construction of a new railway station at Riviere du Loup, from June 1 to June 30, 1930.


Jean-François Pouliot: Might I amend that motion by changing 1930 in the last line to 1931.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: I suggest that it stand until to-morrow.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have no objection.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motion stands.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have no objection provided no official letters are marked private in the meantime.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the language of my hon. friend might be described, as I heard an hon. gentleman say a moment ago, as an outrage. Notice must be taken of that language at once.


Jean-François Pouliot: Rising to a question of privilege, there is a question about these letters. I have here a letter published in the Saint Laurent, dated October 2, and it is marked "private and confidential." I wonder how it is that the writer of that letter published it. It has been marked "private and
confidential" and it was in the file I received from the Minister of Marine. That is what I do not understand at all.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: What is the question of privilege?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not making remarks on the past but giving admonition for the future.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Marine asked that an order should stand until tomorrow, whereupon the hon. member for Temiscouata said that he was quite content, adding that letters should not be marked "private and confidential"-or "private"-in the meantime.


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is such a reflection on the honour of members of the government that I must ask your honour to direct the hon. gentleman to withdraw it unreservedly.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member would be well advised to withdraw that remark, and I ask him to do so. I did not catch what he said; he was interrupting when I went on to the next order of business and I oailled him to order. The. remark is certainly an insinuation that the Minister of Marine marks letters "private and confidential" when they are asked to be produced, and no such insinuation can be allowed to go unchallenged.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you for some information-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that implication.


Jean-François Pouliot: On a question of privilege-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must ask the hon.
member to withdraw the insinuation.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is no insinuation in that, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The words were open to
that interpretation and to no other. I must insist that the hon. gentleman withdraw the insinuation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Out of consideration for
you personally, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not make any reflection in regard to the past; I said what I wanted for the future.
Motion for Papers


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Withdraw.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not wish to be disagreeable to any hon. member-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it a crime to mark a
letter " personal "*-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is neither here nor there. My request is that the hon. member withdraw the insinuation, that the Minister of Marine marks letters "private and confidential" after they have been asked for by way of a return to the house. It is a most unfair insinuation to make.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will use the words of the Minister of Marine-if it is unparliamentary I will withdraw it. That is exactly what he said the other day.


An hon. MEMBER:: Withdraw.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not listening to Long Lake; he has not the floor. I am addressing Mr. Speaker, for whom I have great respect.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman's language was undoubtedly unparliamentary. I have given my ruling and now ask him to withdraw that language.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will use the same terms the Minister ,of Marine used the other day.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Unparliamentary remarks used in the past do not constitute a warranty for such language at any time. The hon. member must withdraw the remark.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the words are unparliamentary I withdraw them.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow, not an insinuation but an affirmation of fact-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Order. The minister has no right to speak. Has he a right to speak at this stage when I cannot? There is no privilege for that gentleman here-that cleanshaven von Tirpitz.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The Minister of Marine has been drawn into the discussion and may address the Speaker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I ask that the reporter read the language of the hon. member

for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) in response to the statement made by the Minister of Marine, when he asked that the order stand until to-morrow, so that there be no misunderstanding as to the language used, it should be read. That is the first step.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Under what rule should the reporter be made to read any words?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reporter is a servant of the house, and in order that my memory may be correct as to what the hon. gentleman said I desire to have his language read. The Speaker did not follow it because, as he said, the hon. gentleman was interrupting and he could not hear. The house therefore has a right to know what the language is. The first step is to take down the hon. member's statement, and the house must know what was said.


Ernest Lapointe: Not by the reporter reading them; it has never been done.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not only should it be read but learned by heart.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is defiance.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The procedure is for the clerk to take down the words spoken by the hon. member.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The clerk can take down only what he obtains from the reporter.


Jean-François Pouliot: I complied with Your
Honour's request and in terms with which you were satisfied. You are the master of this house and when you are satisfied I do not see why other hon. members should not be.


Alfred Duranleau: I raised a question of privilege and I think I am entitled to explain. The hon. member for Temiscouata asserted that I had altered some letters after they had been received by my office.


Jean-François Pouliot: On a point of order, I
did not say that.


Alfred Duranleau: I say that that is
absolutely a false statement. My hon. friend is lucky to say that in the house because otherwise he would be called upon to prove it.


Jean-François Pouliot: My only answer is "Ha,
ha."

Motion for Papers


Alfred Duranleau: I want to say to
this house that no document was ever altered either by myself or by my officials to my knowledge.
Mr. P0ULI0T:	We will say it on the
public platform.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This question does not
affect the minister any more than it affects other hon. members. The motion reads as follows:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between (a) the right honourable Prime Minister, (b) the honourable Minister of Marine, (c) the hoi ourable Postmaster General, (d) the honourable Solicitor General, (e) the honourable Secretary of State, (f) the private secretary or assistant-secretary of each one of them and Mr. C. E. Dube, regarding the construction of a new railway station at Riviere du Loup, from June 1 to June 30, 1930.
That was the first document read to-day. The next document to which the hon. member referred was questioned and I asked him to drop it which he, quite properly in my judgment, agreed to do.


Jean-François Pouliot: I like the right hon. the
Prime Minister much better than some of his colleagues.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Marine asked that this order should stand and His Honour was recording the fact that it was to stand, whereupon the hon. member used language which in my opinion was unparliamentary. As I have just indicated, the course to be followed would be for the clerk to take down the words, but he would have to rely upon the Hansard reporter to whom he would go to get his information because he is not a shorthand writer. In view of the defiance and the subsequent language of the hon. member for Temiseouata, I ask him if he does not feel disposed to do what I think his good sense and the courtesy of debate will induce him to believe to be the proper thing; if he does not think it to be in the interest of the maintenance of proper decorum in this house that he should unreservedly withdi-aw the words he used. I have known the hon. gentleman for many years and I still have some belief that his regard for the traditions of this house will warrant his doing what for the moment he may find to be a difficult thing to do. Any one of us might find it to be a difficult thing, but I believe his common sense will induce him to believe that that is the proper thing to do. I appeal to him once more to adopt this course for the sake of this institution, the House of Commons, and for the proper conduct of debate. He suggested that marks might
be put upon a letter which would indicate that it was personal and confidential when in fact it was not so; it means that or nothing. I do not believe that this House of Commons, nor this government, can conduct public business if hon. members are to make statements such as that. There is always the committee on privileges and elections to which the hon. gentleman could refer this matter. I do not think it would be worth while for anyone to be in public life if he is to be told by one of his fellow members in the House of Commons that a certain matter can stand over until to-morrow if he does not do something to it which in law would constitute forgery. I put it to the hon. gentleman in that way.


Jean-François Pouliot: What does the right hon. gentleman abject to in my remark? What were the words to which he objects?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot charge my
memory with the exact words, but the Sense of the remark is, "'provided they are not marked private and confidential between now and the time they are brought down."


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I believe this case has been settled by yourself because you sat down apparently accepting entirely what I had said. I am pleased to say that I did what I did out of personal consideration for Your Honour, and I do not regret having taken that action.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not want any hon. member to take any course of action because of personal consideration for me. The language was unparliamentary and should not have been uttered, and the request made to the hon. member was that he withdraw it.


Jean-François Pouliot: And so I did.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has done it in a grudging manner; he should withdraw his remark in an unequivocal way.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling, agree that the words expressed are unparliamentary, and therefore beg to withdraw them. I refer the house to the words used by the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) as they appear on page 2807 of Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman's last statement is quite satisfactory. However, I do *not think any hon. member of this house should say that he is taking a certain action out of regard for the Speaker when his re-
European Wheat Tariffs

marks constitute a reflection upon the integrity and honesty of hon. members of this house. If the hon. member thinks that such remarks are parliamentary, then I do not think that public life is worth that sort of thing.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does not the Prime Minister think that it has been a great effort for me to make the words of the Minister of Marine my own?
Motion stands.



EUROPEAN WHEAT TARIFFS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) asked a question the other day in connection with tariff changes on wheat, and in reply I submit the following:

Tariff Changes on Wheat
Period in Force-
Before September 3, 1927	
September 3, 1927, to November 18, 1927.
November 18, 1927, to May 24, 1929	
May 24, 1929, to May 20, 1930	
Since May 20, 1930	
	Equivalent of			duty
Rate of duty	in	Canadian	terms18.2 francs per 100 kilogs.	19	cents	per	bushel25 francs per 100 kilogs.	27	cents	per	bushel35 francs per 100 kilogs.	37	cents	per	bushel50 francs per 100 kilogs.	53	cents	per	bushel80 francs per 100 kilogs.	85	cents	per	bushel
to be used
Wheat Import Restrictions
France has imposed restrictions on the use of foreign wheat allowing percentages as follows:
December 15, 1929, to July 26, 1930	 3 per cent
July 26,	1930, to April	15,	1931	
10	per	centApril 15,	1931,	to April	18,	1931	
15	per	centApril 18,	1931,	to April	28,	1931	
20	per	centApril 28,	1931,	to June	16,	1931	
25	per	centJune 16, 1931, to July 1, 1931	
30 per centFrom July 1, 1931	
25 per cent
Tariff Changes on Wheat
Rate of duty
Period in Force-	7) gold lire
July 24, 1925, to September 13, 1928.. .. per 100 kilogs.
11 gold lire
September 13, 1928, to May 24, 1929.. .. per 100 kilogs.
14 gold lire
May 24, 1929, to June 5, 1930	 per 100 kilogs.
16.5 gold lire
Since June 5, 1930	 per 100 kilogs.
Equivalent of duty in Canadian terms 39 cents per bushel
57i cents per bushel
74 cents per bushel
86J cents per bushel
Wheat Import Restriction
An Italian ministerial decree of June 15, 1931, lays down that 95 per cent of Italian wheat must be used in the production of flour for use in Italy, thus reducing the proportion allowed to be imported to 5 per cent. Previously there was no import restriction on wheat entering Italy other than the customs duty.

Royal Grain Commission



GERMANY

[Stage Direction]
Tariff Changes on Wheat
Note.-A conventional rate of 6-5 reichsmarks per 100 kilogs. (42? cents per bushel) lapsed on February 11, 1930, and since then the rates quoted below apply to all countries.
Before July 10, 1929	
July 10, 1929, to January 20, 1930....
January 20, 1930, to March 27, 1930.. ..
March 27, 1930, to April 15, 1930	
April 15, 1930, to September 28, 1930.. .. September 28, 1930, to October 25, 1930.. October 25, 1930, to November 5, 1930.. ..
Rate of duty 5 reichsmarks per 100 kilogs.
7.5	reichsmarks per 100 kilogs.
9.5	reichsmarks per 100 kilogs.
12 reichsmarks per 100 kilogs.
15 reichsmarks per 100 kilogs.
18.5	reichsmarks per 100 kilogs.
25 reichsmarks per 100 kilogs.
Equivalent in Canadian terms 32? cents per bushel
48? cents per bushel
61? cents per bushel
78 cents per bushel
97? cents per bushel
$1.20 per bushel
$1.64* per bushel
*On November 5, 1930, a rate of 11? reichsmarks per 100 kilogs. (73 cents per bushel), was authorized for hard wheat for the manufacture of hard wheat groats.
*On January 15, 1931, this reduced duty was extended to wheat for the manufacture of starch.
*From May 15, to July 15, German mills have been permitted to import at 20 reichsmarks per 100 kilogs. ($1.31 per bushel), for each month 20 per cent of the total amount of foreign and domestic wheat ground during April, May and June of the previous year.
Duty-Free Entry on Account of Export
The German tariff law (December 25, 1902) provides that whoever exports from free circulation wheat (and some other grains) shall be entitled to a warrant authorizing him to import duty-free a quantity of the same produce corresponding to the amount of duty represented by the warrant. Those warrants were suspended during the war but restored on October 1, 1925. They were again suspended as regards wheat as from October 3, 1930. The value of the wheat export warrants at the time of expiration was the equivalent of 42 cents per bushel, this amount having been determined by the conventional rate on wheat in a treaty between Germany and Sweden and being the lowest rate in force.
Wheat Import Restrictions
A German law of July 4, 1029, compels millers to use such proportions of German Wheat as may be prescribed from time to time by decrees. In consequence of these decrees the percentages of foreign wheat allowed to be used have been:
August 1, 1929, to October, 1029	
60	per	centOctober 1929, to June 30, 1930	
50	per	centJuly 1, 1930, to August 1, 1930	
70	per	centAugust 1, 1930, to August 15, 1930	
60	per	centAugust 15, 1930, to September 30, 1930	
40	per	centOctober 1, 1930, to January 31, 1931	
20	per	centFebruary 1, 1931, to March 31, 1931	
25	per	centApril 1, 1931, to July 31, 1931	
50	per	cent


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I hold in my hand a letter from the Department of External Affairs, and I believe similar letters have been received by all hon. members. This letter, which is dated July 3, 1931, and signed by the secretary of the Commission on Trading in Grain Futures, reads:
In connection with the report of the Commission on Trading in Grain Futures, a copy of which it is understood you have already
received, the commission has decided to delete appendix XII from that report and it would, therefore, be appreciated if you would remove the appendix in question from the copy or copies in your possession.
Last week the right hon. gentleman told the house that after the report had been laid on the table and was therefore the property of the house, the government had decided to delete this appendix and had taken the responsibility for so doing. Now we receive a letter saying that the commission has decided to delete the appendix. May I ask the right hon. gentleman which is the correct view to be taken?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Both.
Privilege-Mr. Bradette



PRIVILEGE-MR. BRADETTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskaming) :: On a question of personal privilege, I want to correct an article which appears in the Vancouver Sun of June 24, 1931, in which I am recorded as being a French-Canadian Conservative member from the province of Quebec and with having voted against the present administration. The article reads:
It is reported in the lobbies that the government faced defeat at the hands of its own followers from Quebec one day last week.
J. A. Bradette, Conservative member for Timiskaming North, is said to have gone so far as to draft a resolution of non-eonfidenee in the government based on two grievances.
That statement is only partly true. I am a Canadian of French descent, but I was elected as Liberal member for the constituency of North Timiskaming in the province of Ontario. I believe there is in the province of Quebec a man whose name is similar to mine and that is probably the reason why the mistake has been made by the correspondent.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: On March 16 last I had a motion on the order paper asking for the production of all letters, documents, correspondence, pertaining to the embargo of certain commodities produced in Soviet Russia, including a report of any arrangement or understanding between the Dominion government and any other government, relating to importation of commodities from Soviet Russia.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister when I may expect the tabling of these documents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I am aware, when the
matter was investigated, no correspondence was found in the department. I think there were some confidential communications between governments of the British Empire with respect to the matter. These will not be produced. Beyond that I know of none, but the officials are still endeavouring to ascertain whether by chance there are other papers elsewhere dealing with the matter. I am having an investigation made and shall advise the hon. gentleman to-morrow.



INCOME TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: When we come to consider the changes in the income tax, I assume there will be some discussion as to the actual effect of the decreases and increases. Might I ask my right hon. friend if he could, in advance of that discussion, favour hon. members with a statement which would show as respects a given amount of income, say, $1,000 and upwards, in increases of $1,000 what the old rate was, what the new rate will be, what the new rate with allowance for exemption of dividends from Canadian corporations will be and the difference between the new rate with exemptions aDd the old rate. A comparative statement of that character would enable us to see at a glance what these changes are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall look into the matter.



REVENUE AND AUDIT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 102, to amend the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Erast in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3- Consolidated revenue fund.
Ernest Lapointe: May I ask whether the
committee on banking and commerce has amended the bill in any way?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, they amended one
section of it dealing with the tenure of office of the comptroller of the treasury. He could be removed for cause; they used those words and then they grouped together the words used in connection with the Inspector General under the Bank Act. They made some slight changes, I think to section 21.


Ernest Lapointe: The right hon. gentleman will indicate the section when we come to it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. Would the chairman indicate the amendments made in the banking and commerce committee as we come to them?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ernst):: Yes.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: There are two or three amendments.

Revenue and Audit Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yea.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On section 19-Duties of Deputy Minister of Finance.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I ask the Prime Minister to give us a brief description of the respective duties of the Deputy Minister of Finance and the comptroller of the treasury?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be glad to do so when we get to that section, which is section 21.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 20 agreed to.
On section 21-Comptroller of the treasury.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In answer to the hon. member from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), this section and the immediately succeeding sections contain a statement of the duties to be discharged by the comptroller of the treasury. As the hon. gentleman possibly knows, there has been a great deal of difficulty in the past in connection with making certain that the receipts of casual small sums which come in to various officials get to the treasury at all. I suppose it is within the knowledge of my hon. friend that small defalcations have from time to time been established and that considerable difficulties have arisen in that regard. That has necessitated a good deal of concern on the part of those responsible.


Charles A. Stewart: The trouble I had was as the result of advances for travelling, and so forth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would serve no useful purpose now to mention departments at all, and in some instances the persons affected are no longer on earth, but we have had three cases to deal with since we came into office. There is difficulty, for instance, in connection with the opening of the mail when men send in five-dollar Ibdlls in an envelope, sometimes registered and sometimes not. There is difficulty in connection with currency that is kept in offices in amounts of $2,000 and $3,000, representing moneys that have been received. There is also difficulty in connection with cheques made out in the name of the officer in the department who conducts that particular business.


Charles A. Stewart: Sometimes in the name of the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One case arose in that way. Another case arose in respect of currency, and another was a combination of both. It is felt that if the deputy minister and the auditor general have larger powers with respect to that, and are released from any power with respect to (a) the control of contracts generally, and (b) the disbursement of moneys, the situation will be very much simpler. I need hardly say to those within sound of my voice that practically every department has at the moment its own bookkeeping system which grew up from olden times, and there has been no change in the matter practically for fifty or sixty years. No large business can be conducted in that way in any country under modern conditions. What happens is that parliament makes the grant of money. That is in the estimates. Then it has been the custom for *the several departments to obtain a letter of [DOT]credit and deposit it in a bank, and against that letter of credit the accountants and officials have issued money upon contracts and for work performed for each department. So, in that way, there is an absolutely separate organization set up in each department dealing with these matters, relating to nobody except the auditor general who authorizes the grant of the letter of credit in the first place. He does see that the letter of credit granted is a letter of credit for which there is a warrant in the estimates, but, up to the moment, he has no authority beyond that. It is proposed, as will be observed by the bill, first of all to appoint an officer to be called the comptroller of the treasury.
hereinafter called "the Comptroller," who shall be charged with the performance of the duties assigned to him by this act and such other duties as may from time to time be assigned to him by the governor in council.
The bill further provides that the comptroller shall be an officer of the Department of Finance and that he shall hold office during good behaviour but may be removed by the governor in council for misbehaviour, incapacity, inability or failure to perform his duties properly. There is a further provision that he shall have free access to records; a provision with respect to parliamentary authority, and with respect also to the moneys received by him and how they shall be treated.
Putting it generally, what is endeavoured to be done by these sections is to provide that no contract shall be valid unless it is registered by the comptroller of the treasury, and secondly that no money shall be disbursed by the several departments of the
Revenue and Audit Act

public service independently, as they now are except under the control and direction of the comptroller of the treasury.
So with the auditor general it is believed that this will afford a more effective and complete control over-shall I say?-the maintenance of the proper relation between disbursements as made and the appropriations of parliament as granted, and over contracts which call for the disbursement of money provided, and as regards the actual expenses that go along from day to day, so that it might be possible at any given time to obtain from the office of the comptroller of the treasury an absolute and complete statement of the obligations of the country at any particular day with respect to contracts for public works or any other services that have to be performed. As it stands now, it is very difficult to do that, because you would first have to go over each department, and in addition one would have to know with certainty what the position was with respect to the letters of credit that at present are obtained through the auditor general by each department and are deposited as the operations of a separate branch of the public service. We think that this will make it a little easier to maintain control, and we think it will provide more effective checks. I may say that one of the most distinguished firms of auditors in the empire made a report for one of our provinces within the last few years, and they suggested that it was very essential that something of this sort should be done. Successive investigations by audit boards in Canada have indicated the desirability of some such action, so that so far as is humanly possible one can provide for contingencies which are always occurring. We believe that this will afford some method of control which I am sure the right hon. member, with his large experience, will realize has been lacking not only with respect to what I call the revenue side of it but also with respect to the disbursement side as well. It will secure absolute uniformity in accounting practices, at any rate, and will prevent drafts being made against appropriations which at any time may over-expend the appropriations.
Lastly, and of great importance, it will ensure the ability of those charged with responsibility from day to day to ascertain the exact relation between expenditures and appropriations in the public service. Above all we believe it will prevent the possibility of what might be called "understandings" upon which men sometimes ground claims against all governments, because there shall be no right to maintain actions for claims either in law, equity or otherwise, unless there (Mr. Bennett.]
is evidence by contracts which have been registered with the comptroller of the treasury. We believe these safeguards will ensure better accounting in Canada.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Is it the intention
of the government by order in council to define the duties and responsibilities of the comptroller?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed that
the governor in council may assign to the comptroller additional duties. Part of the duties, however, is provided by statute as contained in the section to which attention is now being directed, and succeeding sections.


Eugène Fiset: Is section 21 the
only section which affects and refers to the duties of the comptroller, or do subsequent sections make further reference to the matter?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the bill progresses my hon. friend will see that the use of the word "comptroller" indicates that in various contingencies that official will have certain duties to perform. If, however, there are any duties which are not adequately covered by statute new duties may be assigned by order in council.


Charles A. Stewart: I think the bill is a most admirable one. I take it that there will be just one branch of accountancy which will be under the comptroller, and that the letters of credit which have given a free hand to the department will be a thing of the past.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. My hon. friend
from West Edmonton who speaks after a long experience realizes exactly what is involved. The change cannot be made at once, and that is the reason provision is made for doing it gradually. The suggested change is in conformity with modern accountancy, although in some parts of the world people have found it too unwieldy to maintain one central body and for that reason have set up at least two, and sometimes more. So far as Canada with her present population is concerned, we believe one body will be ample.


Charles A. Stewart: I would
hope it would be sufficient. I have a suggestion to make with respect to the Department of Justice. We have scattered through all the departments legal gentlemen who are competent to give advice, but when it is necessaiy to put the imprimatur of the Department of Justice upon any document of importance, that document must be referred to the Department of Justice. I cannot see

Revenue and Audit Act
why that should be necessary, and when changes are being made I think some consideration should be given to this matter affecting the Department of Justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has raised a question with which at least one, if not more, of my colleagues agrees fully. I may say to my hon. friend that the matter is being considered from every angle. I fancy it is known that the practice of having a legal adviser in every department grew up because of the separation of one accounting department from other accounting departments, thereby making each department a little separate government of its own. In the early days dealing with matters as important as the public lands of Canada, the Department of Justice found a tremendous amount of work was involved through reference to it of every little matter, and because of that a solicitor was attached. Following that a solicitor was attached in the Department of Railways and Canals, and I believe such provision has been made for about thirty years-although I am speaking from memory and am subject to correction. What one government department had the other departments thought they should have.


Ernest Lapointe: Quite true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If there was going to be a separate accounting system, and department "A" had its legal adviser, departments "B", "C" and "D" should have theirs. When the classification took plane through the activities of the Civil Service Commission provision was made for such officer.
I say frankly to my hon. friend that inasmuch as the Department of Justice is com-' posed of all the law officers advising the crown it is difficult to understand why in every department there should be some other person whose advice may or may not be that which in the end is approved by the Department of Justice.
In England however there is a solicitor to the treasury, an office somewhat different in character. His duty is to investigate revenue cases and matters of that kind for the purpose of seeing that taxation is imposed, and that such taxes as are imposed are collected. These duties of course are tremendous. The department in Canada retains a solicitor to attend to those duties. He takes his cases to the courts, operating through the direction and with the assistance of the law officers of the crown. In England the solicitor to the treasury usually instructs the attorney or
solicitor general concerning litigation carried on. In fact, in most cases he is bound so to do.
I assure my hon. friend that the matter to which he has referred is one which is not entirely free from difficulties, but one which is certainly engaging the attention of those who have responsibility. I think that at the present time a report is being prepared by several of the ministers in the hope that we may be able to make more uniform the general system in connection with the advice given to the various departments by counsel, whether they be in the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice or in neither.


Ernest Lapointe: As the law now stands the Department 'of Justice is responsible for the advice given by those various solicitors in other departments, creating, in my view, an anomalous situation.


Eugène Fiset: Will the comptroller be directly responsible to the Minister of Finance, or to the deputy minister?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The comptroller would be responsible to the minister.
Subsection (1) agreed to.
Subsection (2) agreed to.
On subsection (3).-Tenure of office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is one of the amended sections.


Charles A. Stewart: What are
the other causes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the old question
that no man can be dismissed from his employment by the crown without having the opportunity to be heard, as was held by the privy council in the Phipps case. Sometimes a narrow meaning is placed upon the expression "removed for cause." It is believed that this would cover charges of misbehaviour, which of course he would have an opportunity to meet, and he may be removed for incapacity. Of course that is almost fundamental; if a man has had a mental breakdown and is no longer able to carry on, it follows that he should be removed from his ' position. The other provisions, inability or failure to perform his duties properly, come under incapacity; they cover the case if he becomes unfit for the position as it may have expanded, or perhaps was not fit for it when appointed. It is perfectly clear, as I say, that the person concerned must have an opportunity to be heard in his own defence, in any case.
Revenue and Audit Act


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Would not the other
causes be of a similar character?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is believed that these provisions cover any possible case which might arise without specifying in greater detail.


John Campbell Elliott: The words "for due cause" do not help very much.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a matter of safety, and I may say the committee added those words.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Subsections (4) and (5) agreed to.
On subsection (6)-Access to records.


John Campbell Elliott: Would the comptroller simply ask any officer of the department for the records, through the minister or the deputy?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a matter of detail which has not been settled.


John Campbell Elliott: It would seem desirable
that he should ask for the records through some channel such as the deputy minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would regard that as
a matter of detail.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Sections 22, 23 and 24 agreed to.
On section 25, subsection (1)-Urgent expenditure not provided for.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Three words are added to this subsection, "or renewal thereof." This would cover the case of a small building burning down; I have a case of that kind in mind. It was felt that under the law, if strictly interpreted there might be some difficulty about it, because that would be a little more than a matter of repair. Heretofore we have been doing this work under the word "repair," and it was thought that those words would make it abundantly clear that there is ample authority in a case of that kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Reconstruction would be a better word, would it not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It covers public works
of any kind, and it is believed that the word "renewal" is broad enough to cover every kind of public work, while "reconstruction" has reference only to a particular form of renewal.
_ Mr. MACKENZIE KING:	The word
"renewal" seems to apply to leases or contracts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Here it is used in the
other sense; it is the renewal of the public work or building. For instance, the one case I had in mind was the destruction of a fish hatchery.


Ernest Lapointe: The expenditure must
be urgently and immediately required.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, those are the safeguarding words.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsection (2) agreed to.
On section 26 subsection (1)-Obligations or commitments.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe this is a clause to which my right hon. friend attaches a good deal of importance; it is the one which enables the minister at any particular time to secure a statement with respect to all commitments which have been made. In that connection may I refer again to exactly what is meant by appropriations and allotments. The Prime Minister, in referring to the act with respect to unemployment relief, used the word "appropriation" where I think what he meant was an allotment and vice versa and the exception I took to the form in which the bill was passed was that it did not terminate, at the end of the fiscal year, all obligations incurred under its provisions, but was so drafted that it enabled the government to use the moneys appropriated during one year for expenditures in a subsequent year. My right hon. friend will remember that he said, "Well, these moneys were allotted for a certain purpose running into the next year." I am afraid that if this sort of thing is to be permitted on any scale it will be very difficult for whoever assumes the position of comptroller to make out the sort of statements my right hon. friend hopes it will be possible to have made out under this section. I do think appropriations should be very strictly construed, and that all appropriations should be for fiscal years exclusively and should not be permitted to run beyond that period of time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon, gentleman knows that my views were not so greatly different from his last fall when we were discussing the matter, but I did explain that, commitments having been made by contracts with the provinces, and through them with the municipalities, and agreements having been reached with regard to direct relief, the council appropriated moneys in accordance with the contractual obligations. I think my right hon. friend is correct in saying

Revenue and Audit Act
that perhaps "allotment" is a better word than "appropriation," for the appropriation amounted to $20,000,000, and that part of the appropriation which was not allotted lapsed. But inasmuch as there was a contractual obligation outstanding, and the sum total of the contractual obligations did not exceed the $20,000,000, the allotments made by order in council to meet the obligations created by the contracts with the provinces and through them with the municipalities for the purposes mentioned, I think come directly within this section. If the comptroller were asked to provide a statement there would be clearly before him, under the other sections, the contracts under which the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, for example, on their own behalf directly and with respect to the municipalities undertook certain things. If their works were not carried on our obligation to pay would not arise, but if the works were carried on it would be a continuing obligation going beyond March 31. Many contracts extend beyond the fiscal year; for example, there are contracts in connection with mail and steamship subsidies which extend for a term of years. Then there is the statutory contract with the Federal District Commission, which provides for the payment of a certain sum of money yearly for a given number of years. This is but an illustration of the same principle. The sum total of the obligation is fixed by the appropriation of $20,000,000. That may or may not be all expended. If there are no obligations or allotments of that sum under the contracts made with the provinces and municipalities for direct relief, the balance lapses. But to the extent that these obligations are existent I think, with some degree of certainty, it must be said that there is strict compliance with the general principles of parliamentary control. The control, in the first instance, was over the grant and, secondly, the control is over the contracts which have not entered into the lapse, the allotments being made to maintain the the validity of the contracts and meet the obligations created thereby.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the
latter part of what my right hon. friend is saying I can agree, that is to say what he has just said with respect to matters of contractual obligation incurred before the fiscal year is up. What I was taking exception to was the use of money appropriated one year to meet expenditures in a subsequent fiscal year which were not in the nature of expenditures arising out of any contractual obligations. Let me illustrate concretely with 22110-216
reference to the act respecting unemployment relief. A part of the $20,000,000 appropriated at the special session was to go towards paying the municipalities and provinces for work undertaken. I can understand that work might well be undertaken before the end of the fiscal year for which payments were not made before the expiration of the year, and, in such cases, the moneys appropriated could rightly be drawn upon to make good contractual obligations. Part of the money was also to be set aside to meet what was necessary in the way of immediate relief that might arise to aid transients who were unemployed for example-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Called direct relief.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. Now,
with respect to direct relief, on March 31, no one had any knowledge of what the direct relief in the next fiscal year was likely to be, and with respect to that part of the appropriation, if there was any balance at the end of the fiscal year, I submit, it should have lapsed at the end of the fiscal year; it should not have been carried over to be expended in this fiscal year. Provision should have been made at this session for that purpose. For example, the Minister of Labour indicated at Edmonton a few days ago that a certain amount would be paid to the municipalities and the provinces for this transient relief, and he quoted a proportion of Dominion expenditure larger than any given heretofore. I have no exception to take to his entering into an undertaking of the kind with the municipalities and the provinces in this fiscal year, but what I say is that the administration should bring in, in this new fiscal year, an appropriation to cover that obligation as belonging to this year, and it should not be charged to an appropriation of a previous year. So long as my right hon. friend holds to the words, "appropriated for a purpose," I think he has in mind exactly what I mean. But when he speaks of allotment and tries to carry over the outlay from one year to another under that head, he is departing materially from the spirit of the legislation he is now proposing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I appreciate the right
hon. gentleman's point. I did not fail to appreciate it as he made it the other day. The difference between the right hon. gentleman and myself is merely this. Having made inquiries in the early part of the year, in February or early in March, as to the probable claims that might be made for direct relief, and having considered these, council made an allotment of $4,000,000 for diraet

Revenue and Audit Act

relief. This, I may say, was made when the budget was first prepared in connection with the $20,000,000. Perhaps my right hon. friend remembers that the report tabled showed that there was set aside for direct relief the sum of $4,000,000; and while it could not be a contract in the sense in which it would create a contractual obligation, the allotment was nevertheless a public contract to that extent if it became necessary to use it. But if, with the expiration of the fiscal year, there were no longer any outstanding obligations to continue direct relief, my right hon. friend and I would not be far apart. Under the conditions that existed, however, continuing payments were being made, because the fund was still existent and unexpended; and the Minister of Labour recommended that within the terms of that allotment the sum paid should be more than one third, namely, one half, in connection with transients. The point made by my right hon. friend may not be entirely free from doubt, but having regard to the circumstances in connection with contractual obligations which were all reduced to writing, with respect to which the right hon. gentleman is fully informed, and also what I called the other day the appropriation of $4,000,000, which is in reality an allotment from the appropriation, as the right hon. gentleman properly said, of that sum, it seems to me that so long as the principle is maintained, of spending not more than that sum out of the appropriation, parliamentary control is still secure; because the whole $20,000,000 was appropriated by parliament for the purposes indicated in the measure. While there would be a lapsing on March 31, that lapse would be with respect only to that part of the vote for the expenditure of which provision had not been made: (a) by contracts with the provinces;
(b)	by payments for federal understakings;
(c)	for payments to municipalities; and (d) for payments for direct relief to the extent of $4,000,000. And the increase of the contribution from one-third to one-half, if out of the $4,000,000, is, I submit, in strict adherence to the rule about which there is no difference between my right hon. friend and myself. The difference between us is only with respect to the application of the rule to particular facts. I submit that what has been done has been in strict adherence to the rule, and my right hon. friend says he thinks the rule has been violated because the appropriation should have lapsed on March 31 with respect to the balance of the $4,000,000 then unexpended.


Charles A. Stewart: The evils which my right hon. friend is trying to cure by this act have grown up just in that way-

contractual obligations for, let us say, the construction of public buildings, and so on. It was with respect to works not completed at the close of the fiscal year and which could not be paid for-although there was money, either from some oversight or for some other reason the particular appropriation was inadequate-there began a practice which I am glad to see is to be stopped entirely, the practice of what I would call kiting moneys over. That may not be the proper expression, but it is one I would use.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: It is well understood.


Charles A. Stewart: I have even heard of kiting cheques. I do not think there should be offered any excuse for an appropriation going over the end of the fiscal year. Parliament is usually in session; and it is not so much that I object to the straining of parliamentary control, but there is a definite date when all votes expire and new votes must be provided. I think my right hon. friend and his comptroller will find out that the slightest departure from that policy will serve as an example to somebody else to try it on some other very important matter which perhaps would require a warrant. Warrants are always available and governments can resort to them where serious difficulties are apparent. But under no circumstances should any appropriation be carried over the end of the fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 27-Issues out of consolidated revenue fund.
Eugène Fiset: Will this section apply to special deposits in trust?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps my hon. friend did not observe that a previous section dealt with trust funds specifically.


Eugène Fiset: Yes. But what I have in mind is the certificate of the comptroller on which cheques are to be issued out of the consolidted revenue. WTould this apply to temporary deposits in the consolidated revenue, such as money raised by the Canadian National and deposited to the credit of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada temporarily or in trust?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would say that that
would be the case because it is in consolidated revenue even although it is in trust


Eugène Fiset: It is in trust?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Although it is in trust.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 28, 29 and 30 agreed to.

Revenue and Audit Act
On section 31-Responsibility of ministers and officers.
Charles A. Stewart: This section reads:
No provision of this act shall be construed to limit the responsibility of ministers, deputy ministers, departmental officers or other persons charged with the administration of grants of parliament.
Would not the comptroller exercise the same authority over grants as over other expenditures?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word "appropriations" could be substituted for the word "grants" if the hon. member so desires. It is only a clause added for the purpose of seeing that the responsible ministers are not relieved of their obligations. It is the maintenance of the parliamentary principle, [f the hon. member prefers the word "appropriations" for the word "grants" there is no reason why it should not be so changed.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think it makes very much difference.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 32-Lapse of appropriations.
Eugène Fiset: This section would mean that the old section 49 disappears, that the old two months' limit will not apply any more than that thirty days will be the ultimate limit?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what is intended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is the
kind of thing I have been fighting for. Since the Minister of Finance finds it desirable that all appropriations which remain unexpended at the end of the fiscal year shall lapse and be written off as a means of controlling expenditure, I trust that when he presents bills to the house, unless it be a matter providing by statute for payments over a series of years, he will see that they are drafted in accordance with the restrictions and limitations here laid down for his officials.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My right hon. friend
apparently has overlooked the fact that when parliament makes a grant by statute for a special purpose, parliament, of course, must control the administration. This legislation is general in its character and meets all appropriations made by parliament. There may be cases where parliament will depart from the principle laid down in this bill and lay down another rule, as in the case of the appropriation of a certain sum per annum for
the Ottawa Improvement commission or for the Battlefields commission. I sought to make it clear that that is what parliament had in mind when provision was made with' respect to the S20,000,000. My right hon. friend perhaps thinks we have not gone as far as we should in order to make that abundantly clear, to maintain the application of the parliamentary principle, about which there is no disagreement between us, but when allowance is made for the slight changes which have been made, it will be found that this section has been in force for years and years. As the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) has said, it only limits the time and makes some slight changes as to the time in which old accounts can be cleaned up. We maintain certain measures of expenditure as far distant as Japan, France and England and it becomes important that there should be, as is the case in most businesses, a period of time within which transactions are to be closed up. I do not think there is any disposition on the part of this government to depart from that general principle, and if my right hon. friend thinks that we have done so, I can assure him that under our construction of the bill such is not the case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite sure that in bringing in future measures my right hon. friend will hold very strictly to the appropriations for the year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He might and he might not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last year was a year which was divided between two administrations and there may have been some special reason for treating last year's outlays in a manner different from that which may occur in future years.


Mr. RALSTON:: Is it intended that the treasury board or the governor in council shall decide whether or not the appropriations not totally expended may be used beyond the fiscal year for the purposes set out in this section?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The treasury board
means both the treasury board as a committee of the .privy council with a permanent official present and the council itself.


James Layton Ralston: The section in parts reads as follows:
issues of public moneys from the consolidated revenue fund may be made to an amount or amounts not exceeding the unexpended balance of any such appropriation, for the purpose only
Revenue and Audit Act

of discharging any debt properly incurred and payable prior to the end of the said fiscal year, which may be outstanding chargeable thereto and which for good reason was not paid within the said fiscal year, and such expenditure may be charged in the accounts of the said fiscal year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the thirty-day section.


James Layton Ralston: That replaces the section which provided previously that the governor in council could grant credit for two months?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are doing away with credits.


James Layton Ralston: There does not seem to be any direct relation to the governor in council.


William Gordon Ernst: Would not subsection (2) apply?


James Layton Ralston: As I understand that subsection, it does not deal with the matters mentioned in subsection (1). Subsection (2) reads'. "Accountable advances to any person for any purpose."


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was intended, and I think the committee which considered it believed that the treasury board was the authority in the first instance. A minute of the treasury board becomes effective only when adopted by council.


James Layton Ralston: I would not take subsection (2) to refer to the same thing as subsection (1).


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was so intended. It reads:
-but in no case shall such later date be beyond sixty days after the termination of the fiscal year.
I take that to cover the whoile question.


James Layton Ralston: I was guided by the words "Accountable advances to any person for any purpose." I did not take that to refer to unexpended balances but rather to advances properly made to somebody for some purpose.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not a lawyer, but does not subsection (3) cover the whole thing?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This subsection reads:
A copy of any treasury board ruling made under the authority of this section shall forthwith be delivered to the auditor general.


James Layton Ralston: Would you not still have the authority under subsection (1) to make a ruling?	1 i


Eugène Fiset: This subsection (2) closes the door to any direct application from any department to the Deputy Minister of Finance to obtain a ruling from the treasury board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member who has had much experience as a deputy minister will realize that the effect of this measure will be to Change the system under which he operated. When this measure is ultimately in operation, which may take some time, there will be no accounting department in the several departments, but it will always be open to anyone to obtain a ruling from the treasury board with respect to accountancy. The comptroller will merely exercise the power designated or which may be assigned to him under the statute, and the Deputy Minister of Finance will still retain his powers; they are not lessened in any respect. Does the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) think it desirable to suggest any words by way of amendment?


James Layton Ralston: I just wanted to be sure that this section would not automatically extend the time, but I leave that to my right bon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think some of the lawyers on the standing committee followed the matter rather carefully and thought it was ample for the purpose. I can see that an argument may be made, but having regard to subsection 3 I think it can be applied to the whole section. The treasury board will assume the whole responsibility.


James Layton Ralston: I think what my hon. friend has said now will be quoted by anyone in the department as authority for that procedure.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 33.-Remission of duties and forfeitures by governor in council.
John Campbell Elliott: Subsection 5 of this section makes a change, does it not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


John Campbell Elliott: I see the explanatory note
reads:
A detailed statement of all remissions and refunds of any tolls or duties shall be annually submitted to both houses of parliament, within the last fifteen days of the session thereof next following the close of the last preceding financial year.

Revenue and Audit Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: The explanatory note also says:
Subsection 5 of the act is covered by section 50 (2), (g), of this bill.


John Campbell Elliott: Is subseotion 5 an exact copy of section 91 of chapter 178? It does not appear so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend will look at section 50, he will find that the auditor general now makes that report, so that under paragraph (g) of subsection 2 of section 50 an independent official does that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 34.-(Refunds of parliamentary fees.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In recent years, moneys paid in on bills have been paid into the consolidated fund. This makes provision that refunds shall be notified by the proper officer of parliament to the minister and shall be paid by him out of the consolidated revenue fund. That is to enable them to be paid without the necessity of having an item inserted in the estimates and the money voted by parliament. Otherwise there is no provision for payment except in the manner I have indicated.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 35 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 39.-Appointment and salary of auditor general.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This section removes the difficulty that the auditor general has pointed out once or twice. It provides that his salary shall be a charge in its entirety on the consolidated revenue fund. His salary was $5,000 and we voted an additional $10,000. He is an officer of parliament and not in any way of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 40 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 45.-Auditor general to be satisfied revenue accounted for-notification of appointments.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The auditor general is at once advised and orders in council are sent to him. This makes the matter statutory.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 46 and 47 agreed to.

On section 48.-Auditor general shall preaudit if directed by governor in council.
Ernest Lapointe: This is a new section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without taking up the time of the committee, I may say the necessity is quite apparent. Where you have large 'accounts, it is desirable to have power to ask the auditor general, before payments are made, to make a preaudit. This was done in one or two cases, but a question was raised as to the authority. The officials of the department say that notation was made and this action is taken to meet the situation.


Eugène Fiset: This was done all during the war.


Charles A. Stewart: The auditor general has always taken the ground that he has the authority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and this is to make it clear that he may secure the authority. '


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 50-Auditor General's report.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In paragraph (g) of
subsection (2) of this section, the former Minister of Public Works will find his question answered.


James Layton Ralston: Is the date changed for
bringing down the auditor general's report?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is kept as it was:
Then within one week after parliament is next assembled.


James Layton Ralston: The explanatory note
reads:
The first portion of subsection (1) is new and specifies a date at which the Auditor General's report is to be ready.
That is new, I take it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Can we do any better
than that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question which my
hon. friend has asked is the same as the one I asked. This is a huge task. Until I actually saw what was involved in the way of effort in connection with the preparation of the report, I would have been inclined to answer the hon. member's question in the affirmative. Knowing what I know now and having listened with care to what has been said by the departmental officials, I am inclined to think it is difficult to do better than that.
Revenue and Audit Act


James Layton Ralston: I suppose it has to be
laid on the table of the house first?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: The section as it is drawn, gives great latitude:
The reports of the auditor general shall be laid before the House of Commons by the minister on or before the 31st day of October, if parliament is then sitting, or if not sitting, then within one week after parliament is next assembled.
It is not made up until it is presented to parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe in practice
there has been some circulation of those reports before they are laid before parliament. Upon making further inquiries I am told there is no absolute rule against this. The reports are printed; there might be antecedent distribution and then the document laid before parliament. That is what I am told but I am making further inquiries.


James Layton Ralston: Could we not fix a date .and not make an extension by reason of parliament not 'being in session?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is to meet the
point of having the work done by a given time so that all the work in the department is done on the'theory that the work will be completed by that date, provided parliament is in session, and provided parliament is not in session it has to be laid on the table of the house within one week after parliament meets.


Ernest Lapointe: Generally parliament is
not in session on the 31st October.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, but this gives
him time to finish it by that time. You have to fix a date for the completion of the report. I am sure that hon. gentlemen who have taken the trouble to look at those volumes realize the tremendous amount of labour involved. It is simply a colossal task to complete one of these Auditor General's reports. That is the best suggestion that has been made, but when this bill goes to another chamber I will have the matter looked into again, and it might be arranged to meet the suggestion of my hon. friend if that is a better view.


Eugène Fiset: It would obviate
all difficulty if you made the date of the opening of parliament statutory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course.


James Layton Ralston: I would suggest a fixed
date, whether parliament is sitting or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think perhaps it can
be passed in that sense, and I will take the matter up again.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 51-Appeal to treasury board on auditor general's disallowance.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That meets the question which my hon. friend raised a moment ago. It provides that any public officer may make his appeal to the treasury board.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 52 to 57, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 58-Notice to persons neglecting to pay over.
John Campbell Elliott: There are no changes in
any of these provisions under part YU?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except that five years
is made the term for an offence.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 59 to 65, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 66-Offences by officers and employees.
Charles A. Stewart: Five years
for not giving information that comes to an officer's knowledge seems pretty drastic.


Ernest Lapointe: He is liable to a term
of imprisonment as well as a fine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not exceeding five years. As a matter of fact it is intended to be in the discretion of the judge.


Charles A. Stewart: It is a pretty stiff sentence simply for having knowledge of a violation which he fails to report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hesitate to say. It is
like the post office cases. I suppose there is not a member here who has not had appeals made to him in connection with the provisions of the Postal Act, and yet I am satisfied that the penalties there provided have had a marvellously deterrent effect. That is my view, and talking this over during the preparation of the act it was felt that this section making a maximum of five years would be of value in the administration, but if it is thought to be too severe-


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
objecting to the five years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is well to
have a strong deterrent there. That is what is intended. The punitive part is in the discretion of the judge. The deterrent part is what is on the statute book.

Tariff Board


Charles A. Stewart: But five
years' imprisonment for simple neglect on the part of an officer having knowledge in some way of a misdemeanour on the part of another officer in the service in which he is employed to report such offence looks rather severe.


Ernest Lapointe: The judge would use
his discretion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He may impose one day. I will tell you what it is done for. The real truth is that in many instances a man says, where there has been a violation of the law: I am not going to report on what I see under my eyes. But when he is told that he has no option but to do it, and that for failure to do it he incurs the possibility of a term of imprisonment, that being one of the terms of his engagement, I think the effect of it is useful. That is as far as I can go. The main part of this has been on the statute book during all these years.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
fault to find with the five years' imprisonment where the individual admits his own personal violation of the provisions of the statute, but to impose the same penalty on one simply having knowledge which may be acquired in a manner which gives him no certainty about it, and who fails to report the circumstances, seems rather drastic.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 67 and 68 agreed to.
On section 69-Other remedies of His Majesty not impaired.
John Campbell Elliott: What is the effect of the change?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend will remember the class of cases where it has been held that if recourse is had to the remedy as prescribed in the statute that excludes the operation of any other remedy. This simply provides that no criminal or civil remedy shall be lost by reason of action being taken under the provisions of these sections.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 70 to 72 inclusive agreed to.
On section 73-Venue of actions and prosecutions.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I would direct the attention of the committee to the fact that it has been found in practice that the limitation of time to six months sometimes works a hard-: ship. Notice must, under this section, be
given at least one month before the commencement of the action. Sometimes complaints have been made that it works a hardship, and I felt bound to direct the attention of the committee to the fact. I have no views to express either one way or the other. In practice I once considered that six months' limitation with one months' notice was-


James Layton Ralston: When my right hon.
friend was on the other side of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In my time I have been on both sides. In the particular instance I have in mind I was not acting for the crown, but I remember that I was able to use this section. Apparently for the moment the opposing counsel had not thought of it. Some difficulty arises when you say that six months is the period of limitation and that one month's notice has to be given. It therefore follows that for all practical purposes one does not have much more than five months. However at this time I merely direct the attention of the committee to the fact.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 74 agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In these sections it w.ill be observed that three months is the limit of time within which any one might be employed for these purposes.
Section 75 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 47, to provide for the appointment of a tariff board.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Section 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Constitution of board.
Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Chairman, I wish at this time to refer to subsections 3, 4 and 5 of section 3, in connection with which there was full discussion on the second reading of the bill. The view taken at that time by speakers on this side of the house was that tenure of office should not be for a period of ten years, but that office should be held during pleasure. I do not know that at this time we can add much to what has been
Tariff Board

said, because when the matter was under consideration previously hon. members on this side discussed it fully, and the reasons then given still obtain.
The tenure of office for which provision is made in this bill is very long as compared with that of similar bodies in other countries. I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members of the committee what I brought to the attention of the house, namely, that in 1912 Sir Thomas White introduced a bill to create a tariff commission, in connection with which the tenure of office was set at five years. To that bill the Senate proposed an amendment, which was accepted by Sir Thomas White, to the effect that members of the board should hold office during pleasure. Section 4 of the present bill, which states the powers of the board, provides that the board shall act "under the direction of the minister" and shall "report to the minister." I submit that a board which has not the confidence of the administration of the day is not in a position to do effective work when it is under the direction of the Minister of Finance and must report to that minister. The leader of the opposition touched the point as to whether or not it would be possible to get competent men to accept positions on the board for a shorter tenure of office, and I submit the reasons he gave for coming to the conclusion that it would be possible to get competent men to serve on the board, even with a shorter tenure of office, were convincing. I must oppose, for the reasons I gave in the house, the section of the bill which places tenure of office at ten years.


Mr. HANBURY:: Following the remarks of the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) I purpose to move an amendment to the clause in the bill dealing with the tenure of office of the members of the board. In the first place I am not altogether pleased with a commission of this nature. To me it savours of the development of bureaucracy, something from which we should get farther away rather than encourage. I do not approve the practice of banding all our functions over to commissions and committees; I think the government should take more responsibility. If the government wishes to appoint a committee of civil servants to find facts on which policies may be based, that is something for the government to decide. To shelve its responsibilities and put its head behind a commission, however, is something with which I cannot agree. It is evidence of a lack of courage and a desire to pass the buck. It has been intimated, and I think quite fairly, that if the Prime Minister and the government insist upon fixing the life of

this commission at ten years with provision for pension for the balance of their years, they will not be continued in office when the present government is defeated, as it must be in time. With that opinion I fully agree. The Prime Minister must accept the position that he has been served notice by the Liberal party that they do not accept his commissioners, and under these circumstances the commissioners, in taking office, must realize that they will remain at the pleasure of the Liberal government when it comes into power. The Liberal government will not consider itself bound by the legislation the Prime Minister is endeavouring to place on the statute books at the present time.
The suggestion has been made that the reason why these gentlemen should be engaged for a period of ten years is that competent men who are thoroughly qualified to fill the position must have a certainty of tenure, followed by a life pension. My criticism is that this bill does not contemplate appointing the members for their ability to analyze; they are not being engaged to exercise their judgment. They will act as accountants and investigators, bringing down the facts for the guidance of the Prime Minister. For that reason I do not think the type of commission suggested in this legislation, composed of what you might call super-qualified men, is at all necessary. A commission composed of men already in the civil service would be quite capable of fulfilling such duties. However, assuming that the highest type of man is required, it is not necessary to inflict this commission upon the Liberal party in order to procure him. Let the Prime Minister pay a salary sufficient to get the man he wants, rather than give him a fixed tenure of office Let the Prime Minister pay his price; we will be satisfied, but we do not want him to inflict this commission on the Liberal administration when the government changes. I ask the Prime Minister not to attempt to place the ghost of the conservative party in the cupboard of the Liberal party when the government changes. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hants-Kings that section 3 be amended by striking out subsections 3, 4 and 5 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
(3) Each member shall hold office during pleasure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have not come to
consider section 4 as yet. But the hon. member for Hants-King made a suggestion with regard to the opening words, which are:
_ In respect of goods produced in or imported into Canada the board shall, under the direction of the minister-

Tariff Board
I am quite content that this should be amended, because the meaning he attached to it is not t'he meaning I had in mind. I have no objection to the words "at the request of the minister" being substituted. The Minister of Finance is not directing the inquiry; he is requesting it.
The reason that we have so strong an opinion with respect to the tenure of office is because I entertain the belief, fortified by experience and observation, that if we are to get a board worthy of the name this provision must be made. In spite of what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has said against any board at all, most countries have found it essential in the conduct of government to depute to committees and commissions part of the work of ministries, and we believe that if we are to get the type of men essential they must not be appointed during pleasure.
I am not going over the ground again. You cannot pay a price which is out of line with the general salaries throughout the country. I have said, so frequently that it is hardly necessary for me to repeat it, that when we talk about abolishing appeals to the privy council we must never forget that the judges are paid $8,000 a year, and you cannot get men to assume responsibilities in a court of last resort in Canada for a matter of $12,000, $14,000 or $15,000 a year. If this commission is to be of the value I hope it may be, it must be composed of men possessing the highest qualities. As I explained to the house the other day, it is because I believe this may be of incalculable Value to Canada that we have prepared this legislation in its present form. We believe that any salary Short of this would not make the position attractive to anyone. The salary could be made larger, but then it would be out of line with other salaries, and the small annuity which is provided does not involve more than would be involved in the payment of a much larger salary, based on any table of 'life expectation which ia in use to-day.
I can only say to the committee that here is a very earnest effort being made to provide this country with a body of men who will discharge the duties placed upon them to the best advantage to the country at large. With regard to the rhetorical references of the hon. gentleman to the empty cupboard 'and the skeleton I can only say that for years to come the skeletons he will find in that cupboard will not be Conservative skeletons, but he will find many Liberal skeletons that could welt be taken out and clothed with flesh and blood. Some of them could be
destroyed, or a museum might be started; skeletons are very useful in that regard.
I cannot see my way clear to accept the amendment of the hon. gentleman, and no useful purpose would be served by going over the ground which already has been traversed with respect to this matter. If the threat of the Liberal party, as stated by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, has the effect Of depriving us of the services of the men we should like to obtain, the responsibility will not rest with us but with those who have made such a threat. It is not usual for threats of that kind to be made in parliament; it may be that this will have a very disastrous effect when we come to secure the people we should like to obtain, but I think not; I think perhaps, looking forward, they will see ahead ten years of useful service to their country with no chance of an opportunity being given the Liberal party to implement that threat.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope the
Prime Minister will not feel that I am seeking unduly to delay the proceedings if I say but a few words to him by way of appeal for further consideration of this particular clause before he says finally it must pass in its present form.
May I say, as I always do in referring to the Prime Minister, that I believe he is quite sincere in the object he has in view, and when he says he thinks it would be easier to get the type of men required for a tariff board if the tenure of office be made ten years than if appointments are made at pleasure I am sure, he honestly believes that to be the case. If this were the only governing circumstance there would not be the same reason for objecting to the clause in its present form. But my right hon. friend is seeking at this time to bring in a very important measure, one far-reaching in its possible consequences, and which I say frankly I believe members on all sides of the house hope will serve a useful purpose, not only under one administration but under different administrations. It is from that point of view I am directing these few remarks to the Prime Minister.
I should like to see this legislation, as it appears now, of such a character that it would not need to be amended m the event of a change of administration, or should there not be such a change. In making appointments for ten years my right hon. friend is to a very considerable extent tying his own hands and those of his own party, and I shall be surprised if he does not come to regret the fact that he has been so insistent upon the
Tariff Board

ten year period. He mentioned the other day that it was his intention to appoint to the board one member from the province of Quebec and one from the prairies, and I assume that the third will be from the province of Ontario. With respect to those three appointees, is he perfectly sure that for the period of the next ten years each one will perform his services so satisfactorily that the right hon. gentleman will have no occasion to regret having fixed the tenure of office definitely at ten years? If the members of the board perform their services satisfactorily there will be no question about their being continued in office: If their duties are discharged in an impartial way, as a fact finding board purely and simply, with no object beyond that of ascertaining facts, I, for one, do not see why the personnel would need to be changed even with a change of administration. There is everything to be said for having some body that will collect information, a body which will have continuous existence and be able to pass on from one year to another and from one government to its successor the benefit of accumulated experience. I believe that all this would be accomplished by members appointed at pleasure.
My right hon. friend is creating a suspicion with respect to his intentions, which would not arise if he made the tenure of office of the board at pleasure instead of for a period of ten years. The fact that he insists upon ten years, which is a period that far exceeds the life of a parliament, particularly after he himself has been so strong in asserting the principle that one parliament should not bind another-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is, with respect to
a money grant.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and now
asserts that one government should be able to bind another government, causes me for one to feel that he must have in mind something further with respect to the purposes this board is intended to serve than merely that which he presents so plausibly, namely, the finding of facts with a view to assist the administration of the day. To put the matter fairly to my right hon. friend, may I say that we are prepared to admit his right, in connection with any board he may appoint, to select those who he believes are in accord with himself in the policy which he is seeking to enforce at the present time. That policy, I need not say, is a policy of protection in tariff matters. My right hon. friend's government is in office, among other things, to

introduce the protective element into the tariff where it does not now exist. I do not agree with the view expressed, even by one or two from this side of the house, that the right hon. gentleman and his government have had a mandate from the people to change the tariff of the country substantially. I do not believe that in the last general election any representations were made by hon. gentlemen opposite which led the country to believe that if the Conservative party were returned to power they would alter the tariff in a wholesale fashion both as to range and as to increases in the several items as they are doing at the present time. The public had every right to expect that if hon. gentlemen opposite were returned to power there would be a protectionist administration and that it would add to the protectionist features of the tariff in substantial particulars. But that they had any mandate to revise the tariff in a wholesale fashion upwards is something which I, for one, would not concede for a moment.
Let us assume that they are in office on the understanding, from their point of view, that they have a mandate from the people to maintain the protective feature in the tariff and to increase the tariff generally. Assuming that, I say that my right hon. friend would be most unwise, in making his selections for the tariff board, to choose the members of his board from among those who were known to favour free trade policies, or who stood for a tariff for revenue, or even to those who had been actively identified with the Liberal party's point of view with respect to matters of tariff policy. We do not expect him to make selections from our side. He is not doing in this what was done by the government of the United States when they introduced a tariff board for advisory purposes. They selected representatives of both political parties. This bill is modelled largely on the statute creating the United States tariff board. But one feature of that board is absent from the one here proposed, and that fact makes me stress the more emphatically that the appointments should be at pleasure rather than for a period of ten years. In the United States, as has been said, the Democratic party under a Republican government has named three members of the tariff board; and should the Democratic party come into office after the next presidential election there will remain on the tariff board three Republicans who have been appointed by the Republican administration. One can see evidence of a desire for fairness and justice in such an arrangement. But when that feature is disregarded

Tariff Board
entirely and my right hon. friend seeks to make appointments for ten years of those whom he pleases, he creates in the minds of members on this side of the house and of the country generally the assumption that he has some objective that is not fully disclosed. In a word, he is seeking to create a board which will in some way fetter and bind those who may succeed him, should another administration follow his own.
We do not object to my right hon. friend choosing whom he wishes to advise him on facts pertaining to the policy on which he contends his administration has been returned. We do not object to his going to whatever lengths he may feel he is justified in going in paying these advisers whatever sums of money he thinks they should receive. We are not objecting to the annuity feature with respect to appointments. All that we are objecting to is his determination, despite every other consideration which may be given his appointees, that they shall be fastened definitely for a period of ten years upon the country, regardless of what changes may take place in conditions, regardless of how they may turn out as advisers, regardless of what changes may come in administration. If we are prepared to concede him the points I have indicated, he is deprived of nothing so long as he remains in office and administers the policies which he says he is there to administer. If the fiscal question should be, as it certainly will be, prominent in the discussions that take place in the next general election, and should my right hon. friend be returned to power, he will undoubtedly wish to retain his advisers; or if he should wish to change them, and our arrangement were carried into effect, he would be free to do so as his own needs might seem to warrant. But if there should be a change of administration my right hon. friend could hardly expect that a government which would be opposing his own party in a great political contest, as soon as they came into office and began to deal with the tariff, as they would be called upon to do if the tariff were the main feature, would be bound to continue in office and accept as their advisers those whom he had appointed to the board. It is so obviously unfair to contend anything else that my right hon. friend can hardly take exception to a statement which must be made very frankly at this time, namely, that if advisers do not enjoy the confidence of the administration of the day, nothing would justify that administration in continuing to ask parliament to
vote their salaries. All these things being considered, I think my right hon. friend could very well concede the one very reasonable change which we ask and which would alter materially our attitude toward the legislation as a whole.
May I say that I believe the feeling entertained against this bill in the form in which it is drafted arises primarily from this one section which seeks to bind subsequent administrations in the manner in which it does. The provisions of the bill go much further than the providing of a board which will be simply a fact finding board. If that were all this board had to do, I concede thait there might not be the same reasons for objection. But my right hon. friend has told us that this tariff board which he is creating is in the nature of a new federal court. He is endowing that court with great powers, is making it a court of final decision with respect to the interpretation of the tariff, of orders in council, and of many matters which directly affect the administration of fiscal policy. He is giving these wide powers to the board and is also taking power to himself and his colleagues to substitute this board for the judiciary where the legislation of to-day provides that investigations may be held by judges of the supreme court, exchequer court or county court. To his administration he is taking the right to substitute this board for the persons named in the Combines Investigation Act for the purposes of investigation under its provisions. All of this being taken into consideration it arouse# the suspicion in the minds of those who are inclined to be, I will not say critical but impartial, that there must be some motive other than that of simply creating a fact finding board, It is that suspicion which makes the opposition to this feature as strong as it is.
May I quote to my right hon. friend his own words on the question of principle. I mentioned these in part in speaking on the second reading. In replying, my right hon. friend did not make an answer to that portion of my remarks. Speaking in the house on April 24, 1928, as reported on page 2352 of Hansard, my right hon. friend said:
Five years is the life of a parliament, and I cannot think it quite consonant with the ideas of the right hon. gentleman as heretofore expressed that this parliament should bind the hands of future parliaments.
My right hon. friend was referring to annual expenditures, but this too, is a matter of annual expenditure; he is asking future parliaments to make an annual expenditure for a period of ten years to these particular
Tariff Board

appointees, whoever they may be and however they may be performing their duties, and for all expenses in connection with the administration of this act. If he confines his ideas of principle to annual expenditures, then there can be no doubt on the score that he should not seek to bind this parliament beyond a period of five years. Binding the country with respect to annual expenditures may be bad enough, but to bind it with respect to additional powers to be conferred upon a body that is extraneous altogether to the administration of the day, is much worse. If it is a bad principle to bind an administration with respect to appropriations beyond the time of our parliament, how much more serious is it to seek to bind an administration with regard to powers being conferred upon some body which, once the enactment is passed, will exercise its authority and its powers for years, apart altogether from control by parliament? My right hon. friend went on to state in reference to myself:
I think the right hon. gentleman would be quite within the general constitutional practice if he said. "I desire that a given sum shall be available for this commission during the lifetime of the parliament over which I am the directing head."
May I apply the words of my right hon. friend to himself as regards this tariff board? They would then read:
I think the right hon. gentleman would be quite within the general constitutional practice if he said, "I desire that a given sum shall be available for this tariff board during the lifetime of the parliament over which I am the directing head."
May I continue with the remarks of my right hon. friend:
But when you ask parliament to bind its hands for thirty years I cannot help but think that is going too far, and that it is not quite consistent with the general principles under which we conduct our government.
That reference was to an appropriation being made for the maintenance of certain improvements in the driveway and parks system of the capital. It was not a matter of a difference of policy; there was no question of policy involved. Let me substitute his remarks and apply them to the present bill. They would read:
But when you ask parliament to bind its hands for ten years I cannot help but think that is going too far, and that it is not quite consistent with the general principles under which we conduct our government.
I quote also the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), who moved at that time an amendment similar to that moved with respect

to this bill. In moving that amendment the hon. member said:
My chief objection to the bill is that this parliament, through a commission, is making commitments for fifteen years.
In applying those words to the present measure they would read:
My chief objection to the bill is that this parliament, through a tariff board, is making commitments for ten years.
He continued:
which in the ordinary course of events will cover the lifetime of possibly three, if not four, parliaments. I think the principle is wrong, and I am surprised that it should be seriously proposed especially after what the Prime Minister said in this house when in opposition and since he became head of the government. To give to a commission the expenditure of moneys over a period of fifteen years is to my mind preposterous, and to take away from future parliaments the right to say how that money shall be spent, I think is also preposterous.
With slight changes those words could be applied to the present measure as follows:
To give to a tariff board the powers which are conferred by this statute over a period of ten years is to my mind preposterous, and to take away from future parliaments the right to say how those powers shall be exercised, I think is also preposterous.
I think hon. members will agree that that is a reasonable attitude to take in regard to legislation as far reaching and important as this present measure. May I return again to the remarks of my right hon. friend. Speaking on April 26, 1928, as reported at page 2399 of Hansard, he said:
Personally I have held a very strong view for some considerable time as to the undesirability of any legislature or parliament tying the hands of succeeding legislatures or parliaments with respect to annual expenditures.
The hands of this parliament are being tied for a period of ten years with respect to the annual expenses essential to the work of this board and for the payment of salaries in connection therewith. If my right hon. friend felt that way with regard to annual expenditures, how must he feel when a matter of policy is at stake? He gave his views in regard to policy as follows:
That idea may or may not be sound, but I do not think that when matters of policy are affected-and matters of policy always are affected in relation to grants of public moneys

this parliament should tie the hands of two or three succeeding parliaments.
Matters of policy are affected where grants of money are concerned but they are affected to an infinitely greater degree where the whole question is the controversial one of the tariff

Tariff Board
anld the opposing points of view that may be had with respect thereto. My right hon. friend goes on to say:
Not denying that parliament lias always the right to repeal legislation, I submit that it is undesirable to create vested rights with respect to legislation; and the undesirability of such a policy can never be more apparent than it is in this particular measure.
May I appeal to my right hon friend's sense of fairness and justice with regard to what he says in that statement? He says: "Not denying that parliament has always the right to repeal legislation, still, I think the business of binding a subsequent parliament is wrong." As I said the other day, should a change of government occur the situation will be quite different, with respect to this legislation from what would be the case were circumstances then to accord with what my right hon. friend, in the passage I have just quoted, has said would be probable. The government of the day, were a change of administration to take place, could not always repeal the legislation. I speak feelingly, because when the Liberal administration came into office in 1921, for many years thereafter we passed through this house measures which we thought were in the public interest, only to discover that those measures had encountered defeat in another chamber, because my right hon. friend's friends were in the majority there. I believe as matters stand at the present time the parties in the other chamber are politically about evenly divided. I know that during the whole term of the Liberal administration, covering a period of eight or nine years, there was not a time during which parliament was in session that we had a majority of our own friends in the other chamber. My right hon. friend starts now with his appointments to the other chamber where the numbers are more or less equally divided politically, and I assume lie is going to appoint those who share his protectionist views and who will do what they can to maintain protectionist principles and ideals. This means that if the present administration were to go out of office, and an incoming Liberal administration were to seek to repeal this legislation, they would be entirely at the mercy, with respect to that repeal, of what might happen in the other chamber. That is not fair; it is not just, and when under such circumstances my right hon. friend makes this provision for ten years, he creates, as I have said already, a suspicion in our minds, and, I believe, throughout the country as a whole, as to the real objective he has in view.
It would seem as though the Prime Minister were determined at all costs, regardless altogether of the will of the people as expressed
at a general election, and regardless also of what the House of Commons may wish, to see that some body is in existence that will maintain the protective principle in the tariff. That, I think, is distinctly wrong. My right hon. friend can relieve that suspicion in a moment by indicating his willingness to alter this clause with respect to the tenure of office being ten years and providing that the appointments shall be at pleasure. Let him credit those opposed to him with the same good faith towards the board as he himself professes concerning those who are to be his appointees.
I will say to him quite frankly: If any board he appoints does its duty in an impartial manner, in a manner that will command the approval of those who are his opponents today, there will be no disposition to change the personnel of the board should his opponents come into office.' But I say with equal emphasis that if the trend of decisions given between now and the time there is a change of administration should be of a character to indicate that those who comprise the board are not in sympathy with the new Liberal administration, returned as it will have been by vote of the people, any such administration could not afford, as I have already said, to ask parliament to continue to vote salaries to keep in office those whose views were politically opposed to its own.
My right hon. friend goes on to say:
I cannot but think that the principle involved -the principle which the right hon. gentleman when in opposition always contended should be applied-is the soundest possible principle with respect to the expenditure of public money. No parliament should create a condition which leaves a succeeding parliament under the necessity of either repealing existing legislation with respect to which vested interests of rights may have arisen, or of carrying on regardless of the views of that succeeding parliament, simply because the preceding government has done what is being done in this case.
Could I, if I searched the world over, for what would support my present contention, discover any argument stronger than that presented by my right hon. friend in his own words which I have just read? In the light of his own expression of principle, which I think does him great credit and is very sound Jet my right hon. friend, in all good faith and giving to the language no wider meaning than that which he intended it to have, at the time he made it, reconsider this matter. Let me read again this latter part, which says:
No parliament should create a condition which leaves a succeeding parliament under the necessity of either repealing existing legislation with respect to which vested interests or rights may have arisen, or of carrying on regardless of the views of that succeeding parliament, simply because the preceding government has done what is being done in this case.
Tariff Board

My right hon. friend concluded his remarks with words which I shall use in concluding mine.
As I say, it is with regret that one has to deal with this matter as a matter of principle with respect to this particular legislation, and I have endeavoured to assure the Prime Minister that it is because we believe a principle should be laid down which will be of very great value in this country at this time, when there is a tendency to entrust public moneys in large sums to commissions, that we are impelled by whatever sense of duty may actuate us in the discharge of our obligations here to move this amendment.
If he will just substitute for the words "tendency to entrust public moneys in large sums to commissions", the words "tendency to confer very large powers upon a board which will act independently of the government of the day," he will have the added emphasis which I should like to place on his own words.
I realize my right hon. friend has behind him the numbers which will enable him to have his own way with respect to anything he may wish to do. But I would say to him, that having in mind the good he hopes will come out of this particular measure and the general approval which he trusts the country will extend to it, he should consider this matter a little further and apply to the section at present before us those excellent and admirable principles which he himself has laid down in the passages I have just quoted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Few things are more passing strange in politics than the attitude of those who condemn a thing most strongly at one time and advocate it at another. The right hon. gentleman this afternoon is using, to apply to something else, the observations which I made in connection with a grant of money. He now asks the committee to adopt the views I then expressed and to do violence to the opinions which he then expressed. He voted against the views I then expressed; he tore them to pieces as being unworthy of the consideration of the house at that moment, and his majority at once responded and voted down my amendment to the third reading of the bill. He says now in 1931 that what I suggested in 1928 was right and that he was wrong. Usually it has not been .the habit of deliberative assemblies to attach much weight to prophets who were wrong in 1928 and who, changing their minds in 1931, say: "Look what we will do if we have the opportunity!"
I was amazed .to hear the right hon. gentleman. There is a fundamental rule which should be followed in cases of this kind, namely, that as regards specific observations made by any member of the house with re-
spect to a particular form of transaction, you have no right to apply such observations to another matter which has no reference to it. Salaries, of course, involve the payment of money. That is so with respect bo judges. But would anyone say that because some appointments to the judiciary are not such as merit the support of the people we would be warranted in declaring, because an annual grant is involved, that we will not make provision for their salaries from year to year? It certainly has never been done. It certainly, if I recall the language of at least one judge of the courts of this country, never could legally be done, having regard to the declarations we have made.
Fundamentally, for some strange reason, the right hon. gentleman declines-I say declines, advisedly, because his intelligence is so high that he quite realizes what we have done-to accept the plain meaning attached to the language of this statute. We have created a court under the provisions of the law which confer on the federal parliament the right to create a federal court. We have given that court judicial functions. We have limited the exercise of those functions, and we have declared that that court shall be composed of 'three, a chairman and two others They are the personnel of the court. Who would think of asking any court to accept office during pleasure?


James Lorimer Ilsley: You did it in 1912, or at least Sir Thomas White did it in his bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the bill never became law. There was not a court.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It had the powers of a court of record, according to the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not a court.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have the bill here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am thoroughly familiar with the bill. It was not a court of record, though it had certain powers of a court. This is a court of record. We are creating a court of record with all that appertains and belongs to a court of record. We have provided that the personnel shall number three, and that the court shall exercise judicial functions. No court worthy of the name can ever serve the purpose intended if the judges who constitute it hold office during pleasure. That is elementary. That requires no statement from me.


Wilfred Hanbury: It depends altogether
upon the personnel.

Tariff Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: No court worthy of the
name can serve the purpose intended if the judges who constitute it hold office during pleasure, and the history of Great Britain and of our own country makes that perfectly clear. That is why the great office of Master of the Rolls in England is no longer held by one who occupies a place in parliament, and that is why at times the anomaly has been attacked of the Lord High Chancellor holding a place in parliament. But we have created a court of record. We are going to appoint judges to that court, and we have to determine two things, their qualifications, and their tenure of office. Their qualifications we have broadly indicated by the class of work which they must do. We have indicated as clearly as it can be done that their functions are limited to finding facts, and I say with great frankness that a judge who is competent to find the facts is an eminent judge. I recall reading only last week a short sketch of a distinguished jurist, now no more, and the biographer was giving a little inside story of why this distinguished jurist was always right on questions of facts. Early in his judicial career he said to the usher of the court, "I wish you would watch the proceedings carefully, because at the end of the day I mean to speak to you." At the end of the day he would speak to the usher who would tell him something like this, "Smith perjured himself. Jones did so and so. The plaintiff was all wrong." The judge gave his decisions after talking with the usher, and year after year he was held in higher and higher esteem as a judge whose finding of fact was incomparable, and he finally attained to great distinction on the bench.
Here we have asked for the appointment of three judges, three men exercising judicial functions. We have defined the ambit of their powers as finding facts and nothing else; not the application of law or principles of law, except economic laws, so far as the facts may be concerned. They are to find certain facts from evidence, and we have stated what fact3 are to be found. Does a change of government alter that in any way? Is a fact less a fact because my right hon. friend is in office instead of me? Does the sitting of that court make any difference in the finding of facts because it was held on the first of August rather than on the 26th day of July? The court is not the reflection of the mind of the government. That is why I have said to my hon. friend from Hants-Kings that ws are perfectly content that the words "under the direction" shall be changed to "at the request." I may be wrong, as I have said, in
the view I entertain as to the usefulness of this court, but I honestly believe that a tribunal of this kind, freed from political considerations, holding office without regard to government, pleasing or displeasing governments being a matter of no importance to it at all-


Charles A. Stewart: We have
had some experience of that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had heard that that was so, and I am glad to hear my hon. friend confirm it. For my part, I am bound to say this, that I do not believe that any government has any right with respect to a tribunal so created to ask or expect that tribunal to make any finding of fact that will please or displease any administration.


Charles A. Stewart: That is not the point at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is my conviction, and I believe as certainly as I am standing here that we have in this country taien capable of exercising judicial functions in the finding o.f facts as indicated by this measure. But I do not believe that we can get them to take office if they are to be subject to the indignity of being removed merely because there is a change of government.
What about the question of returning officers? The right hon. gentleman talked about them, and nothing was done. What about them?


Wilfred Hanbury: They do not influence government policy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They sometimes influence the election of members, and I have known members to influence government policy, but not the hon. gentleman. But be that as it may, I merely mention that as an instance of what may be done when the other principle is applied. Returning officers were appointed at the behest of the members of the dominant party of the day, and some of them gave rather-shall I say?-rough treatment to some of the candidates opposed to their views. I suppose that is a case in point.


Charles A. Stewart: Not with
me. I always got fair treatment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Naturally, having appointed the returning officer.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I mean from the men my right hon. friend appointed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I leave that for the
moment. That was the first point which the right hon. gentleman made. I have referred to his second point. Now he says that some-
Tariff Board

where in the mind of his party there is a suspicion that our purpose is something more than the language indicates. I still say that it is always well to keep in mind the elementary rule that statutes must 'be interpreted in accordance with their plain, ordinary meaning. There can be no sinister purpose behind this. We provide for a tenure of office of ten years for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is that there may be certainty, stability and uniformity-certainty on the part of those who have to discharge these duties as to the tenure of their office; that there may 'be that stability which is essential to any court; that there may be uniformity for a period of ten years in the methods that are utilized for the purpose of ascertaining the facts.
The hon. member for Hants-Kings said the other day that in ascertaining costs, you might use different principles than those which should prevail, and t'a,ke the least efficient industry as the determining factor as to costs. I was much struck by his observation and I propose, as we proceed, to ask the committee to add the word "efficient" before the word "production," in order to meet that very view.


Charles A. Stewart: You cannot instruct your court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman says that you cannot instruct your court. The reason it is being made a court is to provide that if it exceeds its jurisdiction, then being a court, a prohibition would lie against it. If it fails to discharge its duties, a mandamus could be issued out of the courts.


James Layton Ralston: A mandamus?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, to compel the court to the performance of its duty. It is a lower court.


James Layton Ralston: Not a court of record.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a court of coordinate jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of Canada, but it is a court of record.


James Layton Ralston: It is a court of record?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a court of record, and if a judge exceeds his jurisdiction a prohibition lies against him. Let us go one step further. It is said that the Combines Investigation Act-


James Layton Ralston: In a court of record one does not have prohibitions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have seen prohibitions against a court of record, against a county court judge, and if my hon. friend wishes to know the cases I shall cite them.


James Layton Ralston: Not in a court of record.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The county court is a
court of record.


James Layton Ralston: Not a court of record
with the jurisdiction here involved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely. If the
Supreme Court of Canada with the powers given to it under the Supreme Court of Canada Act-


James Layton Ralston: This is only advisory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not; it is a question of finding facts. Turn up the word "advisory" in the bill. You cannot find it.


James Layton Ralston: It was used repeatedly
in the discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was used by hon.
members opposite, but was not used by me. Since my hon. friend has referred to the question I shall state to him the powers of the board. They shall make a report-that is what they shall do. I shall read the section of the bill concerning reports:
Inquiries under this section shall be conducted in a summary manner, and the respective reports to be made pursuant to its provision shall succinctly state the facts so ascertained; and each report shall be accompanied by a copy of the evidence, if any, taken, and by a copy of all information obtained in connection with the inquiry.
I repeat the phrase, "shall succinctly state the facts so ascertained." That is what was done by the United States tariff commission in the cases to which I referred in the house the other day, having to do with maple syrup and edible gelatin. In those cases the facts were dealt with, and they ascertained what rate of duty would be necessary to equalize the costs of production.


James Layton Ralston: They expressed an
opinion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No "opinion" at all; it
is a question of fact, and what is more it i3 a mathematical fact-an absolute mathematical fact requiring no evidence whatever.


James Layton Ralston: Well, why not use a
cash register or an adding machine?


Ernest Lapointe: Surely my right hon.
friend does not need judges for mathematics?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Evidence must be forthcoming upon which the conclusions are based.


James Layton Ralston: Therefore there would
be an opinion based upon facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If statements of facts
may be said to be opinions-


James Layton Ralston: An inferential fact.

Supply-National Revenue


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. They simply say
that if the cost of production in Jugoslavia is $20 whereas in Canada it is $24, a certain rate of duty is required to equalize the $20 with the $24.


James Layton Ralston: All of which does not
require a judge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But a judge is required
to ascertain the facts concerning costs of production in Jugoslavia and in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: That is not a function.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it is a function.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, it is worse than
we thought.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
my right hon. friend is willing to proceed with some of the other bills in the early part of the evening, before reverting to the one now under consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At eight o'clock I shall
move that the committee rise so that until nine o'clock the house may proceed with some of the other bills.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Progress reported.



ANNUITIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 90, to amend the Government Annuities Act.
He said: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the select committee had the privilege of hearing the superintendent of annuities. There were some questions hon. members were anxious to have answered, and the bill has been reported without amendment. My advice is that there was no division in committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Cowan (Port Arthur), in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not intend proceeding in committee of ways and means until after nine o'clock, so if the house would permit we might take up supply of the Department of National Revenue and get some of those items out of
the way in the meantime. There are two or three items under the Department of Finance of which we might dispose also until the appointed hour. Therefore I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply.



NATIONAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr Cowan (Port Arthur) in the chair.
National Revenue: salaries, $821,310; contingencies, $40,000.
Mr. RINFRET:: I notice an increase of
23 clerks in the department. Perhaps the minister would explain how that happens.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: In 1930-31 there were 405
employees, and the salaries amounted to $777,480, with contingencies of $60,000, making a total of $837,480. As my hon. friend has said, for this year the salaries amount to $S20,310 for 428 employees, showing an increase of 23. That increase is made up as follows: In the office of the general executive assistant there is one chief clerk and one stenographer, grade 2. In the laboratory there one laboratory helper. These services are necessary because of the removal of the laboratory located in the Connaught building and the one on Lyon street to new and larger quarters. The laboratory help is necessary to this branch. In the records branch there are two additional clerks. There is a total in salaries of $2,100, the reason being that the work has increased to such an extent as to have necessitated these positions. In the statistical branch there is an increase of two clerks, grade 3. These positions have been created in order that a sufficient number of trained officers may be on duty at all times. The statistical branch is the training ground for positions in the checking branch, and owing to so many removals to that branch the efficiency of the statistical section has been some what impaired. New clerks require considerable training before they are able to carry on efficiency. In the translation division there is one extra clerk, grade 4. This position has been provided for an employee who replaces the senior translator when that official is absent. He translates circulars and memoranda and supervises the work of the other stenographers in the branch. In the estimates department there is one clerk, grade 2, this position being due to increased work. In the appraiser's section there are two customs reviewing appraisers, two clerks,



Supply-National Revenue
grade 4, two clerks, grade 2, and four stenographers, grade 2. The total increase in salaries is S14,760. The reason for this increased staff is that a number of additional officers are employed in connection with values in the United States and Europe. This automatically increases the work of the department and these positions are consequently provided. In the refund branch there is an increase of four, with a salary increase of $6,000. The work in this branch has materially increased and the additional staff is therefore necessary. This accounts for the increase of twenty-three in personnel. The National Revenue department, embracing as it does the customs and excise branches and the income tax branch, is the business office of the government. As hon. members can well understand, the work of that department has increased, and notwithstanding the falling in revenue that work must be done. As a matter of fact, I think additional work has been necessitated by the state of the revenue. I am sorry I cannot get along with a smaller staff, but I can assure the committee that the best that can be done in that department is being done by the officers. The committee may regret the fact that we have this addition in the personnel, but it is unavoidable.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Seeing that so many of
the powers of the minister are to be taken from him and conferred upon the new tariff board, may we expect that there will be a reduction in his staff within a few months or another year? Although I appreciate the minister's remarks, it must be recognized that it is hard on the exchequer to provide this increase with the revenues of the department in their present state. I accept the minister's explanation, but as I have pointed out, if the tariff board is to be invested with some of his powers one would naturally like to know whether at some future time a reduction in his staff may be expected.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If as a result of the
functioning of the tariff board there is less work for the Department of National Revenue to do, I may say emphatically that such a condition will be reflected in the expenditures which the government is required to meet n connection with that department.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I understand that the customs examiner in the town of Golden, British Columbia, was the other day appointed president of the local Conservative association. Is it not undesirable for a customs officer to be president of a political association, Liberal or Conservative?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I had not been informed of the fact the hon. gentleman has stated. I quite agree with him that no official of the government, under section 65 of the Civil Service Act, can be countenanced in lending himself to active political partisanship.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Last year 810,000 was
spent to install a calculating machine in the statistical branch. In ordinary circumstances that would have brought about a reduction in the staff of the branch, or at least it would have stabilised the staff. Yet, according to the minister's statement there is an increase of four in that branch. Perhaps he will explain this.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It would be fair to
anticipate that a labour saving machine such as this would result in less clerical work. The work of the department, as I have been informed, has increased considerably within the last year. That is true of the first half of the year as well of the latter part, and that is the only answer I can make to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and for preventive service, and amount required to create positions and make appointments of officers for the prevention of smuggling and to investigate reported frauds against the revenue; also to provide for the expenses of such officers, and for the purchase or charter of vessels and for the purchase or hire of automobiles to be used in the prevention of smuggling or other offences against the revenue laws, $1,958,991.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How
many of these cruisers are located on the Pacific coast?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: There are the Despatcher and the Imperator at Vancouver.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Are the
reports in regard to the stoppage of illicit smuggling satisfactory as far as the department is concerned?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I will say frankly, they are not. Owing to efforts which have been made, we have succeeded recently in overtaking some of these illicit shipments, but I am not satisfied by any means that the best that we can do in overtaking this illicit trade has been accomplished. My department is endeavouring to justify its existence in British Columbia by the stoppage of this trade.


Wilfred Hanbury: There is an area in Vancouver called False creek which cannot be policed at all with the present force. Unques-

Supply-National Revenue
tionably liquor is ostensibly exported from Vancouver to be brought in again and bootlegged without paying the revenue. I suggest that it would be profitable to the government to extend this service.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I shall be delighted to have any information given to the department which will enable the successful assertion of our rights to collect all the revenue and to prevent any person or persons from treating with contempt the revenue of Canada. Recently we were able to overtake some of these improper efforts by means of information furnished the department, some anonymous and others by those who were quite willing to sign their names. If any hon. member of this house or anyone in the country knows that the government is being defrauded, we shall be glad to be advised as to the circumstances. If we should be zealous about anything it is in obtaining that to which we are entitled and in preventing anyone from flouting the laws of this country.


James Layton Ralston: A man by the name of MacDonald was dismissed from the preventive service in Pictou county. I understand that representations have been made to the minister by the Nova Scotia Temperance Alliance officials to the effect that the services of this man were in every way satisfactory. What report has the minister received about this case, and what information can he furnish the committee?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Does the hon. member refer to Mr. Norman MacDonald?


James Layton Ralston: I do not know the first name.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: A customs-excise enforcement officer. On April 15, 1931, his services were dispensed with because of active political partisanship during the last federal elections. I obtained my information in connection with this case from a source which I regard to be most reliable. This man was an excellent officer, one of the best we had in the preventive service, but under section 55 of the Civil Service Act a statement was made by an hon. member of this house upon his authority as a member that this man had been guilty of the offence of political partisanship. Hon. members who know what control is exercised over the civil service by that section must realize that I had nothing else to do than to accept the statement of the hon. member and recommend to council that this man be dismissed.


James Layton Ralston: Does the minister say
that he had a certificate from a member of parliament?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Naturally I required to
have the statement put in writing, and I have the letter in the text of the statute which my hon. friend, of course, knows very well.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think there is
any text in the statute in regard to letters from members of parliament, but it is well recognized that the minister acts on letters of members of parliament when the statement is that the partisanship is to the member's personal knowledge. Has the minister the letter with him?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No.


James Layton Ralston: Will the minister bring it down?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I have no doubt it is
on the file. I shall be glad to bring it down.


James Layton Ralston: Does the minister expect
to finish his estimates to-night?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am in the hands of
the committee.
Mr. RALSTON; I understood something was said by the Prime Minister about two or three items being taken up, and then something else.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: As I say, I am in the
hands of the committee.


James Layton Ralston: It was just a matter of
knowing whether the minister's estimates would be before the committee again, of considering the papers and finding out whether there is anything to bring before the committee.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: In any case I shall be
glad to bring down the letter. I am pretty sure I have it.


James Layton Ralston: Will the minister give
me an opportunity on another item of discussing this matter after the letter and the other documents are brought down?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I shall be glad to do
so.


James Layton Ralston: I might also ask the
minister to bring down the order in council.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: In view of what has
been said by the hon. member for Shelburne-Larmouth, this item, which is the last one, had better stand.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: There will be supplementaries.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I have two items in
the supplementary estimates.


Ernest Lapointe: That will be all right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Trade-Advertising

[Stage Direction]
Trade and Commerce-an act to place Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron or steel on a basis of equality with imported coal, administration of, $1,000.
Mr. COOTE:: How much was paid out
under the act last year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Unfortunately I have ncr
my papers with me. It is a comparatively small amount paid to an individual who is working part time looking after the subventions paid under this act. There was only a small amount paid out last year to one firm.


George Gibson Coote: Perhaps the minister would
agree to give us that amount at the next opportunity.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will make a note of it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad, $250,000.
Mr. REID:: A great deal has been heard
during this session regarding the advertising policy that has been carried on by hon. gentlemen opposite. I have a little piece of advertising here that I should like to show to the [DOT]committee, and I would ask what relation it ihas to the Canada first policy of hon. gentlemen opposite. I heard the desks on the other side of the house pounded when the Canada first policy was being advocated. I also heard a lot of desk pounding opposite when mention was made of the famous five cent speech. Here is a fine piece of advertising which I now hold in my hand. First there is a picture of a large five cent piece, an American five cent piece, and the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King is shown riding on top of it. Underneath it says, "Not a five cent piece." Below that again is another picture showing Uncle Sam chasing the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, and underneath this picture is the title, "Scared of Uncle Sam," and the words, quoted from a speech of the right hon. gentleman in the House of Commons, "So perilous do I believe the situation to be," and so on.
It might interest the committee to know where this stuff came from. The mats were made in Germany, the printing was done in New York, and this stuff was then brought back into this country and distributed among Conservative printers to try to bring about the downfall of the Liberal party. This stuff was distributed just two days before the last election. I hold in my hand one of the mats, made in Germany. In view of the fact that
tMr. Lapointe-1
this stuff was manipulated in Germany and printed in the United States I am wondering when the Conservative party changed its policy with regard to buying made in Canada goods.


George Gibson Coote: Seeing that immigration to this country has practically been discontinued, does not the minister think that this vote should be cut down? Is there any use carrying on all the advertising and publicity work that we have been doing in the past? I have always understood that it was partlj' for the purposes of immigration.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. That is the other vote, No. 372, which was passed the other night.


George Gibson Coote: Is the money all spent in Canada under this item 374?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. About half of it is spent in England and some of it on the continent.


George Gibson Coote: Just what purpose can it serve a-t a time like this?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It serves a very good purpose. It is advertising Canadian products, chiefly food products.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In connection with this item I would point out to the minister that only two or three days ago I read in one of the newspapers that the Minister of Education in the Conservative government of British Columbia-I do not remember his name, but no doubt the minister as well as other hon. members saw the despatch-had stated that he was going to have the creed of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce hung in all the public schools of that province. As the minister told us the other night that he was not going to go on with this advertising campaign, perhaps he would inform the committee whether he really thinks that this creed and this set of pasteboards which has been displayed to the house in a previous discussion should go into the schools of any province. The Minister of Education of the British Columbia government was very definite in his declaration. He seemed to say that notwithstanding what we thought about it, he was going to have that beautiful creed-I have a copy of it in my room, by the way, but I am not teaching anyone in that room-hung up in every school in British Columbia. As British Columbia is my hon. friend's own province, perhaps he will tell us if he does not think this is going a bit too far.

Supply-Trade-Advertising


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have great confidence in the judgment and ability and educational qualifications of Canon Hinchliffe, the Minister of Education in the province of British Columbia.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have none at all.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is not a reply. I know my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in community of spirit with the Minister of Education for British Columbia, but I would ask him has not this recent declaration of the Minister of Education of his own province shaken his confidence in that gentleman?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not a bit.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my hon. friend bases his admiration of the minister on things like that he is certainly swayed by a partisan spirit. I do not think it is right at all. I am quite sure if a minister from the province of Quebec had done likewise my hon. friend would think differently.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all.	.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: It was a matter of regret to me that I heard the minister announce when the item was previously before the committee that these calendars were at present out of print, or at least that no more would be available. I took the opportunity of sending a copy of the creed to each public, separate and high school in the district of East Algoma, and I have received from the principals of many of these schools letters of commendation and requests for a further number of these beautifully engraved calendars. It has been a matter of profound surprise to me to hear the sentiments expressed in connection with the calendar, and I have been no less surprised at the criticism which has been lodged against it.
I wish now to take the time of the committee to place on record the wording of this document: "I believe in Canada"-Does any hon. member of the house say that we should not endeavour to inculcate in the minds of *our boys and girls faith in Canada?


James Layton Ralston: I suggest that my hon. friend should put his hand on his heart.


George Brecken Nicholson: "I love her as my home; I honour her institutions; I rejoice in the abundance of her resources"-*


An hon. MEMBER:: Wonderful.


George Brecken Nicholson: If hon. members will be patient for a moment I intend to place
side by side with these expressions another [DOT]creed whidh is being taught to Canadian children in many parts of Canada. When [DOT]they have heard it perhaps they will not be so ready to criticize the expressions for which *the Minister of Trade and Commerce is responsible.


Mr. RHEAUME:: I think it would be better [DOT]to send some bread where it is needed.


George Brecken Nicholson: "I glory in the record [DOT]of her achievements. I have unbounded confidence in the ability of her people, to excel in whatsoever they undertake. I cherish exalted ideals of her destiny as a leader [DOT]among world nations. To her I pledge my loyality; to the promotion of her best [DOT]interests I pledge my support; to her products I pledge my patronage and bo the [DOT]cause of her producers I pledge my devotion."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Very good.


George Brecken Nicholson: If one were to judge from the expressions of hon. members opposite it would seem that the Liberal party of Canada desires to dissociate itself from these expressions. My own opinion is that the *Liberal party does not desire so to do, notwithstanding what its leaders in this house [DOT]have said.
The last time this item was before the committee the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think it was, in reply to a statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the effect that he had received hundreds of letters in commendation of the creed, said he could *find a hundred thousand people in Canada who would curse this government, and impliedly, would curse the creed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried, carried


George Brecken Nicholson: No, the item is not carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


George Brecken Nicholson: Perhaps my hon.
friends will scoff a little later when I set before them the other creed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read it.


Mr. PERRAS:: I would not be in favour
of cursing t'he creed, but I would be in favour of condemning the government.


George Brecken Nicholson: My hon. friend apparently desires to associate himself with the hon. member who said he could get a hundred thousand people in Canada to curse the government and the creed. It is per-
Supply-Trade-Advertising

fectly true, Mr. Chairman, that that could be done. My hon. friend could get a hundred thousand people in this country to-day to curse every institution for which this creed stands.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


George Brecken Nicholson: You could get a
hundred thousand people to-day who would curse the Christian church.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Chairman,
you could.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nonsense.


George Brecken Nicholson: I shall set the creed of that hundred thousand people beside the creed set down by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I shall read from the second creed which I have in my hand, so that hon. members may learn why efforts should be made to instil into the hearts and minds of boys and girls in Canada some respect and regard for the institutions we all cherish. May I say that when returning home from Ottawa I met the priest of the Roman Catholic church in the town in which I live. He referred to what was taking place in a town of three thousand people in northern Ontario. He told me that he was making an effort to combat the evil influences operating there, and congratulated me upon sending the creed to the boys and girls throughout the country. I have now before me a creed which is being taught to boys and girls in two thousand schools across Canada, hundreds of which are in that section of the country from which I come. I shall read to the committee parts of this creed:
Atheism, as a philosophy, is to be planted in the minds of children and youth.
Godless children shall have back of them an organized effort to help them free their companions and comrades from the religious yoke.
Through organization and cooperation boys and girls will be removed from the "evil" effect of the clergy.
The youth of the country ....


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend's remarks have nothing to do with the item before the committee.


George Brecken Nicholson: My hon. friends
opposite may scoff as much as they wish.


Ross Wilfred Gray: What has this to do with the publicity campaign?


George Brecken Nicholson: Perhaps this second
creed is getting under the skin of my hon. friends opposite. They do not wish to be associated with the condemnation of efforts which would tend to instil Canadian patriotism into the minds of boys and girls.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I rise to a point of
order. My hon. friend is now reading some other creed which has nothing to do with the document issued by the minister. My hon. friend further insinuates that if we do not accept the creed distributed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce we must accept the one he is now reading. I maintain that my hon. friend is completely out of order, and I suggest, sir, that you so rule.


George Brecken Nicholson: I rose to express regret that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had decided for Che time being not bo publish any further copies of the creed, because I have received scores of requests for it. Why have those requests been made? For the purpose of combating t'he efforts of some people who are endeavouring to destroy our institutions. If in the judgment of the chair I am out of order when I make comparison between these two doctrines or creeds, I shal-l be prepared to take my seat. But I believe I am in order, because this creed is being used1 all across Canada, and not only in the schools. I have had requests from, leaders of girl guide and boy scout organizations asking for copies of the creed in order to combat this influence which is being spread from one end of the country to the other. The priests of the Roman Catholic church in the town in which I live have brought to my attention the kind of thing that is 'being taught in the schools in that vicinity. There is a case . in point in a school in a small village sixteen mites from my own city. That is why I say we can find 100,000 people in this country who will curse this creed and our Canadian institutions. Let me read what they are putting into the mouths of boys and girls six and seven years of age.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Before the hon. member proceeds I should like the chairman to give his ruling. Following this line of thought my hon. friend could bring in anything at all on the pretext that this creed will combat it.
I think my hon. friend, in discussing the creed should not be allowed to read any document he may wish to read on the pretext that this creed will destroy its influence.


George Brecken Nicholson: I submit that this
creed is desirable to combat the very things I am putting before the committee. Hon. members can say what they will; I am going to put this on record, so the house will see the menace.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cowan, Thunder Bay):: On the objection raised by the hon. member for St. James, I think my hon. friend

Supply-Trade-A dvertising
from Algoma is in order in discussing anything in regard to the creed, but I wish he would confine his remarks strictly to that subject.


Mr. BLAIR:: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he is dealing with the French interpretation or the English version of the creed? There is a vast difference.


George Brecken Nicholson: My knowledge of the French language is very imperfect, but I submitted the creed to a number of friends who do know French. Among them was the reverend mother principal of the Roman Catholic separate school of the town of Chapleau. I sent her five of these creeds in the French language, and in return received a beautiful letter. Here is what our Canadian children are being taught to say and sing:
The whole world at last is beginning to see
The blight of the world is Jesus.
Like sunshine at noonday, free thought has shown me
The blight of the world is Jesus.
Keep off the blight or blighted you'll be,
Blighted for life by credulity,
Once I believed, but now I can see
The blight of the world is Jesus.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: On another point of order,
I would direct the attention of the Prime Minister, who is prone to make eloquent speeches whenever an hon. member disregards a ruling of the chair, to the fact that the chair has ruled that my hon. friend should not read any documents other than those pertaining to the creed. The hon. gentleman has not obeyed the ruling.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The chair did not say
that.


George Brecken Nicholson: I believe I am quite
in order; I am expressing the desire that 100,000 or 200,000 copies of these creeds should be sent broadcast throughout this country. I think I am quite in order in stating to this house the sort of thing that is being put into the hearts and minds of our boys and girls, which should be combated in every possible way. That is the reason I am placing thess facts on record.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Why give them publicity?


George Brecken Nicholson: Is there anything the
matter with this creed? Is there any statement in it to which a Canadian citizen or a Canadian boy and girl cannot subscribe?
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce never
did anything finer, and no public man of this country ever did anything better than to put this creed before the people of Canada from one end of the country to the other. The amazing thing to me is that hon. members of this house, I care not what their political creed may be, should rise and undertake to say that a large part of the population of this country desires to dissociate itself from statements of this kind.


Wilfred Hanbury: We on this side of the
house are becoming more or less accustomed to lectures from hon. gentlemen opposite, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that he has an hon. member for Algoma who might very well come up to the front benches as a preacher. As far as I am concerned I have sufficient faith in the intelligence and patriotism of the youth of Canada to believe that they do not need this sort of thing shoved before their noses every day to tell them what they should do.


Mr. SPENCE:: It will not hurt them;
they are getting away with too much.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: I wonder if the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: Would the hon.
member tell the committee what articles of the creed he repudiates?


Wilfred Hanbury: It is not necessary to
repudiate anything; the whole thing is futile. The hon. member for St. James asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the government was supporting the policy enunciated by Canon Hinchliffe, Minister of Education in the British Columbia government, that this creed should be propagated in all the schools of that province.


Mr. NEILL:: In place of the Lord's Prayer.


Wilfred Hanbury: Yes. I wonder if the
Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is interested in the development of trade, should not call to the attention of the British Columbia Minister of Education the fact that many of the customers of the lumbermen, the fishermen, the miners and the pulp and paper manufacturers of British Columbia might resent the fact that the Canadian people are being told they should not buy goods outside of Canada. I wonder if the Minister of Trade and Commerce should not tell Mr. COMMON'S
Supply-T rade-A dvertising
Hinehliffe that Canadian export trade is not as good as it might be and that if he could do something to help that trade he would be doing something to help Canada at this time.


John Knox Blair: The creed in French is not
the same as the creed in English. The hon. member for Algoma spoke of a French teacher approving of the creed in French, and I think the creed in French is very good in many ways, except as it tends to advertise the government. In the English version, however, I do not like the words "To the cause of her producers I pledge my devotion.'' The word devotion comes from the Latin "devoveo", which means to get down on your knees and worship. I believe in standing on my feet; we do not need to get down on our knees to worship the manufacturers. I do not think that expression is fair. It is ridiculous; it is absurd.


Charles A. Stewart: I have
nothing to say about the creed; possibly it may do some good. There may be some doubting Canadians whom my Conservative friends will convert by the creed. But what I object to is the expenditure of money on advertising Canadian goods in Canada. I am thoroughly in sympathy with advertising abroad, to help our merchants to market their goods outside Canada. But why two or three particular lines should be picked out and the Canadian people be urged to buy the products of these industries-this coming from the Conservative party particularly-is something the necessity for which I do not see. It is an absolute waste of the public money, for the reason that ever since this government took office they have been taking precious good care to see that no foreign goods shall come in. There is, therefore, no necessity for advertising. The people have no chance to buy anything but Canadian goods. Yet the government are spending $90,000 in a campaign impressing upon the Canadian people the importance of buying these goods they cannot get anywhere else anyway. That, briefly, is the situation. Whenever the government hear of foreign goods coming in, they immediately pass an order in council raising the duty, with a resulting increase in price, so that it is an utter impossibility for the people to buy those goods. On that ground alone I object to this vote. The policy of the government is to keep out foreign goods. Then why squander $90,000 telling the people to buy only Canadian goods when they cannot buy any other goods? That is the real objection to the vote.


Mr. YOUNG:: I have no fault to find with a political party that spends its money prop-
[Mr. Hanbury.J
agating its ideas in an endeavour to persuade the people to adopt its views. In fact, I give a party credit for that; that is a legitimate use of campaign funds. But no one ever contemplated that any government or any political party would dip its hands into the public treasury to secure campaign funds.


Mr. PORTEOUS:: Who paid for the advertisements that appeared before the last election under the Department of Trade and Commerce?


Edward James Young: Was there such advertising as this?


An hon. MEMBER:: Worse.


Victor Clarence Porteous: They said, "Be Canadian; be British; vote Liberal."


Edward James Young: If the Liberal party took
money out of the treasury to advertise in the newspapers, urging the people to vote Liberal, they deserve censure. But that would not be an excuse for the present campaign of the Conservative party. I say that the Conservative party had the right to advertise so long as they did so with their own money But they had no right to take public money to put on that campaign in the newspapers, to try to turn the people into Conservatives. That campaign, I believe, was put on through the Gibbons advertising agency of Toronto. An active executive and vice-president of the agency is Mr. G. M. Murray, whom some of you will remember as the man who became famous, perhaps I had better say infamous, about eleven years ago, for his attempts to bludgeon the Canadian press into supporting the protectionist campaign of the Conservative party. His plan at that time was to secure control of the advertising that was sent to the newspapers, and suggest to the editors that, in view of the fact that they were getting advertising, they should modify their editorial policy. I do not know what good angel guided my hand the other day when, in the library, I took down a book out of which fell this pamphlet I hold in my hand. It comprises a number of articles written during the campaign which Mr. Murray was carrying on in 1920, the series appearing under the title, "Plot to chloroform the Canadian Press." I wish to read one or two extracts from this pamphlet. Here is what Mr. Murray says in a letter which he addressed to some of the principal advertisers of that day:
Advertisers can talk polity to that editor to-day and they will be attentively listened to. The editor knows that advertisers form the one class who can save his enterprise from financial disaster, and anything those advertisers ask in

Supply-Trade-Advertising
reason they are going to get. The fact that already hare disappeared from the field such papers as The Toronto Times, The Peterboro' Review. The Saskatoon Phoenix and Regina Post is warning to all and sundry that in the midst of journalistic life we are in death, and that he who would survive must henceforth pay less attention to the editorial sanctum and more to the office of the business manager. When the publisher's summer of prosperity has faded into his winter of adversity, when the robes of editorial arrogance are being laid aside to make way for the garments of humility-then is the time for advertisers to drive a hard-time bargain. They'll lose a wonderful opportunity if they don't.
The Manitoba Free. Press of January 24, 1921, has the following to say with reference to Murray's campaign:
The method is not obscure; briefly, it is as follows. Advertising forms an important part of newspaper revenue. Advertisers who use newspaper space should keep an eye on the news and editorial columns of the newspapers. When the newspapers print news or opinions of which the advertisers do not approve, the advertisers should order the newspapers to suppress such news and such opinion. If the new'spapers refuse to "see the light." the advertisers should withdraw their advertisements, thus crippling the newspapers' finances and compelling the newspapers to "see the light" even though they know it to be gross darkness and very black indeed. This is club exercise No. 1.
There is another. Advertisers may have news and opinions which th*y are desirous of "putting over" on the public. They "approach" the newspapers and explain that if this news and opinion is not accepted by the newspaper and made to appear as though it were ordinary news and opinion-gathered in the usual way and expressing the newspapers' own views

advertisers will consider the advisability of curtailing or withdrawing advertising accounts from the newspapers. This is exercise No. 2. Mr. G. M. Murray, of 709 Yonge Street. Toronto, thinks that by these means the newspapers of this country might be made to serve a useful purpose for some class of citizen which exists, as he is quite unable to see, solely in his own imagination.


Donald James Cowan: I believe the hon. member is reading from an article or a pamphlet not issued by the department. I suggest that he confine his remarks to the item under discussion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member is reading-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
speaking to a point of order, and I will not take directions from hon. gentlemen. I understand that my hon. friend from Weyburn is reading some press comments upon a matter which has relation to the subject under discussion. I think he is in order.


Edward James Young: I will not wait for your
ruling, Mr. Chairman; I have done reading anyway. The point is this. This man Murray eleven years ago set out deliberately to control the press of the country. By getting control of the advertisers he sought to force the press to support the Conservative party in its high tariff policy. And this same man is vice president and active executive of the agency to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave the advertising under discussion. I do not accuse the Minister of Trade and Commerce of trying to influence the press of the country in favour of his policy or of his party. I frankly accuse him, however, of placing in the hands of this man Murray the very weapon which Murray was seeking to get hold of in order to give him control of the press. If I were at liberty to speak-I cannot speak because the man who gave me the information would get into trouble-I might tell you some strange tales of suggestions made to editors of papers who were receiving this advertising.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell us about the
consumers league.


Edward James Young: We are badly in need of
a stronger consumers' league than we have to-day. The ten million Canadian people need a strong consumers' league as they have never needed one before. With a government in power that has lost sight of the consumer, that thinks of no one but the producer, that thinks the consumer exists for no other purpose than to be exploited; with a government of that stripe in power, bringing before the house a bill to establish a tariff board which provides that the consumer shall not be allowed to know what is going on, and threatens to send anyone to gaol who tells what is going on, I say that we are badly in need of a much stronger consumers' league than we have to-day.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: If you want one. all you
have to do is to pay for it, as you didn't do before.
Mr. Y'OUNG:	We did not do what? We
paid for the consumers' league before.


James Dew Chaplin: How much did the government pay ?


Edward James Young: Nothing, not a cent.


James Dew Chaplin: Nothing at all?


William Gordon Ernst: Who franked its literature?
Supply-T rn cl e-Advertising


Edward James Young: Any time the government
see fit to open the question of the franking privilege, we are willing to meet them half way.


Mr.   Cowan. Port Arthur@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I suggest that the hon. member confine himself to the item under discussion.


Edward James Young: Very well; we will discuss
the franking privilege on another occasion. I have the advertisements which were published by the minister and which bear the name of J. J. Gibbons Limited. The first one reads as follows:
Every year for the past few years Canada has been importing $800,000,000 worth of merchandise that she might just as well have been producing from her own mines, on her own farms, or in her own factories. Some things of course, like raw cotton and raw rubber, she must import. But making due allowance for such items, the fact remains that $800,000,000 of her annual imports have been of a class or kind that she was quite capable of producing for herself.
Aiming as the government does at the shutting out of $800,000,000 worth of imports, how is it expected that this country is to pay for those imports?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member is in
order.


Edward James Young: I am quite in order. Will
the minister answer that question? There is only one way under heaven of paying for them, and that is by exports. Imports are paid for by exports, exports are paid for by imports. If we shut out $800,000,000 worth of imports-


An hon. MEMBER:: Where did the hon.
member learn that?


Edward James Young: It does not matter where
I learned it; isn't it the truth?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, of course it isn't.


Edward James Young: It is. If we shut out $800,000,000 worth of imports we shut in $800,000,000 worth of exports. Let us look at the next paragraph, which reads:
With the aid of statistics giving the annual value of Canadian factory production and the number of persons employed therein, it requires little figuring to show that every $5,600 worth of goods turned out has meant a job for one person.
The adverstisement then goes on to show that $800,000,000 worth of imports would mean employment for an additional 147,527 Canadians. It states that every factory worker produces $5,600 worth of goods in a year. I have endeavoured to find out what the primary

producer, such as the farmer, the lumberman, the fisherman, the miner and so on produces, and I find that he produces about one-half that amount. If we shut out $800,000,000 worth of goods which we import and thereby give employment to 147,527 additional Canadians, by the same act we shut in $800,000,000 worth of exports, made up mostly of primary products, and throw out of employment just twice as many Canadians, for there is no use producing them if we cannot sell them. Is it any wonder that with a policy such as that being followed there are just twice as many unemployed in the country as there were when this policy' was inaugurated? Another advertisement reads:
Wliat is a factory worth to Canada, that gives steady year-round employment to five thousand hands?
It depends upon where it's located, doesn't it?
I answer, "Yes, it depends on where it is located." The committee has heard of the celebrated Johnson boys-
The Johnson boys they built a mill,
They built it on the highest hill.
They worked by night, they worked by day;
They could not make that old thing pay.
They could not make it pay because it was located in the wrong place. As the minister says in his advertisement, it depends upon where the factory is located. A factory was located in Ontario for the making of fir doors, but this factory was located in the wrong place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were several of
them.


Edward James Young: The proper place to manufacture fir doors is on the Pacific coast where they can obtain the fir. But this factory decided to locate in Ontario, and when they found they could not make a profit they came to the previous government and asked for a higher duty on fir doors. By some backstairs method they almost succeeded in getting it, but we discovered what they were doing and we put a stop to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who are "we"?


Edward James Young: The Liberal party.


Ernest Lapointe: I am one of them.


Edward James Young: Since the dhange of government they have come back and an order in council has been passed putting a higher duty on fir doors, by which duty they hope to make it possible to keep up that factory. What is that factory worth to this country when it is uneconomically located and can never be made to stand on its own feet? It is located in the wrong place and yet it asks for assistance.

Supply-Trade-Advertising


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about similar
factories on the Pacific coast?


Edward James Young: The particular application
to which I refer was sponsored by the factory in Ontario.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was made on behalf
of all the factories.


Edward James Young: I have no doubt the factories on the coast would have been glad to share in the spoils.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They were behind the
application.


Edward James Young: They were not amongst the
applicants when I saw them. It makes no difference because they are not entitled to assistance.
Mr. BENNETT. They could not be here when the hon. member saw them.


Charles A. Stewart: Why would they not come? They were all invited.


Edward James Young: What is a factory worth to Canada?


An hon. MEMBER:: Where did the hon.
member see them?


Edward James Young: I saw them here in Ottawa. Tell us what a factory costs the country and we will tell you what it is worth.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the hon.
member's business?
Mr. Y'OUNG: The cotton industry receives a protection of something like 27 per cent, and pays in wages about 20 per cent of its production cost. What'does that factory cost Canada? It costs us 27 per cent and it pays in wages only 20 per cent. Is that a profitable industry for Canada? Are we justified in asking the people to patronize an industry like that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. member
have it shut up?


Edward James Young: We pay in protection more that the total wage bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. member
have it shut up?


Edward James Young: They will not shut up.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about the hon.
member himself?


Edward James Young: And I will not, either.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
point of order. The Speaker of this house has been very insistent during the past week in maintaining in the house the very best decorum. If hon. members insist upon interrupting the hon. member who has the floor they should at least have the courtesy to rise in a manner becoming to the decorum of the house.


Edward James Young: This idea that by paying
more for goods we have to buy we can employ more Canadian is about as ridiculous an idea as can be conceived. Take the boot and shoe industry. This industry receives a protection at the present time amounting to about 40 per cent. Suppose I go into a store to purchase a pair of boots for seven dollars; five dollars represents boots and the other two dollars represents duty. If I had seven dollars and could buy a pair of boots for five dollars without the duty, then I would have two dollars left with which I could probably buy a pair of rubbers and a pair of socks. Which will give more employment to Canadian labour, the making of a pair of boots or the making of a pair of boots plus the making of a pair of rubbers and a pair of socks? In the one case for your seven dollars, which is all you have to spend, you get a pair of boots; in the other case you get a pair of boots, a pair of rubbers and a pair of socks. Which will give the most employment to Canadian labour? The answer is quite simple. This talk of more employment being given to labour by allowing us to buy less for the money we have to spend is arrant nonsense.
I will not have much to say about the creed but-


Donald James Cowan: May I suggest to the hon. member
that we are discussing an item covering publicity and advertising?


Edward James Young: I ask only for the same
treatment as that given to the minister himself. Every other hon. member of the committee lias been permitted to discuss the substance of this advertising. To refer again to the creed, it says:
I believe in Canada.
I glory in the record of her achievements.
I have unbounded confidence in the ability of her people to excel in whatever they undertake.
I ask the Prime Minister this question: If he has such unbounded confidence in the ability of her people to excel, why is he afraid to let us go out and meet the world? Why does he build up these tariff restrictions around our shores? Is it because he has not faith in Canada and her people that he wants to put up these competitive tariffs and prevent us from meeting foreign manufacturers
Su-pply-Trade-Advertising

on equal ground? I am strongly opposed to the passing of this item. I think the Conservative party should pay it out of their campaign funds.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: It seems to me that the members of the government still plume themselves on believing that this is an item which should be paid for by the cabinet out of the public funds. The other night I asked the Minister of National Revenue if on his responsibility as a minister he approved of paying an item like this out of the public treasury, and he simply sat in his place with that cynical smile of absolute unconcern as to what we thought about the matter. I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries; do you approve the action of the government in paying this bill of $97,000?


Victor Clarence Porteous: I should like to ask the hon. member for South Huron: Did he approve the action of the department under the last administration?


Thomas McMillan: I should like to know from the Minister of Fisheries whether he approves the government paying for an advertisement like this. There is no answer. Silence gives assent. The other night we got an answer from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I was thunderstruck at the bold and confident manner in which he rose and told us that he approved it to the letter. I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works: Do you approve of paying for an advertisement like this out of the public treasury?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do.


Edward James Young: Shame on you!


Thomas McMillan: (Huron): I see the Minister of National Defence in his seat. Do you approve the action of the government in paying for this advertisment out of the public treasury?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Certainly I do.


Donald James Cowan: May I suggest that the hon. member should address the chair and not members personally.


Thomas McMillan: I should like to know from you, Mr. Chairman: Do you approve the action of the government in paying for this advertisement out of the public treasury? I should like to give the Chairman an opportunity to reply. May I ask the Prime Minister himself through you, Mr. Chairman: Does he approve the government

paying an item such as this out of the public treasury? Might I have an answer from the Prime Minister? Silence again gives assent. I should like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, and through you the entire cabinet whether they think this is a proper example to set before the youth of this country? Are we going to build up true manhood and womanhood in Canada by approving a thing like this? It reminds me of the words of Robert Burns respecting the character of the manhood and womanhood which he would like to grow up on his native soil, when he said:
0	Scotia! my dear, my native soil!
For whom my warmest wish to heaven is sent, Long may thy hardy sons of rustic toil Be blest with health, and peace and sweet content!
And oh may heaven their simple lives prevent From luxury's contagion, weak and vile! Then, howe'er crowns and coronets be rent,
A virtuous populace may rise the while, And stand a wall of fire around their much lov'd isle.
1	would ask the Prime Minister of Canada and through him the cabinet whether they think the advice of Robert Burns is rather the way in which we can build up a true national spirit. When we think of the action of the government in this respect, might we not well recall those other lines of Robert Burns to his young friend when he said:
Ye'll try the world soon my lad;
And. Andrey dear, believe me,
We'll find mankind an unco squad,
And muekle they may grieve ye.
If the members of the present cabinet represent the people of this country, heaven help the people of Canada if that is the kind of standard they set up for the admiration of the young men and women who are growing up in this country. I consider this is nothing better than a barefaced pilfering of the public treasury for the grossest partisan purposes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Thomas McMillan: Hon. members laugh. I hope they will go out to their electorate; I hope the Prime Minister will go through the country at the close of this session and meet his audiences as he did a twelve-month ago and preach this doctrine to them. When he does so, he will find out the result of his preaching.


James Dew Chaplin: The opposition are
wonderful in their memories. I wonder if they have a recollection of the advertising that was done by the late Mr. Low here

Supply-Trade-Advertising
a short time ago, such as "Canada is coming through." Do they remember that? To my hon. friend, the Scotch gentleman, I would say:
O wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!


Thomas McMillan: If when the Hon. Mr. Low was administering the affairs of his department he placed an advertisement like this before the country at the public expense-


James Dew Chaplin: That is what he did:


Thomas McMillan: -I would denounce it at once, and I would ask my hon. friend to produce the proof. I speak subject to correction when I say that I never noticed any such advertising placed before the country under a Liberal administration. When hon. members opposite stand up and make a charge such as that, they should at least provide the evidence.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I should like to ask the minister a question: At the beginning of the session I asked for a return indicating the papers and all periodicals and publications which carried this advertisement. I received from the department a certain list of newspapers, periodicals and magazines. I have seen these advertisements in papers that were not in the list that was given to me by the minister. I would ask the minister if he can tell me now what the publication of this creed cost Canada in dollars and cents, because I have been asked that question by a good many people.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not included in this item, but I had the answer the other night. It was $7,000, if I recall rightly.


John Vallance: That was the cost of all the advertising?


Henry Herbert Stevens: What does my hon. friend refer to?


John Vallance: What did this creed
cost?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have already told my hon. friend, $7,000, and the other series cost, if I remember correctly, $92,000 or $93,000.


John Vallance: I wish to join with the member for West Edmonton in objecting to the public moneys of Canada being spent in this way. I think that where Canada needs to spend her money to-day, so far as the primary producers are concerned, is not in Canada but outside, and so long as the primary producers of Canada have no more purchasing power than they have to-day it is futile to spend money in advertising Canadian made
goods. I would also like to associate myself with the hon. member for Weyburn, and say that every dollar you spend in advertising Canadian made goods, much as you may believe in that policy, makes it just that much harder for the farmer in this country who grows wheat to find a market for it in the world outside. One reason we are not able to sell wheat to-day is that we are not purchasing from other countries goods that we could more economically buy from them than manufacture here at home. The consequence is that they are not able in return to buy our exportable surplus of farm products.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend surely does not seriously advance that argument, because this year we have sold nearly 40 per cent more wheat than we did last year.


John Vallance: The minister says that we exported 40 per cent more wheat this year than last, but did we bring into the country 40 per cent more value for that wheat? It is values that we are dealing in.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is childish.


John Vallance: If that is childish, I wish to talk in a childlike way. The minister says that he sold 40 per cent more wheat.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not say that I did- Canada did.


John Vallance: Canada, the minister tells us, sold 40 per cent more wheat this year than last. Did Canada in return receive 40 per cent more purchasing power?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a general drop in the price of commodities the world over, as my hon. friend knows perfectly well.


John Vallance: I wish to repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I object to this item going through.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is just one other reference that I wish to make to 1 his creed, so that there may be no misunderstanding as to its meaning. I remember that last session my right hon. friend was asked just what was meant by a producer, and he replied:
I regarded the manufacturer as a producer; I used the term as a synonym.
That remark will be found in the revised Hansard of last session, September 19, 1930, page 485. If we keep that in mind in connection with my hon. friend's creed, the pledge at the end will read, "To her products I pledge my patronage, and to the cause of her manufacturers I pledge my devotion." So at last we have the true meaning of the creed.
Supply-Trade-Advertising


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hardly think an observation of that kind is quite worthy of the leader of the opposition. The words "producer" and "manufacturer" were synonymous in the sense in which they were then used. Why all this bewailing of the manufacturers of this country? Why all this abuse of them? Why appeal to them on the one hand to increase Canadian employment, and then abuse them? There are very few members on the other side of the house to-night who have not directly or indirectly asked this government to do something for some industry in their particular locality-very few.


Mr. DUFF:: I am one that did not.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Nor I.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are no industries
in the constituencies of the hon. gentlemen who have just stood up except the primary industries of agriculture and fishing, and with respect to that something might be said. The word "manufacturer," in the sense in which it is used in connection with many of these items, is synonymous with producer. We mean by primary producers, the farmers, the fishermen, the miners, the lumbermen. Those are the great primary industries, but it is also true that the manufacturer produces from raw material a finished product. I put to my hon. friend from Weyburn this simple question: Have you made up your mind that certain branches of Canadian industry shall be taken out of Canada? If you have, then your contention holds water. But if those industries are to remain in this country, they can only remain and provide employment if they have at least an equal opportunity with their competitors.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
what we were told in 15)22 and 15)23 by the right hon. gentleman when he sat over here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When hon. gentlemen
speak of high tariff or low tariff I should like them to realize that the tariff is but an instrument to accomplish a purpose. That is all. The purpose to be accomplished by that instrument is to give Canadians an equal opportunity and fair competition. When the tariff goes beyond that, it puts a premium either upon exploitation or upon inefficiency, and so far as this government is concerned it is going to put a premium neither on inefficiency nor on exploitation. But this government proposes to see that the tariff is used as an instrument to afford to Canadians in industry that equal opportunity to which they have a right, and that fair competition which they should enjoy. Will my hon. friend from

South Huron go out in Ontario and say: I deny Canadians an equal opportunity and fair competition. Go out and tell them that. When my hon. friend from Weyburn talks of imports and exports, that is wholly beside the question. According to his theory, what we should do is to permit imports to come into this country freely in order that the}' might displace Canadian effort and industry and toil and energy and foresight and vision and capital, to be replaced by the same from abroad, in order to increase, as he said, our exports. Exports, what of?


Charles A. Stewart: Manufactured products.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What manufactured products can there be if they are replaced by those from abroad?


Charles A. Stewart: Just the kind that went out of Canada from 1925 on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. gentleman is not familiar with the record.


Charles A. Stewart: I am quite familiar with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am going to say to this house, as we proceed, and I shall not anticipate it, that to-day the Canadian people are faced with the greatest crisis they have ever faced with respect to the whole structure of their industrial life. Why?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Your tariff
revision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The lack of tariff revision. Because in every country of Europe to-day and in other parts of the world there has been a determined effort to reduce inventories. For a time they withstood the strain of throwing their products upon the home market at the price at which they offered them abroad, but now the strain has become such that they have thrown their products upon their own markets. In consequence the dumping clause no longer becomes applicable. I should like hon. gentlemen to read Mr. Fielding's remarks upon the application of the dumping clause. The dumping clause having no application because the domestic price in many of the countries I have mentioned is the same as that charged for export the Canadian people are faced with the replacement of their industrial products by those from abroad. Tell me how you can stop it?


Edward James Young: You are stopping it.

Supply-Trade-Advertising


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any way, except by a tariff?


Edward James Young: You are stopping it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will try, and these resolutions now before the house constitute one of the ways we are trying to do it. There are other ways, and those other ways also are provided for in the resolutions. The choice now before the Canadian people is as simple as any with which they have ever been confronted. They have to choose either to destroy Canadian industry because of economic conditions in the world which permit sales from other countries at inventory prices, which permit the importation of products from countries in which the standards of living are much lower and wages are three times lower, or in this moment of economic stress to maintain Canadian industrial life. That is the issue. I told the farmers of western Canada-and I want the hon. member for Weyburn and other hon. members to hear this-"Make no mistake about what will be done. Whether the tariff is high or low matters not; if we are elected to power we will enact a tariff which will ensure to Canadian producers fair competition and equal opportunity with their competitors." In that statement I included farmers as well. I ask my hon. friends opposite to go out and tell the people of Canada that they do not believe in that policy. That is the choice. My hon. friends may play just as much as they like with all sorts of sophistries and casuistries, but in the end they will find that the issue is: Shall Canadians in these days of stress and strain, and possibly disaster, have an equal chance, or shall they not? On that question we join issue with my hon. friends.


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask one question of the right hon. gentleman? We are discussing an item to devote a certain amount of money to advertising and publicity. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to take that money and use it to preach the doctrine he has elaborated?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to respect the courteous question asked by my hon. friend opposite. In years past I had occasion to object to advertisements by the Department of Trade and Commerce. At very great cost money was advanced to the Empire Marketing Board, and their advertisements brought forth comments and criticisms from different quarters. The other day my hon. friend referred to part of an advertisement by the Empire Marketing Board. Now my hon. friend asks me if I propose that this money should be used to put forth the propaganda
I have just outlined. In answev I say that the minister has exercised his discretion concerning in respect to the advertisements which have been issued. The committee realizes that there is scarcely a municipality in Canada which has not profited by the advertising it has received through its local products-hardly one. Buy "Made in Calgary"; buy "Made in Edmonton"-wherever there has been industrial life those communities have been patronized.
I have just finished telling one of my friends what I observed two or three years ago. In this connection I shall not mention the name of any country in Europe, but I may say that in every small village in a certain European country there was cooperative effort to produce cheaply the commodity which that village could best produce. I came straight to this country and I found that commodity in Canada seeking admission to our markets at prices with which our producers could not possibly compete. I shall not mention the names of any firms, bul a few days ago I mentioned an article which had been imported and sold on the Canadian markets at S2.98. Under Canadian conditions the leather in that article costs nearly that much, exclusive of lining or anything else.
I say to my hon. friends opposite that such advertisements must always be within the discretion of a minister, and they have been since the practice of advertising was instituted. Advertisements by previous ministers of trade and commerce have been subjected to criticism in this house. The advertisements of my present, colleague have been subjected to criticism, but the government as a whole gkdly accepts responsibility for them. We have put forward this one germ of thought which we hope will find lodgment in the minds of our fellow Canadians. The development of Canada is a great task and can be accomplished only by the Canadian people seeking in every way possible to carry on, and to do so they must be afforded equal opportunities and fair competition. Without those essentials they cannot succeed. To some extent these advertisements have reflected that view, and I believe it is the view held almost unanimously by the Canadian people.


Edward James Young: A few minutes ago my right hon. friend said he had promised Canadian farmers that they would have equality of opportunity with their competitors in other countries. We will accept his statement. We know that the Canadian farmer must sell his product on the world market, and that in so far as selling is concerned he has an equal

Supply-Trade-Advertising
opportunity with his outside competitor. How are we going to give him that opportunity all along the line? By permitting him to buy in the same market as his competitors. If we are to sell our products in open competition with our American neighbours why should we not buy in the same markets and under similar conditions? My light hon. friend knows we have to sell our wheat on the world's market, but he says we must not buy our farm machinery in the same place as our American competitors buy theirs. To make sure that we cannot do so a duty of 25 per cent is placed on that machinery, and because of that duty the price instead of being allowed to decrease has kept up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has gone down.


Edward James Young: What about gasoline?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has gone down.


Edward James Young: Gone down? I would ask
my right hon. friend to compare the Canadian price of gasoline with the price of crude oil, so that he may know how far it has gone down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nevertheless it has gone down.


Edward James Young: I would ask my right hon.
friend to compare the price of gasoline in Canada with prices in corresponding points in the United States, and learn how far the price of gasoline has gone down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is lower, relatively,
than it has been any period of our history ii recent years.


Edward James Young: That is not the point. The question is: What is the price of gasoline in Canada as compared with the price in corresponding points across the line?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There can be no comparison because we do not produce crude oil in this country.


Edward James Young: If the tariff were taken off we could have gasoline in this county at least five or ten cents lower than we are getting it at the present time. Gasoline could be imported into this country at 4J cents per gallon, if it were not for the regulations of my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman). Hon. members on this side of the house resent the statement of the Prime Minister that we are out to destroy Canadian industry.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have always been.


Edward James Young: We are not out to destroy Canadian industry, but we hold the view that Canadian industry will be destroyed much more quickly and completely by the policy of my hon. friends opposite than by any policy of hon. members on this side of the house. We hold the view that the policy adopted by the present government is making this country one in which the costs of production are very high so that not only our farmers and primary producers, but our manufacturers who depend to a large measure on the foreign market, will find themselves unable to compete in the open market, because of the increased costs of production in Canada.
Let us for example consider the recent duty on coal. Is that a help to manufacturers? Those manufacturers have to buy large quantities of American coal and have to pay additional duties on it. Is the present budget intended to help them?
In one of the advertisements there is reference made to forcing American factories to establish Canadian branches. The government has gone to the point of advocating the boycotting of any American manufacturer who will not establish a branch in Canada. I wonder why Americans establish branches in Canada? There are two reasons: First, there arises in Canada a demand for their goods. When that demand becomes sufficiently great they establish a factory, because Canada has certain trade treaties with other countries which give a factory located here access to markets to which American factories have not access. Is that not the reason why many American factories have established branches in this country-because in the past we have adopted a more reasonable tariff attitude towards the rest of the world, and so have been enabled to get our products into markets which are closed to United States manufacturers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is the tariffs of other countries which determine whether or not our goods get into their markets.


Edward James Young: But are there not favoured nation treaties?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Edward James Young: We have the advantage of those treaties, which the Americans have not, but the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite will destroy that advantage. What has happened already in New Zealand, what is likely to happen in Argentine and in almost every other

Supply-Trade-Advertising
country we have been slapping in the face? We are going to lose our markets, not only for primary products but for manufactured articles as well.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A moment ago my hon. friend said that by our tariff policies we were preventing him and his fellow farmers from buying goods in the market where they sold their wheat. He cited the London and Liverpool markets and said we had placed a tariff against the purchase of agricultural implements in those markets. Let me bring to his attention section 409b of the tariff, which reads:
'Cultivators, harrows, seed drills, horse rakes, horse hoes, squiffers, manure spreaders, garden seeders, weeders, and complete parts of all the foregoing; British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 71 per cent; general tariff, 71 per cent.
Then item 409c:
Ploughs; farm, field, lawn or garden rollers; soil packers; complete parts of all the foreging; British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Then item 409d:
Mowing machines, harvesters, either self-binding or without binders, binding attachments, reapers-
And so on. The duty is: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 6 per cent; general tariff, 6 per cent.


Thomas McMillan: Is the hon. gentleman reading the present tariff?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Those are the items.


Thomas McMillan: Is that the present tariff?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The British preference in every case is free, so that the argument of my hon. friend, which we do not accept, is entirely wrong and without foundation. With regard to the British market, which he cited and where he admits, as we all know, we market the greater portion of our wheat, the very items which he mentioned are free and have been free for a long time.


Charles A. Stewart: And we do not bring in any of them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Charles A. Stewart: He never said we did.


Edward James Young: Here is what I said: We have to sell our products in the world markets and we claim the right to buy in the world markets also. The world market for agricultural implements is in the United States, 22110-218
not in Great Britain, and the tariff against American farm implements has been increased to 25 per cent.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The discussion to-night has shown the weak point of the publicity campaign of my hon. friend. We have had practically a budget discussion. The Prime Minister rose and, in a very eloquent speech, tried to demonstrate to the committee that some of the announcements published over the signature of the Minister of Trade and Commerce were right, and hon. gentlemen on this side of the house have made very strong arguments against them. That shows in a word that the matter published as advertising by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is of a highly controversial nature, that it is a political matter and a pronouncement of policy. My hon. friend may believe in the policy, but it is the policy of his government and his party. We on this side of the house take issue with that policy, and we maintain that it is absolutely wrong that a government or a party should take money from the exchequer in order to send around the country advertisements, not of facts or of records but of highly controversial matters which are strictly political.
I think the debate to-night has demonstrated that argument conclusively. I remember very well some of the advertisements issued by former governments. They would give the figures of trade; they would indicate the trade with this or that country; they would give facts and records, and nothing else. But in the advertisements signed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce we have the pronouncement of a policy, and the moment one of the sentences is read in this house we have a veritable budget debate, which could be prolonged for some time, in connection with the advertisements published by the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the glorification of the Conservative party, but paid for by the people of Canada.
Let me tell the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce what has been my experience with these advertisements. They were published in the Montreal papers, and even in your own party there are always certain people who think the other party is better organized or more clever. I have been told by good Liberals, "You are not in it with the Conservative party. They have been in power only a few months and already they are publishing political literature by the column. They have huge funds from which



Supply-Trade-Advertising
to draw in order to put across this material." These people were amazed when I told them that the advertisements were printed at the expense of the state, and that it was pretended to be for the good of the country and not political propaganda. I told them this was supposed to be an advertisement for the good of Canada at large. There is not the least doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the intention behind these successive advertisements which appeared in every paper throughout1 the country was merely to make good that Canada first policy, which I previously termed, and which I term again, a Canada alone policy, trying to trade merely with our own people. There is not the least doubt that these advertisements were intended to further the policies submitted to the people by the government of the day, and I do say in all sincerity that a number of people thought these advertisements were political literature published by the Conservative organization at the expense of the party. If this discussion to-night, in addition to putting hon. members on record with regard to the principle of propaganda of this kind, has only the effect of letting the people know that this is not Conservative literature, paid for by Conservative funds, but that it is ad-' vertising paid for by the country at large, then at least we shall have accomplished something.
This matter has been fully discussed; I think it is well understood; both sides of the case have been well presented, but I say again that the point is not as to whether what is contained in these letters is true. We do not believe in this sort of thing. My hon. friend does believe in it, but this is a matter for discussion; it is a matter of policy, and the government had no right to propound and expand their policy throughout the country and charge the taxpayers for it. I think if it had been possible for the government to avoid that expenditure and reduce at least by that amount the taxation we find in the budget, it would have been worth while.
Item agreed to on division.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions, $1,052,220.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend was courteous enough to allow the tariff board bill to stand for a little while to. oblige some of us, seeing that we had not known of the changed arrangements he was about to make. I believe I am only asking what is reasonable when I suggest that we should return to the tariff board discussion now

rather than continue with supply. The understanding was that we should go on with the ways and means resolutions as expeditiously as possible, with the tariff board legislation in between. To continue in estimates now would be to delay both other matters.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the circumstances I
move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



TARIFF BOARD

[Stage Direction]
PROVISION FOR APPOINTMENT, POWERS, nUTIES AND SALARIES
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 47, to provide for the appointment of a Tariff Board-Mr. Bennett- Mr. MacDonald (South Cape Breton) in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: When the committee rose I had concluded all I desire to say with respect to one phase of my right hon. friend's argument, which was based largely on the assumption that we should not accept what two years ago he thought was wrong and what at the same time, he says, I thought was right. I think the mere statement of that indicates that we are dealing with something I did not then and do not now regard as relevant to the principle involved here. I have endeavoured to point out what, that principle is. May I also point out that my right hon. friend is in error in assuming that this board is taking away powers heretofore possessed by any other functionaries or appointees in relation to the customs tariff. It will be observed that the language used is this:
The board may be empowered by the governor in council to hold an inquiry under section 15 of the Customs Tariff, in the same manner as the judge of the exchequer court or any other judge therein referred to-
They are not dispossessed of jurisdiction; their jurisdiction still continues. This, however, is an additional body authorized to carry out investigations under the section in question. In any event, as the Minister of National Revenue pointed out the other day, in no case do their findings become effective until approved by the minister himself. It will be observed also that, with respect to the Combines Investigation Act, there is no diminution of power so far as investigation by the registrar or commissioner may be concerned; because the governor in council may merely empower the board to make any investigation or' hold any ipquiry authorized

Tariff Board
by the provisions of the act, and for those purposes the board shall have powers and authority. In other words, the registrar or commissioner under the act may make investigations. But in addition to that this body may also investigate. If the work under the tariff board is not sufficient to exhaust its time, and the government deem it desirable, without paying additional sums of money, there will exist a body for the purpose of making investigation, whether under the Customs Act or under the Combines Investigation Act. As will be recalled, I read the other day, from the last report we had from the chairman of the late advisory board, that thirty days was the limit of time taken for hearings; and inasmuch as thirty days is one-twelfth of a year, in point of time, it follows this body may have on its hands time which will be available for that particular purpose.
I have considered as fairly as I can with my colleagues the suggestions that have been made, and I see no reason why the principle which we adopt as the governing consideration in the appointment of a body to find facts, and under the conditions suggested, should be changed. When it is said that these findings of facts are matters of opinion, I can only say that the findings of the tariff board in the United States, to which I referred, are not findings of opinions but findings of facts as such.


Edward James Young: Can they be disputed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They cannot-not by
minds that accept figures as having any effect when employed mathematically. A statement of fact would be this. If a cost were 24 cents per unit in this country, and that cost were 20 cents per unit in some other country, it would follow that a duty of 20 per cent would equalize the cost of production per unit; for 20 per cent of 20 cents would be 4 cents, and 4 cents added to 20 cents would make 24 cents, which, of course, would mean equality in cost of production.


James Layton Ralston: May I suggest that the
leal point to be adjudicated upon is not the difference between 20 cents and 24 cents. The question for adjudication would be-what makes up the 20 cents and the 24 cents respectively. For instance, figure the cost of production under section 4 (a): take the cost of wool. My right hon. friend will find it no such easy task in arriving at the cost of production as the mere ascertaining of the fact that it is 20 cents. You will have to take into consideration a great many factors on which men may differ.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is difficult to understand why any hon. gentleman should make an observation of that kind. Has anyone suggested that 20 cents is a figure arbitrarily fixed? When I mentioned 20 cents, by way of illustration, that was a finding of fact by the board. The board had found as a fact that 20 cents was the cost in ex-continental countries, while 24 cents was the cost at home.


James Layton Ralston: I thought my right hon. friend was pointing out that the real adjudication was upon the difference between 20 and 24.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Layton Ralston: He made the statement
this afternoon and again to-night. Hansard will speak for itself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is difficult to imagine anyone making such a statement, because the first fact to be found is the cost. I took the trouble the other day to make a statement of the factors that were considered to determine cost.


James Layton Ralston: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. That is the
first question to ascertain; and to ascertain it, many factors have to be considered. Some are difficult and some easy, and because some are so difficult I want men equal to the task. Indeed, the difficulties will be greater as the complexities of modem industrial life increase, and it is necessary that there should be continuity of service and stability in the jurisprudence of the board.


James Layton Ralston: Stability in tariff ideas?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The tariff idea is common to both parties. Does my hon. friend say now that the Liberal party does not believe in tariffs?


James Layton Ralston: I say that we have not
the same tariff ideas as my right hon friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be idle for me to say that I can interpret the hon. gentleman's ideas or that he can interpret mine. He may make any misstatement he pleases about mine, and think that I may make any misstatement I please about his. But fundamentally we assume, perhaps improperly, that both parties have believed in tariffs. For the late board was an advisory board on tariff and taxation.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not what the
Prime Minister said last year.

Tariff Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have not the same
ideas as to the application of tariffs but we have the same ideas as to the necessity of tariffs in this country. That statement may do violence to the views of some of my hon. friends who do not believe that a tariff is necessary at all. As I understand the attitude of some hon. members opposite, they do not believe in a tariff, but if they do not believe in a tariff, then it becomes difficult to understand why they give approval to the principle of this bill. The hon. member who moved the amendment said: In so far as this bill expresses the opinion of Sir Thomas White or the opinion contained in the order in council creating the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation, I am agreed, but where it goes beyond that, I am not agreed. The only difference between the two is that a factor was laid down for the purpose of determining how the principle could be applied, but the principle in Sir Thomas White's measure and the principle in the order in council was that there was to be a tariff. The question was how much. Hon. members must either believe or not believe in a tariff board; if they do not believe, they should say so.


James Layton Ralston: It depends upon the
commodity and conditions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But as a principle.


James Layton Ralston: Not a wholesale principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are talking about
the principle of a tariff in this country. The right hon. member who leads the opposition has stated frequently, both in speeches last year and again this year, that his party believes in a tariff as a source of revenue, giving incidental protection thereby. How the hon. member for Weyburn can reconcile his conscience to that statement I have never been able to understand. Here we have the statement of a principle that a party believes in a tariff for revenue with incidental protection. We claim that that is not a matter which can be determined by guesswork. We desire to create a tribunal to hear evidence under oath and to establish to what extent there is or is not incidental protection.


Edward James Young: I asked the right hon. gentleman if the findings of the American tariff commission were open to dispute, and he replied in the negative, that they would have to be accepted by anyone who would accept figures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the hon.
member was speaking about our findings or any finding.


Edward James Young: Speaking on June 26, the
right hon. gentlemen stated that the American tariff commission had investigated the cost of production in Canada and in the United States of maple products, and that their finding had been the duty necessary to equalize such difference in cost, was four cents per pound on maple syrup and six cents per pound on maple sugar. In other words they found the cost of production in Canada to be four cents per pound less in the case of maple syrup and six cents per pound less in the case of maple sugar. That finding was either right or wrong. If the board about to be set up by the minister investigates the same industry and finds that that decision was wrong, then it must be admitted that there is something wrong with that system of getting at the facts. If, on the other hand, they discover that that decision was right and that it costs four cents per pound less to produce syrup and six cents per pound less to produce sugar, then what would the minister propose to do about it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He would propose to
take such action as the government might deem advisable having regard to the facts as found. I have been endeavouring to point out that the government will not necessarily act at once upon the facts as found. The government may act to-day, it may act next session, or it may act the session after. The first thing to do is to ascertain the facts, then ascertain what the application of the facts may be.


Edward James Young: The facts as found.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. member will admit that he has never seen a closer analysis of the factors which make up production costs than was made in this case.


Edward James Young: I will admit that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Every reasonable factor
which enters into the determination of the costs of production was considered and set forth by that board. As a result, there was a finding of fact, and then the president took executive action. That is where the question of political differences arises. In a case which came up the other day the president took no action at all notwithstanding the finding of fact. In such a case the government of the day assumes a responsibility. A public statement of the finding is made, and the position of this or any other government must be that it will or will not as a matter of national policy take the action which would give effect to the finding. It does not follow

Tariff Board.
that because a board discusses certain facts that the action indicated as necessary to bring about a reduction or an increase to the figures mentioned will be taken. That is a matter to be settled by the Minister of Finance; that is a matter which he submits to his colleagues in the government.
As my hon. friend will probably remember, the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation never made a single finding of fact which was communicated to the people of this country, nor did it give any advice which was communicated in any formal way to the people. That is exactly what we are endeavouring to avoid. When the hon. member for Weyburn referred to the difficulties he experienced in understanding this bill, and mentioned the attitude of the consumers league, he must have known that that body sent out literature during the last elections. Everywhere I went in the province of Alberta I came across the literature sent out by the then Minister of the Interior. I do not make any objection so far as the use of the frank is concerned, because that is a privilege granted by parliament. I am fair enough to say that that was the right of the hon. member. But when the hon. member for Weyburn and other hon. members try to attribute to this measure a motive, shall I say, other than that which is the purpose of the legislation, then they are entirely wrong. This legislation means exactly what it says. It is not an attempt to fasten a high tariff policy on this country, it is merely to create a body which will find the fact, and on that fact the government will take the action which it thinks desirable. That is policy, and that is politics. That is the action which will determine the life or death of governments. This measure is entirely separate from that, and if we fail in a very sincere and earnest effort to get this matter out of the realm of politics, we shall know at least that we endeavoured to create a judicial tribunal to determine the facts. I believe that possible, despite the cynical smiles of hon. members opposite. We are going to try; if we fail, at least we shall have tried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, just a few words in connection with the differences which my right hon. friend would have the committee believe existed between him and me as a result of the discussion which took place just before the six o'clock recess. My right hon. friend while in opposition had laid down the principle that one parliament had not the right to bind subsequent parliaments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to expenditures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that principle is a sound one. My right hon. friend went on to say that I did not follow him in applying that principle. I have been thinking over this matter and I wish to tell my right hon. friend that the party to which I belong, while in office did follow that principle. I believe I can recall to his mind the circumstances of the case. The subject then before the house was an appropriation for the Federal District Commission. We were asking this house to vote a large sum of money to enable the government to expropriate what was then known as the Russell House block, the Russell theatre and other adjoining buildings. The appropriation asked for amounted to something like two or three millions of dollars, and our first thought was not to put the whole burden on the then existing parliament but to spread it over a series of years. My right hon. friend took exception to that and said that he did not think we had any right to bind subsequent parliaments. Upon reconsideration we decided to act in accordance with the principle laid down by the right hon. gentleman; and assume the whole obligation during our own parliament. We therefore undertook to provide that two or three millions of dollars out of current revenue. That is what we did. There was another relatively insignificant amount for the purpose of meeting the cost of maintaining improvements on the driveway, an annual expenditure that in the nature of things no one would think of questioning, an annual expenditure that I believe with respect to the Ottawa Improvement Commission had previously been voted for a period of years. I do not think that small amount-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was S300.000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For the entire period, not per annum. I have forgotten the Latin phrase-the law does not concern itself about little things.


Richard Bedford Bennett: De minimis non curat lex.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. Those were small matters to which we did not think a big man like my right hon. friend would take any exception. As long as we adhered to the broad principle of not obligating future parliaments in the matter of millions, considering the object, we did not see we were violating any fundamental principle by asking for the payment of a small annual amount over a series of years. This did not
Tariff Board

raise a question of policy at all. That was the position. I take the same position to-day. I was at one with my hon. friend then as to one parliament not having the right to bind another in annual expenditures of any considerable sum where a real principle was involved.
I wish to tell him that the annual expenditures in this matter are considerable; but if what he lays down as a sound principle with respect to annual expenditures is material, how much more material is the principle when it is applied, not to expenditures, but to powers and very far-reaching powers, of a court of a character which has never hitherto existed? I have been very much struck by the trend of my right hon. friend's remarks as this debate has developed. They bear out what I said on the second reading of the bill as to the reason why exception was taken to the principle of the measure. We did not believe the principle of this measure was simply that of the creation of an advisory board on tariffs. We believed what my right hon. friend was trying to do was, under the guise of an advisory board, to create a court which would have certain powers to deal with tariff matters, powers of a character which would remove altogether from parliament control over certain features of the tariff or the interpretation thereof. My right hon. friend has progressed and this afternoon has not only verified all that I have alleged in that. regard, but has gone the length of saying quite frankly in this house: You cannot find the word "advisory" anywhere in the act. He has thrown overboard altogether the idea that this board is an advisory board. He says: This is a court to deal with tariff and taxation.
Speaking of principles, may I say this to my right hon. friend: The only court in the land that has any right to deal in any final manner with tariff and taxation is the high court of parliament. He has no right to seek to create any court which will have powers with respect to tariff and taxation apart from parliament, and particularly from the House of Commons. I contend that all matters that affect the tariff are matters of taxation as well. My right hon. friend argues that sometimes the tariff is a tax and that sometimes it is not. It cannot be at the same time both the one thing and the other. The tariff is a tax; it is in the nature of a restriction; it makes it more difficult for people to purchase commodities at the price at which they otherwise could buy them elsewhere. To that extent it is a tax, and I submit that the House of Commons is the body that is primarily responsible for dealing with all matters of that kind. My right hon. friend under this legislation is trying

to remove altogether from the House of Commons the interpretation of the meaning of statutes that are passed here, the meaning of orders in council which he may pass under the authority which he is receiving under a general act, orders that will be acted upon even before parliament has a chance of reviewing them, and to place in the hands of this court the right to deal with such matters.
He goes a step further; he gives this court ali the powers of the ordinary courts of the realm including the right to fine and imprison. Here is where I take fundamental and direct issue with my right hon. friend. I say: The time has not now- come in this country and never will again when we are to revert to the days of Charles and with respect to the imposition of taxation create courts with the power to fine and imprison. That is what my right hon. friend is doing. He is giving the power of imposing fines and imprisonment to a court which indirectly, if not directly, will create new tariffs and taxation. That is an entirely new principle to lay down in matters pertaining to government and to fiscal rights in this country. It is a principle that Tory autocracies in years gone by sought to establish. The whole struggle in the days of Charles was over the question whether the House of Commons was going to control taxation or whether a star chamber court would say what taxes would be levied. My right hon. friend has given tq the court which he has created the power of a star chamber court. He says that they may take evidence under oath, but he says also that they may take evidence not under oath. I think "information" is the word used. They may take any information, picked up anywhere, and regard it as evidence so long as they wish to act on it. In addition to that, he has given them, under certain circumstances, power to throw into prison anyone who reveals certain information. In the circumstances mentioned no one will be before the court except where special industries are seeking special favours, and he says: If in the course of seeking those special favours before a court designed to help special favourites, anything is disclosed outside that is revealed there, if the court so determine, the party disclosing the information however innocently may, under certain circumstances, be fined or imprisoned. That is going a. very great length.
I submit that parliament should never give up the right of controlling in detail everything that . affects tariff and taxation. The House of Commons cannot afford to hand over to any court, I do not care how it is constituted, or however good the motive or

Tariff Board
intention may be, a single right which belongs to the people's representatives with respect to how they are to be taxed, I do not care how small the amount of extra taxation may be that may be imposed. My right hon. friend knows he has power by order in council to amend the regulations in regard to these tariff matters in a way which will materially affect the welfare of some of the people, and that thereafter it is left to this court to give final interpretation to the orders in council so passed. Talk of principles! The whole principle of responsible government is at stake in a matter of that kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My right hon. friend has been told twice that is- not so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The fact that
my right hon. friend says it is not so does not make it not so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute says that it is not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We shall see
when we come to discuss the powers of the court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let my hon. friend proceed to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The fact that
my right hon. friend seeks to get around this whole contrivance of his by sajfing that ultimately the government will be the one that will say what shall be done, does not meet the question at all, because he knows the whole purpose for which he is creating this court is that it shall, amongst other things, say to the government-and this is in the biil itself-
-what increases or decreases in rates of duty are required to equalize differences in the cost of production.
He says that his policy is to remove all differences in the cost of production. He leaves it to this board to draw the inferences. Then he proceeds to enact legislation in accordance with the findings of his board. He knows that is so. He leaves to the board the determination of the costs. At the same time he admits that no board on earth can make any true finding on matters of costs as between countries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He does not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He admitted
it the other day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said quite the opposite.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I challenge my hon. friend to read his own words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave the statement of the ca& and all the facts in connection with the Delft Gelatin Works' application as an illustration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has a way of his own, as he did this afternoon, of saying opposite things are equally true. This is a case where he answered both ways. I point out to him that no body of men will be permitted to visit another country, go into the books of manufacturers and study conditions as they please. He admitted that was true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that. I said in the very case to which reference was made, namely, edible gelatin, that the Delft manufacturers were making a complaint and the commission reported that from an examination of the books in the Netherlands they had ascertained the cost. I said quite the opposite of what my right hon. friend asserts. I said that if they made an application they must be prepared to accept as a principle that they must make known their costs before they can ask for a revision.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If that is my right hon. friend's view, he is much more innocent than I ever believed him to be.
I do not think for one moment he believes any foreign country, whether France, Germany, the United States or even one of our own parts of the British Empire, will permit members of a board or their agents from this country to study the books of their industries, see how their industries are carried on, what their costs of production and the like are; and even if they did, it would be impossible for them to make by way of comparison any intelligent finding in the matter. The facts and considerations of which account would have to be taken are far too many and obscure.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The Department of National Revenue does that very thing now. We have men stationed in the countries of Europe whose business it is to go into the establishments of European manufacturers, go through their books, take their statements, verify them, and bring the information to us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that when I was in office I frequently heard our Minister of National Revenue speak of the very same thing my hon. friend is speaking of now, and his remarks were all to the effect of. how utterly impossible it was for our agents to get any authentic information in other countries. My right, hon. friend talks about edible gelatin. How much does edible gelatin
Tariff Board

enter into the sum total of the manufactures of this country? If this kind of investigation is to mean anything it is going to take hundreds of thousands of investigators, as many investigators as we have citizens, to make up comparative tables that are going to be of any value to the industries of Canada. You have but to consider for a moment to see how utterly absurd it is to expect any body of men to attempt to make accurate comparisons in a matter of the kind.
However, the point I wish to make at the moment is this: As my right hon. friend has himself said this afternoon, he is not interested in having an advisory body. He wants a court, with new functions and new duties with respect to matters of tariff and taxation of a kind which has never existed outside this House of Commons. My right hon. friend has gone much further in the course of this debate than at any previous time in his whole public career. Heretofore he has asserted a very sound principle on all matters of public expenditure, that one parliament should not bind another, but he is going the length this time of saying, that in matters of policy, one government shall have the right to bind another government. That is a thoroughly unsound principle; I do not believe it can be maintained for one minute. Any hon. gentleman who will support that principle will be denying the fundamentals of all that we know of as responsible government. Stop to think of it. This House of Commons concurring in the doctrine that one government is to have the right to bind another government with respect to matters of fiscal policy! I wonder what my right hon. friend and his friends would have said had we asserted a doctrine of that kind when we were in office, and had said that on a matter of fiscal policy we would take steps by act of parliament which would bind my right hon. friend and his friends, if they ever came into office. He would have said-well, talk of blasting, that would have been a mild form of expression compared with the way he would have denounced any doctrine of that sort. Now that we are asserting principles, let me assert a principle to my right hon. friend. It is a principle which it is well worth fighting for, and if we cannot have it maintained in this House of Commons we will see what the people have to say upon it when the time comes for an appeal to the country. The principle I lay down at the moment is a principle not merely of the Liberal party or indeed of any particular party, but is I submit a sound principle of government. That principle is that no parliament and no

government has any right to bind a subsequent parliament or government with respect to any matters pertaining to tariff or taxation. All matters pertaining to tariff and taxation have in the last analysis to be decided in this House of Commons. Parliament alone is supreme in matters of taxation, and every parliament is free to deal with questions of tariff and taxation as it sees fit, and to the extent to which my right hon. friend in this measure seeks at all to bind subsequent governments he is denying a fundamental right of the people themselves; he is defying the rights of parliament and of the whole people.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I want to say a few words
about something which the Prime Minister stressed this afternoon. His contention is that this tariff board which is to be set up is to be a fact finding body alone, and one would believe, listening to him, that they could find the facts with almost mathematical precision, as a body of accountants could find facts, and that their opinions, the views on fiscal and economic matters which they had held for years perhaps from youth, would have nothing to do with their findings. That is the contention that the Prime Minister has stressed. One would fancy, after hearing that, that if he sets up this board they will come to their conclusions with great precision, that they will, as the Prime Minister instanced, be able to find that the cost of production of a certain article in Czechoslovakia is 20 cents as against 24 cents here, and that there will be no challenging of that conclusion of fact. If the experience of the United States tariff commissions has shown one thing more than another, it is this, that there is no possibility of any such definiteness at all. In most cases they cannot come within a mile of finding what the cost of production is either in the United States or abroad, and when they get in that position the advice they give the president and the congress of the United States is based on what they think ought to be done under those conditions.
I just picked up the thirteenth annual report of the United States tariff commission of 1929. As hon. gentlemen know, there are three Democrats and three Republicans on the tariff commission of the United States, and by law it must continue that way-three ' Republicans and three Democrats. You can go through just this one volume, and you will find this commission splitting 3-3 on the rate of duty which is necessary to equalize the cost of production as between the United States and foreign countries, and splitting

Tariff Board
on the same set of facts. This is a fact finding body with almost precisely the same powers as are to be given to the body created under this bill, and yet you find commissioners Marvin, Brossard and Lowell finding in favour of higher duties, and commissioners Dennis, Costigan and Dixon finding in favour of lower duties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All these commissioners
are out of office, if my memory serves me aright. It was the reorganized tribunal I was speaking of purposely, because it differs from the old.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This was the United States
tariff commission after thirteen years of office, and it was found that through the years the views of these gentlemen dictated the facts that they would find. That is the very argument that we are advancing. We are saying that the Prime Minister undoubtedly is going to select for this board friends of his party, men of his own views. He is going to put them in there and is going to ask them under his direction or at his request to find what duties will equalize the differences between the cost of production in Canada and in other countries. When they set out to find that they are going to run into insuperable difficulties. They are going to find that the cost in certain industries varies from province to province, from country to country, from state to state, and from year to year. They are not going to be able to find out what the cost of production is either here or abroad, and they are going to be faced with the necessity of telling the Prime Minister, if he is then the Minister of Finance, what rate of duty will equalize the difference in the cost of production, and the report which they will make is going to depend upon the views which they have held for years in the past.
I want to refer to a few specific instances in the year 1929. The United States tariff commission was directed to examine into the cost of production in the United States and abroad of logs of fir, spruce, cedar, or western hemlock. At page 123 of the thirteenth annual report of the United States tariff commission for 1929, which I have already cited, it appears that commissioners Marvin, Brossard and Lowell find that there was a considerable difference in the cost of production between the United States and Canada, and that a considerable increase in the then existing rate of duty would be required. Commissioner Dennis, Dixon and Costigan recommended to the president that a reduction was required
to equalize the difference in the costs of production. This is the mathematical precision with which the proposed board must operate.
At page 167 the tariff commission brought in a report on frozen eggs, and I would direct the attention of hon. members in the committee to this very significant paragraph:
Commissioner Dennis held that any conclusion drawn from the data gathered by the commission was largely inferential and conjectural, but doubtful-
I would ask hon. members to note these words-
-but doubtful as to whether exact costs could be calculated, he agreed to give the domestic producer the benefit of the doubt and joined the other commissioners in recommending a duty of 71 cents per pound.
If the proposed tariff board gives the domestic producer the benefit of the doubt, and makes rough, ready and haphazard recommendations as to the rates of duty, the tribunal would entirely lose its character as a fact finding tribunal. Indeed it would not be a fact finding tribunal in so far as it recommended increases or decreases of rates of duty. As I stated the other day it would be an opinion forming tribunal.
Then, at page 170 in this booklet the commodity under discussion was cream. Commissioner Dixon appended a statement to the report giving his reasons for withholding his signature. In other words, time after time as these various commodities came before them, these men were dissenting and coming to different conclusions on the same facts. At page 172 we find:
Vice-chairman Dennis and commissioners Dixon and Clark, in separate statements appended to the report, commented on several difficulties encountered in making cost comparisons.
All through this report we find that difficulties in coming to any definite conclusion as to costs were so great as to be practically insuperable. The report concerning corn as contained at pages 178 and 179 shows a clean split in the tribunal. I quote as follows:
Commissioners Marven, Brossard and Lowell are of the opinion that the present duty of 15 cents per bushel of 56 pounds prescribed in paragraph 724 of Title I of the tariff act of 1922 does not equalize the difference in costs of production in the United States and in said principal competing country;
Then at a later point I find the following:
The rate of duty necessary to equalize said difference in costs of production of corn in the United States and in said principal competing country, within the limit specified in section 315 of the tariff act of 1922, is a specific duty of 22J cents per bushel of 56 pounds.
3450	COMMONS
Tariff Board
Then I find the following:
In the opinion of commissioners Dennis, Dixon and Clark the difference in costs of production shown above does not warrant a change in the duty.
We have here three high tariff commissioners finding as a matter of fact that the duty should be raised, and three low tariff commissioners finding as a matter of fact that the duty should remain as it is. Further data was submitted, and at page 181 the commissioners reiterate their decisions:
Commissioners Dennis. Dixon and Clark concluded that they "stand by their judgment as recorded in the original report that no warrant exists for a change in the present duty on corn".
To this judgment Commissioners Marvin, Brossard and Lowell issued a reply.in which they proceeded to tear to pieces the conclusions of commissioners Dennis, Dixon and Clark to the effect that no warrant existed for a change in the present duty on corn.
I found this volume only a short time ago and have had it in my hand but a few minutes, but from a glance at the findings in connection with a few commodities I can see that to speak of this tribunal as being a fact finding body in the sense of mathematical precision is to make a statement much at variance with the facts. If the Prime Minister cherishes the hope that the tribunal he sets up will be able to find facts, in the sense we ordinarily understand such findings, I am afraid he is doomed to profound disappointment.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend who has
just spoken has failed to appreciate one fact, namely that the American commission is composed of three Democrats and three Republicans, whereas the proposed board in Canada would be composed of two Conservatives and one Tory. We may depend upon it that they will never split. They: will seek out the facts with their own Conservative eyes and in perfect unison they will report to the government. The trouble with the American commission is that they were placed in the position where they had to receive both sides of a question. However my right hon. friend's board would not necessarily go into both sides; it would be a strong Conservative and
Tory commission representing the two sides, those of the Conservatives and the Tories. The two sides will always be in perfect accord.
A few moments ago my right hon. friend stated that tariff matters should not be left to guess work, but should be investigated. How is it, then, that we put through this house at the special session last year several hundred changes in tariff items, and are asked at the present session to put through about two hundred more? We have heard several long speeches in an attempt to convince the committee and perhaps the country-if the Prime Minister still cares any more for the country-that the necessity for this tariff board lies in the fact that there should be no guess work in matters of tariff. Yet without proper discussion and under conditions which made it imperative to pass the items at once, about four hundred items were put through this house at the last session, and there are about two hundred more to come before us within the next few days. Surely there is a lack of consistency. If no explanation can be made on this bill at least I think it should be made when we reach the tariff items in committee of ways and means.
I had another purpose in mind when I rose. The Prime Minister attempted to demonstrate to the committee that his board was to be judicial in character. I think my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition has presented a very strong argument to the effect that the tariff board should be merely advisory, and that in any event the government of the day should take the responsibility for the fiscal policy of the country. It may be of interest to point out the opinions in the country concerning this matter. I have only a couple of minutes at my disposal, but I wish to refer to an editiorial which appeared in the Montreal Star of June 29-	.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton South):: I must call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that it is now eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.


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

[Stage Direction]
C"*