1931-06-09

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Third and fourth reports of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Stinson.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved, seconded by Mr. Guthrie:
That the name of Mr. Bowman be substituted for that of Mr. Willis on the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization;
That the name of Mr. Willis be substituted for that of Mr. Bowman on the select standing committee on banking and commerce.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri) moved the first reading of Bill No. 74 (from the Senate), respecting The Railway Employees Casualty Insurance Company. -
He said: The Railway Employees Casualty Insurance Company was incorporated by an act of parliament being chapter 82 of the statutes of 1929. This company was supposed to have ceased to do business on April 30,

1931, and the purpose of this bill is to extend the time limit to May 1, 1933. Any time before that date the Minister of Finance may issue a licence to carry on business according to the statutes.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) (Translation):: There is another
question of privilege with reference to a quotation of Hansard which was made by "Le Journal" of Quebec in its issue of June 6, 1931. My words are quoted as follows, under the heading:	"The Pope and Mr. Pouliot":
If you quote the Pope, you certainly can depend on the support of the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan).
The following is what the Hansard reports at page 2420:
Mr. Pouliot: If you quote the Pope, Long Lake will not support you.
These are exactly my words. It would have been better for "le Journal" to tell its readers that the member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) hid himself on the back row, the fifth row, to applaud the member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne).


Mr. SPEAKER:: What might have been said by a newspaper in Quebec or elsewhere, whether it has or has not correctly reported the hon. member's speech, is of no consequence to this house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have denied it, tha/t is all.



WEDNESDAY EVENING SITTINGS

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Wednesday the 10th instant and subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the session the sittings shall in every respect be under the same rules provided for other days.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask a question of the Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). I am sorry he is not in his place but I direct his attention to what appeared in the newspaper, Le Canada, on June 6. On the first page

Convicted Stock Brokers
appears a letter by Mr. Victor Morin addressed to the editor. Mr. Morin was for some time the president of the St. Jean Baptiste Society. He says:
(Translation): A young man with no knowledge whatsoever of French came to my house (I am aware that French-Canadians speaking both languages were denied employment, no doubt because their fathers were Liberals). A young girl answered the door, and as she excused herself saying that she had no knowledge of the information asked, he told her to give any kind of an answer. . . . that it had no importance, suggesting himself the figures to give. In leaving the house, he was so impudent as to tell her that she needed to go to school so as to learn to speak English intelligently. She was not even so resentful as to tell him that he needed it more than she did both as regards to schooling and good manners. We certainly can expect fine statistical results!
Yours truly,
(Signed) Victor Morin.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is unnecessary for the
hon. member to read that letter in full; if he has a complaint to make he should make it.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I am making a complaint.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member has
a complaint to make as to the appointment of census enumerators he can make it and then ask a question, but he does not need to read a newspaper in order to ask a simple question.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: This article shows what was going on in the city of Montreal with regard to the taking of the census.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member can state that himself.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the government what they intend to do in the matter. It has been claimed that on St. Lawrence street and Craig street where there is a large French-speaking population, English enumerators only were sent to take the census.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. ILSLEY (Hants-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) to facilitate a return, moved for on April 27, in connection with the establishment of a distillery at Berwick and more than six weeks have elapsed and the return has not been made.


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: I will consider this matter
and advance the return as quickly as possible.
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT DISMISSALS AND RETIREMENTS	[DOT]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago this house passed an order for a return in regard to certain information relating to dismissals or retirements from the Interior department. The minister promised me he would expedite this order, but it has not yet come down. Is there any prospect of an early tabling of the return?


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior):: I understood the return had been
brought down. I shall make inquiry and endeavour to expedite the matter if the return has not been tabled.


Edward Joseph Garland: When a return is tabled, it is customary to send notice to the member concerned, but no such notice has come to me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so; it is not customary.



CONVICTED STOCKBROKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  J. S. WOODS WORT II@Winnipeg North Centre: Two years ago quite a large sum of money was voted by the house for the establishment of a special farm near Kingston for juvenile delinquents. According to a report in yesterday's Toronto Globe the convicted stockbrokers are now enjoying life on that farm in a sort of open air camp. The article goes on to say:
Men sent down for defrauding clients of millions are "preferred" inmates, work on smiling farm lands, are housed in construction camp buildings and whole area is enclosed by fence to keep public out! Guards carry no arms-balanced rations and music in the evenings.
And so on. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether special treatment is being given to these stockbrokers or whether this article is a mere fabrication.
Purchase of Labrador


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: I may say that the farm in question
is not for juvenile delinquents. It is called a "preferred class" penitentiary. I have no knowledge whatever as to where the stockbrokers referred to have been incarcerated. I shall make inquiries and report to-morrow to the hon. member.



RAILWAY COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri):: I
should like to ask the Prime Minister when the province of Quebec can hope to have a commissioner on the Board of Railway Commissioners?


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the vacancies on the board are
filled.



UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
should like to ask a question of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon): It is reported in the press that the two railway companies are cooperating with the Department of Immigration in a back to the farm movement. Considering the fact that prices on the farm have not been lower for many years, I should like to know if the report is correct.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Since last fall
the colonization departments of the two railroads, instead of directing their efforts towards securing the entry of new migrants into Canada have, at the instance of the government, joined their colonization forces with the forces of the department over which I am presiding with a view to placing as many unemployed as possible who are now in the cities, on the farm or in other useful occupations. We have heard, and I have listened to many statements in the house, about the dire conditions alleged to exist on the farms all over Canada. In spite of that, this effort prior to the end of last month has resulted in some 7,600 single unemployed men being placed with the farmers of this country, and very few of them have returned to the cities.
In addition to that we have been able, with the joint help of the railroads and my department, to place on selected locations some 1,500 families who have been paddling their

own canoe, as it were, and have established themselves on the farm. I have no record, nor has our department, nor have the railroads, of one of those families coming back to the city to join the ranks of the unemployed. With a view to furthering that work and to consolidating the efforts of all those who have been heretofore engaged in bringing migrants into Canada, a conference is being held in Winnipeg and another, I hope, will be held in the east. Wherever my department can find in the various localities places in which unemployment can be relieved in this way, this work is being carried on without any expense to the government other than that of maintaining the ordinary staff.



PURCHASE OF LABRADOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it is true that the federal government intends to secure for Canada the coast of Labrador as is stated in an article in Le Journal of Quebec on the 6th instant, entitled:
Bennett vent rendre au Canada le Labrador perdu par Taseliereau.
I should also like to know if the paper in question was authorized by the government of Canada to make another promise on the eve of the Quebec provincial election?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nothing could better illustrate the
abuse of the privileges of the house. The asking of the question was quite in order, but the hon. gentleman was not content to ask it without referring to an item in a newspaper for the purpose of endeavouring to make political capital or to anticipate political attacks.
I have had no communications beyond those I mentioned the other day in answer to a question from the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Yeniot) with respect to the matter referred to. The matter is always engaging the attention of all governments, I take it, for it is a serious situation at the moment and it will engage more and more the attention of this administration.


Mr. VENIOT:: I hope the right hon.
gentleman does not mean that I referred the other day to Labrador.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, Newfoundland.
Newfoundland owns Labrador.

Copyright Act



MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: May
I ask the Prime Minister whether there will be an acting minister of railways in the absence of the hon. minister?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is not an inexperienced member of parliament. He knows quite well, from what he has already been told, the Minister of Railways has been called away on a very sad mission because of the extremely serious illness of his brother. The question as to whether or not an acting minister will be appointed must depend upon the length of absence of the minister. The matter has not been considered.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall direct my request
to the right hon. gentleman.



COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 8, consideration in committee of Bill No. 4, to amend the Copyright Act-Mr. Cahan-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 10-Performing rights.
Mr. CHEVRIER:: Last evening the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) in answer to a question that was put to him by the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) and replying also to a question which I had asked, said, as reported at page 2415 of Hansard:
Allow me to answer the question. Article 4, clause 2, of the convention, provides that the extent of protection as well as the means of redress to safeguard the rights of authors shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country whose protection is claimed.
But the hon. gentleman forgot to read a little further. Article 4 of the convention of Berne, as it appears on page 8 of the printed bill now under review, adds these words, "apart from the express stipulations of the present convention." That is, the Canadian parliament may enact any means of redress provided that the Canadian law has previously complied with the express stipulations of the Berne convention, to which convention Canada is a contracting party, and by the terms of which Canada is bound to provide the means of redress and which this bill fails to enact.
The hon. minister also, at page 2410 of Hansard, said this:
But this I do say-that the public opinion of this country -is very close to this stage, that if certain regulations which we propose
to enact in this bill are not within the Berne convention, then public opinion in this country is in such a state that the great body of it may say that the sooner Canada gets out of the Berne convention, the better for Canada.
Now if public opinion in Canada is so strong as to force the Canadian parliament to legalize the spoliation of authors' rights, of the rights of nationals and of the rights of the unionists, in contravention of the terms of the convention of Berne, and if the present legislation is the result of that public opinion, then I say that it is incumbent upon the minister to propose the immediate withdrawal of Canada from the Berne convention, and from my seat now I challenge the minister to do it.


Mr. CAHAN:: I do not intend, Mr. Chairman, to rehash the debate of last evening. We are now on section 10, and I propose to discuss it.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That permeates the whole of the hon. gentleman's speech, and I wanted to answer.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman should have answered when the clause in question was under discussion.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Shortly after 1886 something rather similar happened. Sir John Thompson went over to Europe to protest against the admission of Canada into the Berne convention, and he did that because there were certain interests in Canada that forced him to do so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We are on section 10, Mr. Chairman, and I think the hon. gentleman should confine his remarks to it.


The CHAIRMAN:: With all due respect, my hon. friend should not discuss the principle of the bill at this stage. I would ask him to confine his remarks to a discussion of the clause before the committee.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, with the very best grace. I shall have an opportunity of coming to that question later.
Coming to clause 10, I would have very much preferred had it not been embodied in the bill at all. I do not think it is a proper section to be introduced in a copyright bill, and I suggested that before the committee. However, the committee thought otherwise, and its view prevailed. I think a lot of difficulty would have been obviated had this section found its place in a different statute, namely, in the Combines Investigation Act. My objection to this section is that it is in
Copyright, Act

flagrant contradiction of the Berne convention. Obviously, and I think the hon. minister did not intend to hide this in any way, this section is directed against what is called a certain performing right society. It is, I think, well within the understanding of every member of this committee that authors cannot themselves the world over look after their own interests, that there must 'be in Canada for the authors of France, Germany, Japan and the forty odd nations o-f the world, some body that will look after their interests, just as there must be in those other countries some body that will look after the interests of Canadian authors there. It is true, as the hon. gentleman has said, that this company represents some .thirty thousand authors, but where I take issue with the hon, gentleman is as to the nature of the assignment which he invokes when he says that we are not legislating by this clause against the authors, 'but against some body that is absolutely new .because of the nature of the assignment that has taken place. The hon. gentleman, I think, limited his remarks to the two factions in .conflict in this peculiar situation, namely, the Performing Right Society and the users of music. I desire to place before this committee the situation in its true light as it was placed before the committee of which I had the honour of being a member. I think it is only fair that this committee should see just what are the two influences at work, for the public at no time was represented before the committee. The public was not at stake. I't was clearly a question between the Performing Right Society, holding certain assigned rights of the authors, and those who endeavoured to use those rights. When the author assigns his rights, performing rights or musical rights, he is not vesting his total 100 per cent of his rights in these societies. He simply turns over his rights to these associations or societies or companies for the punpose of having his fees and royalties collected. I want to refer to the evidence of these two conflicting interests, given before the special committee. At page 81 of the evidence Mr. John A. Cooper was called and sworn, and I want to place his evidence before this committee so that hon. members may see juSt whom we are trying to protect and whose interests are at stake. I quote from the evidence:
John A. Cooper, called and sworn.
By the Chairman:
Q. Please give us your name, residence and occupation.-A. I am president of the Motion Picture Distributors and Exhibitors Association of Canada. My address is 53 Binscarth road, Toronto. I am also, to-day, sir, if I may be allowed, representing the Province of Quebec Theatre Owners' Association, which com-
prises most of the theatre owners of the province of Quebec, the independent theatre owners of the province of Ontario, the Motion Picture Association of the Province of Manitoba, and the Saskatchewan Independent Theatre Owners, and a certain number of theatre owners in the other provinces who are not formed into an association. I would like to point out, sir, if I may, that these combined people whom I represent have nearly one hundred million dollars invested in this country, and that they employ somewhere around fifteen thousand people, so that I have to be careful in representing such large interests. Will it be necessary to say anything about the Motion Picture Association-the main association that I represent?
Q. We will leave that to your discretion?- A. I will be very glad to say what this association represents. It represents ten of twelve distributors of motion pictures in Canada, including the Famous Lasky Film Service, Regal Films Limited, Fox Films Corporation, Canadian Universal Film Company, Canadian Educational Films, United Artists Association, Mary Pickford's Company, Warner Brothers Pictures, the First National, and Columbia Pictures. These companies distribute practically all the pictures that are distributed in Canada, whether those pictures are made in England, Germany, France or the United States. Our association is not an association for profit,-
Oh!
-but merely an association such as the Canadian Manufacturers Association, to take care of matters of general interest to all these companies, and these companies are, in fact, highly organized competitors for the business of distributing motion pictures to the thousand theatres from coast to coast.
There is not one word in that evidence about looking after the interests of the public in any way, shape or form, whatsoever. The association is formed simply for the purpose of looking after the distribution of motion pictures to the thousands of theatres from coast to coast. If ever there was a monopoly to which the minister should direct his attention, that is one. So that we may view the other side of the medal, because I have never seen a medal without two sides, let us see what the Canadian Performing Right Society is. At page 4 of the evidence heard before the committee Mr. Henry T. Jamieson was called and sworn, and I shall read from his evidence:
I am president of the Canadian Performing Right Society residing in Toronto.
At a later point in his evidence I find the following:
The Canadian Performing Right Society, Limited, was duly incorporated in 1925, under the provisions of the first part of chapter 79, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, known as "The Companies Act," and amending acts.
Here is a Canadian company, and because it happens to be a Canadian company is it

Copyright Act
going to be singled out? The other conflicting interests are not incorporated in Canada. Mr. Cooper does not mention any of them, and therefore we have difficulty in following their operations. Then Mr. Jamieson goes on to say:
The society was formed as a branch of The Performing Right Society, Limited, of London, England, and, since 1930, has been jointly operated by that society and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers.
The British and American societies are associations of composers, authors, -publishers and proprietors of copyright musical works, established to collect fees for the public performance of such works and to restrain unauthorized performances thereof. Through these societies, the Canadian society controls the Canadian performing rights in the works owned by the members of the British and American societies and of the kindred societies in France. Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Roumania, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Portugal and Brazil. Norway and Finland, affiliated with the British society.
The Canadian rights, owned by the members of all the societies mentioned, are obtained under the Canadian Copyright Act, 1921. This follows the International Copyright Convention of Berne as revised at Berlin in 1908, to which Canada adhered on 1st January, 1924.
Then I pass on to page 5, and read the third paragraph on the page:
The Canadian Performing Right Society, Limited, is the organization formed for the purpose of collecting fees in this country for the public performances of Canadian, British or foreign musical works, in which copyright subsists under the Canadian act.
From the same page I shall now quote paragraph (3):
(3) Aims and objects of Canadian society:
Members, as distinct from licence holders, on election invest the societies with sole authority to grant licences in the several countries mentioned, to collect fees in respect of public performances of their copyright musical works and, on their behalf, to exercise and enforce all rights and remedies relating thereto.
The Canadian society represents 917 British authors and composers, 102 British publishers, 711 American authors and composers, 91 American publishers and 26,500 members of the affiliated foreign societies.
In all, about 30,000 authors.
Both the controlling societies are membership societies. These societies are directed by the members (authors, composers and publishers). No membership fees are paid. No dividends are paid.
Now the stage is set. Those are the two interests in conflict. Not a single word has been given in evidence to the effect that at any time the Performing Right Society had been guilty of a hold up or had refused, after offer of a reasonable sum, to grant a licence to any one applying. Undoubtedly it might
not be unwise for the government to have control over certain societies which owe their existence to statutory enactments. The evidence in committee-and I am going by that evidence-did not disclose any reason to impose this legislation. We are simply anticipating a situation which may never arise. At all events present conditions do not at all indicate that a situation requiring such legislation will arise in the near future. It might be said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I think, however, it would be wiser to wait until an occasion arises which would necessitate the investigation or regulation of this company. I wish that every member of this committee might be privileged to read the most able and fair presentation of the argument on behalf of this society made by Mr. Anglin, KU, of Toronto. I think the purpose would be eminently served if hon. members would avail themselves of the first opportunity of reading the argument.
I shall now refer to subsection (a) of section 10 of the bill. In conformity with this section all lists of titles in respect of which fees will be charged, must be filed. In that connection I wish to refer to the evidence given by Mr. Howard Angus Kennedy, and for that purpose I refer to page 116 of the evidence. After being sworn Mr. Kennedy, when asked his occupation, said:
I was going to say I appear both as a writer and as a farmer. You can put that down, it is quite true. At the present time, not having to depend on my farm, I hope, I am national secretary of the Canadian Authors' Association, an association which. I suppose I should explain, consists of 850 members, in 12 branches, from Nova Scotia to British Columbia -besides an entirely French section in the province of Quebec.
The association was formed ten years ago, largely to promote and to obtain a just copyright act for the dominion, although for other purposes also. Speaking for myself, just as a joke, when I said I was a farmer, I am a farmer in Mr. Irvine's constituency of Wetas-kiwin, and not altogether independent of agriculture either. But I am also an author. I have been writing very largely for the benefit of Canada. I do not claim remuneration or particular credit for that, but, for the last fifty years, and it is just fifty years last week since I became a writer in Canada-I have devoted myself very largely to Canadian subjects and also, very largely, to the spreading of knowledge and appreciation of Canada in other countries. especially in the old country, Great Britain and Ireland.
I have quoted that section of the evidence so that hon. members may know who Mr. Kennedy is. Then, to quote from page 117 of the evidence:
I should say that it seems to me, sir, that the amendments to the bill, especially sections 1C and 11-
Copyright Act

Which are now incorporated in section 6.
-that have been spoken so much about, would allow those who have no respect for the Berne convention, as you have, sir, and do not care cue snap about it, to drive a coach and four through it. That, we are deeply concerned with preventing, but we are also concerned with other things-we are local people; we are Canadian people-I have got a book here, one of my books to which a sequel has just been written-I have just got the plates. It is a book of stories. I have been asked to turn some of those stories into musical plays for children. I will at once come under two of the sections of this bill. I would be practically compelled, if I did so and wanted to get anything out of it, to put my interests in the hands of the Performing Right Society, Mr. Thompson's new society, or our own association, which might quite conceivably branch out into those lines and take the interests of those musical numbers in charge, and would immediately be one of the associations against which your section 10 is aimed.
He would therefore find that his royalties and fees would be limited by order in council. Then he says:
We are to be subject to price fixing, and we ask why we should be discriminated against, and why should you not subject to price fixing your butcher, baker or candlestick maker, your theatre, your dealer, everybody?
I spoke of myself as a farmer. I am interested in wheat. The question of price-fixing is constantly coming up in relation to wheat. You had the fixing of price during the war to a maximum beyond which we should not go.
Without introducing politics at all, as was agreed, may I say I have heard the right hon. Prime Minister declare that there was to be no price fixing in the matter of which I have just spoken.


Mr. IRVINE:: Does my hon. friend think it fair to make a comparison between wheat and copyright in this regard?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: One is a necessity, the other is a luxury. No one needs a luxury for his livelihood, and if anyone wants to have it he must pay a fair price for it; whereas wheat being a necessity might be subject to regulation.


William Irvine: But the price the farmer gets for his wheat does not depend on a statute, while the only right the author has, -his copyright-is established by this parliament.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am not saying it in any unkindly spirit, but if my hon. friend is satisfied with the distinction, well and good.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly the remark is very relevant.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: If anyone wants to hold up the price of wheat or of bread, then parliament has the right of investigation and-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I suggest if the hon. gentleman wishes to discuss this clause that he direct his attention to it. We are not discussing the price of wheat; it is not part of this bill. The evidence the hon. gentleman has cited is printed and in the hands of all members, and undoubtedly those who are interested in the question have read that evidence. Why should there be this obstruction? Why should we discuss the bill in this irrelevant manner? I suggest that the hon. gentleman direct his remarks to section 10 and allow us to discuss it.


Mr. RINFRET:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) will admit that I have done my very best to facilitate the passage of this bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think it is quite in order for the member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) to quote the evidence.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no objection to his quoting the evidence so long as it is relevant to section 10.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The quotation was rather terse, but the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) put a question and the member for Ottawa, out of courtesy, was trying to reply. So I believe he is quite in order. I know the Secretary of State is very desirious to have this bill pass, and, I repeat, I share his desire, but I am sure he has not used the word "obstruction" with any desire to justify it.
Mr. CAHAN; I withdraw the word.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think the hon. member for Ottawa has the right to make a comparison or analogy. I am not supposed to be very lenient in my rulings, bu't I think so far he is in order.
Mr. CHEVRIER; I am quite satisfied with your ruling, Mr. Chairman. Now I desire to quote a portion of Mr. Buck's evidence at page 36. I do so because I think it is the easiest way to enable us to reach a conclusion on this matter. It is only by establishing the facts and arguing on those facts that we can

Copyright Act
get somewhere. This evidence is on the question of fixing the price at which the licences will be issued. I am not making any legal argument on this, I am simply voicing the contentions of those whose rights are being so curtailed, namely, the authors. At page 36 Mr. Buck said:
Price fixing is a most dangerous and extraordinary subject. The gentlemen who utilize our works, namely, the motion picture owners, the radio broadcasters, the dance hall owners and those other gentlemen, are not subject to any regulations, and it takes a great deal of thought to wonder why the creator, the man who makes it possible for these things to exist, should be picked on when it comes down to regulations. There is no regulation to tell the broadcaster how much he should charge an hour; there is no regulation to tell the motion picture owner how much he should charge per seat, or how much he should put his picture on for, and through some peculiar trick of fate which I think is instigated by gentlemen loaded with a _ sinister purpose-and I wish to make the point, sir, that I am not here asking Canada for special favours, I am merely here trying to defend every Canadian author and composer.
That is the situation with reference to the parties in opposition to the amendment. This price fixing takes away from the author his inherent right to sell the product of his brain at the price which he wants to put upon it, or to retain his product if he does not want to sell it. True, the hon. gentleman throughout these proceedings will say that the author is not touched 'by this legislation, but that the assignee is. Well, copyright exists in the works defined in the statute during the lifetime of the author and fifty years after his death. The law is that that is an absolute, inherent right. It matters not into whose hands these works pass. I may go into a store and buy a book, but simply because I pay two dollars for the book, it does not mean that I have ithe right to alter the title, to distort the contents and to reprint the book under my naime and sell it. The character of copyright attaches to thie work itself for fifty years after the death of the author, no matter in what way the original owner may have disposed of his work. On this point I have the opinion of the British authorities contained in a letter from Lord Lovat, No. 356. It is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
Downing Street, 26 July, 1927.
Sir,-
I have the honour to state that the attention of His Majesty's government in Great Britain has been called to the decision of the courts in Canada in the ease of Canadian Performing Right Society versus Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited.
I will not read the rest of that paragraph but continue my quotation at paragraph 2:
His Majesty's government in Great Britain are advised that the word "authors," where it appears in the revised Berne copyright convention of 1908, must be read as including the legal representatives or assignees (ayants cause! of such authors.
I ask hon. members to mark those words. The writer does not say " with reference to section 39, section 46" or any other section;
he says:
-the^ nmrd "authors," where it appears in the revised Berne copyright convention of 1908, must be read as including the legal representatives or assignees (ayants cause) of such authors.
That means the Performing Right Society constituted in the same manner and for the same purpose.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is my hon. friend's
argument, not Lord Lovat's.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Then I fail to understand the English language. I will read it
agiyn:
His Majesty's government in Great Britain are advised that the word "authors," where it appears in the revised Berne copyright, convention of 1908, must be read as including the legal representatives or assignees (ayants cause) of such authors.
We are under that convention.
In support of this view it is pointed out that article II of the original copyright convention of 1886 specifically refers to the legal representatives or assignees of authors. This reference was intentionally omitted by the Berlin conference of 1908 on the ground that the term "author"-
It was so obvious to them:
-included his legal representatives or assignees and that therefore it was unnecessary to mention them specifically. Reference is invited to the comments on article III of the convention on page 120 of the parliamentary paper containing correspondence relating to the convention.
That is, No. 4467 of 1909. Now, I do not search for a better interpretation of the word "assignees." The authors' assignees are the Performing Right Society, and once rights have been assigned to them for the particular purpose of collecting these royalties, and for no other purpose, then if we limit the operations of that society we curtail the saleable value and consequently the price of the author's works. And, I contend, we have not the right to do so, for two reasons:	First,
because the author has the right to refuse or to sell; and, secondly, if we fix a price beyond which he may not sell his works, then we are interfering with the nationals' rights,
Copyright Act

and we are also interfering with the rights of unionist authors in Canada, which we have not the right to do under the Berne convention. If we take any such course we expose ourselves to retaliatory measures on the part of other nations that belong to the convention. The Secretary of State has made much of section 19 of the law, stating that inasmuch as we have the right to impose restrictions upon phonograph records, we have the right to impose them upon works of all kinds. Well, the answer to that is clear: All we have to do is to refer to article XIII of the Berne convention. The Berne convention of 1908 excluded phonograph records from the operation of the act. And the hon. gentleman has properly said that up to the present time he has received no complaints from people who send out circulars, people who may publish some little magazine of some kind somewhere, probably in Rome or in Berne, without any authority whatsoever.
Now, we pay $2,000 a year-that is to say, the Canadian parliament votes this sum-on behalf of Canada as a second class unij in the Berne convention to assist in the maintenance of the office of the Berne convention. The official organ of the Berne convention is Le Droit d'Auteur, which is divided into two parts, one official and the other non-official. Le Droit d'Auteur represents the expression of the greatest and most learned experts on copyright legislation in the world. It is not an insignificant magazine that publishes circulars or addresses letters now' and then. We know just what Le Droit d'Auteur is, for we pay $2,000 a year as our contribution towards its upkeep.
Mr. CAIiAN:	We do not pay it merely
for that publication.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Well, that is the official organ of the convention, towards which we pay our contribution.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That may be so.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Now, Le Droit d'Auteur in a number of instances has clearly expressed the opinion that our law was not in conformity with the Berne convention.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And in our legislation we
have taken steps to meet those objections which arose under old section 39 and new section 40.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Well, Mr. Chairman,
the copyright law and this bill are just like pin-cushions. You may take one pin out so far as section 40 is concerned; but do not forget that there are twelve sections in this
[Mr. Chevrier.l
bill and there are forty odd sections in the copyright law, very many of which are in flagrant conflict with the terms of the convention. I mention this because the hon. gentleman has said that he has received no complaints. And he did not receive any inasmuch as those with respect to whom complaints might have been made were well within the law.
There is something else to which I -would direct the attention of the minister. I take the responsibility for saying that I have seen the letter from the Berne bureau to Mr. C. F. James, the general secretary of the Performing Right Society of London, England. I quote:
The modifications which the Canadian government proposes to make to the Canadian copyright law of 1921 appear to us on an important point clearly to be contrary to the convention of Berne, revised 1.3th November, 1908, to which Canada in fact adhered from 1st January, 1924. It is provided in one of the said modifications that the governor in council may from time to time reduce, revise, increase or otherwise prescribe the fees-
That is the way it stood when the letter was written.
- which may be collected by the collecting companies. That prerogative granted to such authority-
Meaning the governor in council:
-is incompatible with the author's unfettered power of disposal of his -work. It is that unfettered power of disposal which the convention, in fact, protects. That convention allows but one different attitude which is in respect of the adaptation of musical works to instruments which can reproduce them mechanically.
That is under article XHI.
We consider it therefore -wise to call the Canadian government's attention to the anticonventional character of such disposition.
And I am now on the floor of the Canadian parliament calling the Canadian parliament's attention to the anti-conventional character of this legislation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On behalf of the Performing Right Society.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I have
never said anything offensive to the hon. gentleman, and I do not propose ever doing so. I might have had occasion to say something but I have refrained and will continue to refrain from any such remarks. But I have always maintained in the committee that we were absolutely independent, and the hon. gentleman himself so stated last night. I therefore resent the innuendo, conveyed in his

Copyright Act
remark, that I am representing the Performing Right Society, and if he says so it is absolutely false and I would ask him to retract it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I simply referred to the fact that the Performing Right Society appeared before the committee. If it had such an opinion to present to the committee it should have presented it at the time.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It is contained in their
brief, which the hon. gentleman did not read.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Contained in their brief and presented in evidence?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It is contained in the
statement they filed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If it was filed, I withdraw
the remark. But the argument now being made is simply to sustain the contentions of the Performing Right Society. There is no doubt about that.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Why not? It is right. I believe that this legislation is absolutely invalid. We have not the right to do what we are proposing. I wish the hon. gentleman to make his stand clear.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: This is a peaceful
subject and I do not think any hon. member should impute motives.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was not imputing motives; I had not the slightest idea of imputing motives to the hon. gentleman.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Very well; *we will let
it go at that. Now, this letter states:
We consider it therefore wise to call the Canadian government's attention to the anticonventional character of such disposition, which would grant to the governor in council the right to modify the fees, the collection of which is made by associations such as yours.
That letter appears in connection with the printed statement submitted to the members of the committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is that A or B?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I have forgotten; it
is one of them. Of course, the hon. gentleman did not read it. It is memorandum C. The evidence shows that it was filed. I was careful in reading the evidence not to quote any document that had not been received in evidence. There is another letter from Mr. James, reading as follows:
It consistently can be maintained that the prescription periodically to file at the copyright office (complete)

We had the word "complete" in, but since then it has been deleted. The letter continues :
-lists of all the works contained in the repertory of collecting societies, is a formality incompatible with the convention, if by failure so to file those societies are thereby denied the power of exercising the rights conferred on them by the authors.
The power to collect may be conferred by the authors. This question bristles with points of law at every turn and that is the reason why I am giving to this section more attention than I have given to the others. I think we are treading on very dangerous ground when we enact this legislation in its present form. By this bill we are interfering with the rights of authors, either nationals or unionists; it is in violation of the Berne convention, and it is in violation of the terms of a treaty agreement entered into between the United States and Canada. The hon. gentleman shakes his head, but that does not change the legal obligations and relations which exist between the two countries. If by shaking his head the hon. gentleman could do away with all these things, I suppose he would shake it three or four times. There is nothing so dangerous as shaking one's head when legal difficulties are encountered. I feel sure that when this legislation is passed someone in authority will shoot it full of holes. But I shall have taken my stand on the floor of parliament and stated that that is what I anticipated would be done.
On December 23, 1923, the Hon. Thomas A. Low, then Minister of Trade and Commerce for Canada, who at that time was the minister charged with the administration of the Copyright Act, issued the following certificate :
I, Thomas A. Low, Minister of Trade and Commerce for the Dominion of Canada, do hereby certify pursuant to subsection 2 of section 4 of the Cop3T?ight Act of 1921, that the United States of America is a country which grants cither by treaty, convention, agreement or law, to citizens of Canada the benefit of copyright on substantially the same basis as to its own citizens or copyright protection substantially equal to that conferred by the said act, and from the first day of January, 1924, the said country shall for the purpose of the rights conferred by the said act, be treated as if it were a country to -which the said act extends.
This is the reciprocal arrangement of copyright between Canada and the United States. That certificate was published in the Canada Gazette of December 29, 1923. On December 27, 1923, President Coolidge issued a proclamation which is to be found in the report of the Commissioner of Patents for the fiscal
Copyright Act

year ended March 31, 1924. President Coolidge's proclamation reads as follows:
Whereas satisfactory official assurances have been received that the Minister of Trade and Commerce for Canada issued, pursuant to section 4 (2) of the Canadian Copyright Act, assented June 4,	1921, a certificate dated
December 26,	1923, to become operative
January 1, 1924. declaring that for the purposes of the rights conferred by the said act, the United States shall be treated as if it were a country to which the act extends.
That on or after January 1, 1924, the conditions specified in section 8 (d) and 1 (e) of the act of March 4, 1909, will exist and be fulfilled in respect of the citizens of Canada, and that on and after that date the citizens of Canada will be entitled to all the benefits of the act of March 4, 1909, including section 1 (e) thereof and the acts amendatory of the said act.
There is a solemn understanding, a binding contract made between two great nations, Canada and the United States, to grant mutually and reciprocally the rights of copyright as they existed at that time, and that the same protection would be afforded in the one country as was afforded in the other. Should this present legislation be passed we will be imposing upon American authors obligations which did not exist at that time and which were not in contemplation when this arrangement was entered into. I say that the whole thing is laden with far-reaching consequences, and that the whole of this section is out of place. I submit that this section should be left out of the bill and an amendment should be made to the Combines Investigation Act to take care of the principle. That act covers monopolies and an amendment would enable the minister to overcome the difficulty with which he is now faced with reference to the Berne convention. If this matter were handled by an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act no fees would be fixed in anticipation but the moment the parliament of Canada would be satisfied that this Performing Right Society or any other society of a similar character was acting in a monopolistic way detrimental to the public interest, it could investigate notwithstanding anything contained in the Berne convention. There are what are known as the police regulations in that convention which prohibit obscene literature and the like, and the moment that anything obnoxious or detrimental to the public interest turns up the local legislatures can intervene and the terms of the Berne convention would not apply to prohibit the investigation thereof. I suggested that to the hon. gentleman, but he shook his head.
This section does not include a number of other societies which the hon. member did not mean to include, but I fear it does include

such companies as, for instance, where an individual trades under the name of an incorporated or registered company, such as do most of the European, American and some Canadian publishers of music. I mentioned that as I think the hon. gentlemen meant to exclude them, but at no time should these people have been taken in, but I think this section would cover them. I mentioned that before, and I mention it again.
I would like to refer for a moment to the argument of Mr. Cassels, another counsel for the Performing Right Society. I have given considerable attention to this evidence and the exhibits; I have endeavoured at all times to be fair and I have tried to meet the interests of everybody. I have tried to protect the authors provided that protection does not interfere with the legitimate interests of anybody else. I have tried to be fair with the antagonistic or hostile interests, and I think it is a duty incumbent upon some member of the committee to place before parliament the stand which Mr. Cassels took. This matter does not call for a legal wrangle, but I desire to dissociate myself from section 10, and this argument is one of my reasons for doing so. Mr. Cassels said:
Subsection 3 of clause 10 takes away from any such society the right to enforce a contract voluntarily entered into by a licensee unless all of the works in respect of which the licence is granted are specified in the lists filed by the society.	_
The clause may be construed as preventing such a society from retaining fees which have been voluntarily paid to it.
I suggested in the committee, and I submit now that the legal officers of the government should be consulted in this regard. I do not know whether or not they have been consulted, but at all events I leave that with the hon. gentleman and if this legislation has the effect of putting this company out of business, that is not my concern and not my responsibility. For all those reasons I now move that section 10 be struck out.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The motion is that section 10 be carried. This is merely a negative motion.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I shall take up the discussion of this case where the hon. member for Ottawa has left it. He has drawn the attention of the committee to article 17 of the convention of Rome and I shall read the article because it has, I think, a direct bearing on this matter. Article 17 of the convention reads:
The provisions of the present convention cannot in any way derogate from the right belonging to the government of each country of the union to permit, to control, ox to prohibit, by measures

Copyright Act
of domestic legislation or police, the circulation, representation, or exhibition of any works or productions in regard to which the competent authority may find it necessary to exercise that right.
It is under that article that members of the committee, although for the reasons just given by the hon. member for Ottawa they were worrying somewhat over section 10, agreed to the -inclusion of that section in the bill -because they considered that under article 17 of the Rome convention the parliament of Canada -could well enact a section such as section 10 and include it in the copyright bill. With all deference to the remarks we have just heard fro-m my hon. friend, I think he has somewhat weakened his argument -by taking the stand that this section should not be in a -copyright bill but might well be in some other act, because, after all, it becomes a -mere matter of -procedure. If we were going to follow that interpretation in regard to what we owe to the convention of Rome, provided we would not put any provisions in the copyright bill, we might enact anything at all and put it somewhere else. I share his views that as a matter of statute making this section might better be placed in the Combines Investigation Act, but whether it is in that act or in the Copyright Act, it must conform to the convention at Rome; otherwise we -must get out of the convention. If my hon. -friend is of opinion that it would be all right in the Combines Investigation Act I am afraid he has somewhat weakened his argument against the section.
I wish to state this-and again I am repeating the stand I took last night-that I am considering this -bill under present -conditions as an improvement to our Copyright Act and not as the ideal measure on copyright that the most favoured nation could wish for in that domain. If the -Secretary of State had introduced section 10 as a separate bill dealing merely with that -matter, -then I think there would be much greater force in the argument of the hon. member -for Ottawa, although in theory the force is the same whether it applies to a separate section or to a whole bill. But the parliament of Canada must not forget that section 10 has been introduced because section 9 has been introduced. The Secretary of State has said many times-and he is quite right-that the very fact of doing away with compulsory legislation created in copyright matters in this country a situation which was radically different from that which existed when we were under the old section 40. I know, as having had the experience of administering -the act for several years, that the main demand of authors, societies of composers and so on, was to do away with compulsory registration. They have come to me and said that if we would do away with compulsory registration they would be less insistent in their demands otherwise. The doing away with compulsion was the main point and I believe much of the argument that has been adduced on the evidence, even quotations made by my hon. friend, had their force mainly because they dealt with -the situation where registration was compulsory; and not only where registration was compulsory, but where regulations existed that made registration very difficult and in so-me cases impossible to comply with. Therefore, after this committee has passed section 9 of the amending bill doing away with compulsory registration and also with certain regulations concerning registration, we should deal with section 10, I would not say in- the spirit of concession or bargaining, because I do not believe in that sort of thing, but in a different spirit from that in -which we would deal with if if we were dealing wi-th it altogether exclusively of other conditions.
I think I am right when I say that not only has the situation created by the Performing Right Society been very embarrassing to the branch which has to deal with copyright in this country, but the same situation has arisen in Great Britain, Australia and other parts of the world where the society has been in operation. There is no doubt in my mind that the main objection presented to the department by all these societies which are interested in copyright has always centred around the monopoly exercised by the Performing Right Society. The Secretary of State has tried to deal with that situation. In the original bill section 10 was in fact much more extensive in its operation than is the present section 10 with which we are dealing. I believe it is worth while trying out this section in any case. Even the association will find the conditions very much improved by this bill. Before the bill was contemplated, the society had to register as it was compulsory for it to do so; it had to file duplicates of originals and it had to pay to have this done.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And without registration it could not recover fees, charges, or damages.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We are doing away with compulsory registration by this bill, but we say that in the case that was most embarrassing, although we are not freeing them altogether from all exactions, they shall file a
Copyright Act

list of the works in which they claim to have a copyright and statement of fees. Then subsection 2 of section 10 reads:
Whenever in the opinion of the minister, after an investigation and report by a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act-
And so forth. Subsection 2 meets very much the objections raised by the hon. member for Ottawa. It practically brings this part of the procedure under the Inquiries Act. It does not say that this society shall in all cases be subjected to the action of the minister in the fixing of fees, but it says only that if a situation arises where it is considered that the fees are excessive, then there will be an investigation and a report by a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Supposing all that which is suggested is done; supposing a monopoly exists in the hands of the Performing Right Society; supposing the government finds the monopoly does exist and then the government decides by order in council to regulate the fees which will be paid: is my hon. friend prepared to say that that is not an interference with the right of an author to sell his output at the price at which he wants to sell it? You might regulate the operations of the Performing Right Society if they are performing in their own right, dealing with their own goods, but when they are dealing with performing rights which have been placed in their hands as trust funds for a certain purpose, and then you legislate as to the value of those rights, is my hon. friend prepared to say that we are not interfering with the rights of the authors as to the saleable value of their goods?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I would say that we are
no more interfering with those rights than the government would be interfering at any time when it deals with a monopoly. Let me say-my hon. friend knows it already; we are in perfect agreement on this-that I believe in copyright just as strongly as he does, but it is my experience that when copyright becomes a monopoly, it must be dealt with in some way. I know that the main objection to doing away with compulsory registration has been that there did exist in this country a company which, in the opinion of many, was dangerously close to operating a monopoly. The moment we admit that such an amendment can be made to the Combines Investigation Act. we admit that the government may act, and it is immaterial to me whether it acts through this bill or some other act once the principle is admitted.

But I wish to stress the point that even for such a society this bill is an improvement over existing conditions, and after all, it is in the spirit in which we have considered other sections of the bill.
In conclusion, I share the view of my hon. friend on this point, that I would rather have this provision as a provision of the Combines Investigation Act. If you will look at that act, chapter 26 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, you will find that section 30 deals with the abuse of patents. It might have been appropriate to have in the next clause a similar provision dealing with the abuse or monopoly of copyright. But I do say that there is no principle involved there, whether you put it in the one act or the other. If something in the Copyright Act is in contravention of the Rome convention, we have no right to put it somewhere else. It is because I do not believe that this provision is in contravention of the Rome convention that I do not object very strongly to having it here. Furthermore, I cannot take my mind away from the fact that section 10 of this bill is the corollary of section 9. By section 9 we do away with compulsory registration. By section 10 we impose certain restrictions upon societies which had to register before, asking them to file lists and fees, and we have the provision that if they are not satisfactory an inquiry may be held under the Inquiries Act. I do consider doing away with compulsion so important that I raise no objection to this section except to the extent indicated in the remarks I have already made, and for that reason I hesitate to support the motion of my hon. friend from Ottawa.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: First let me say a word
with regard to the personal remark which I made as to the hon. member for Ottawa presenting an argument on behalf of the Performing Right Society. My memory, I thought, was quite clear and I find by consulting the evidence that it was quite clear, that "C" was laid on the table. It had been in the hands of Mr. Jamieson. I quote from page 8 of the evidence:


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I was wondering about
memorandum "C" that is largely legal argument. It is not a matter of evidence. I think that can be filed as a brief for consideration when the legal question is taken up.
Then there was some discussion and the chairman said:
If there are any statements of facts contained in the memorandum "C" to which the witness wishes to refer, all well and good, but I do not intend to hear argument from the witness at the present time.

Copyright Act
It was regarded, then, as a legal argument. The witness did of his own knowledge give evidence to certain facts which were referred to therein. Subsequently, on another day I believe, or on resuming at 4 p.m., this discussion took place, at page 33 of the evidence :
Mr. Jamieson: Just to save misapprehension. In regard to all statements of fact made in our statement, memorandum C, I vouch for those.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Memorandum C is not in.
Mr. Jamieson:	I vouch for those.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Well I do not think that
helps you at all. You went over C and you refered to some statements of fact for which you vouched on oath, and the rest of the statement stood as a matter of argument or brief. Now, if you go through that carefully again you will have ample opportunity, if there are any further statements of fact you wish to make, but we cannot take them as "C.' C is not in as part of the evidence.
Mr. Jamieson:	Well, I would like to put it
in.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Well, I should object to
that-
What I had in mind in my reference to "C" was to "C" as it was laid on the table. It was laid on the table not as evidence vouched for on oath, but as legal argument of the Performing Right Society, and all I had in mind in reference to the hon. gentleman was that he was giving in the house the legal argument of the Performing Right Society, which I did not admit in evidence before the committee, and which was filed simply as part of the argument, and in that I was sustained by the committee. My memory was simply going back to those events when I made that remark, and not in the slightest degree as indicating that the hon. gentleman was acting as counsel or attorney or in any other capacity that was not consistent with his duties as a member of parliament. I hope that the hon. gentleman will accept that explanation under the circumstances.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I very gladly accept
the explanation given by the minister.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With regard to the Canadian Performing Right Society, I should like to make the following statement of facts which are incontrovertible. I do not intend to go into the evidence taken by the committee. That evidence is in the hands of every hon. member of the house, and I know that many have studied it more or less carefully. The society known as the Canadian Performing Right Society Limited, which I think I referred to previously, by mistake, as the Performing Right Society of Canada Limited, is really a branch of the Performing Right Society, Limited, of London, England, and 22110-155
since 1930 has been jointly operated by the English Performing Right Society and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. The evidence did disclose that this Canadian company is organized under the Companies Act of Canada. Ten thousand shares are issued of no par value, five thousand of which are held by the American society, and five thousand by the English society. It is clearly in evidence that this society has not been able to function in Canada to the same extent as it has 'functioned in Great Britain by reason of the provisions of section 40 of our existing statute. They carried those provisions to the privy council seeking a construction favourable to the Canadian company in the Performing Right Society case, and the decision of the privy council was against them. We have modified section 40 of the existing act so as to remove every possible objection which has been urged by the Performing Right Society of England, the Performing Right Society of Canada or by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. Section 40 is now clear. However the provisions of the convention of Berne and the statutes which we have enacted in Canada to enable our courts to enforce the provisions of the Berne convention are all intended for the protection of authors, or in the case of musical works, composers who are authors within the meaning of the term. That convention and those statutes never contemplated the protection of a trading company, a combine or monopoly trading in the performing rights of authors which, to a large extent, it has purchased from those authors. At the convention at Berne and at the recent convention at Rome the position taken by the British delegates, so I am advised, was that there was nothing in either convention which would prevent any country, a member of the union, from enacting domestic legislation which would prevent abuses of monopolies created by combinations of individual authors. Therefore the legislation we now propose simply provides that in the future if this monopoly, which admittedly exists in Canada, should abuse its enormous powers to the injury and detriment of the Canadian people, if it should by its trading in these monopoly rights prove that its action and policy affect detrimentally the public interest, an inquiry shall be made into the facts and a report be made thereon for the consideration of the governor in council. There is nothing in this bill which takes away from the individual author or composer, or his assignee as such, the right to deal with his particular work. In this act every presumption is made in his favour. He comes into our courts as author and the presumption is

Copyright Act

that if he asserts he is the author, then he is as a matter of fact such author, and is entitled to sue and recover damages. There is not one word in the bill now before the committee which prevents him recovering for either an infringement of the statute or for a recovery of fees, charges and royalties due to him in any action taken under his name.
However the moment we go beyond that and find about 30,000 or more authors, selling or parting with their interests in performing rights by assignments to this Canadian society to the extent that at the present time it holds a monopoly of 05 per cent of all modern music, so far as the territorial jurisdiction of Canada is concerned, such a monopoly if unregulated and unrestrained may, of its own option, create abuses in this country which would be utterly intolerable. For instance the society could decide that one theatre in a town may have a monopoly on modern music, and that the other theatre shall not have the advantage of performing rights in connection with any of these 3,000,000 works in respect of which the society controls such performing rights. The action of the society could ruin one of two hotels in any town where at the dinner hour music is given as entertainment. They could break one hotel by refusing to deal with it or to grant it performing rights, while to the competing hotel they could grant, for any sum they saw fit, performing rights in connection with those
3,000,000 works. It could do the same thing with regard to broadcasting companies. For instance, it may say to the Canadian Pacific Railway, "We will deal with you and give you exclusive broadcasting rights for 3,000,000 works," and on the other hand it may say to the Canadian National Railways "You shall not perform, at any price, any of those works." It can interfere with the whole theatrical business, the entire hotel business, and with public performance in every way of the musical works of which it has a monopoly. Those abuses, as they appear, must be dealt with. The section now under discussion, section 10, is framed merely for the purpose of providing a statutory warning to the monopoly to the effect that " If you do not deal justly, impartially and equitably with the Canadian public we will reserve the right to investigate you and to adopt certain remedial measures in respect of your abuses of your monopoly."
Before introducing this bill I went quite thoroughly into evidence which was given last year before a special committee of the parliament of the United Kingdom. A report from that special committee was made to

the House of Commons in England on July 3, 1930. The committee was composed of some of the most eminent men of the parliament of England and the report dealing with the Performing Right Society of England contains some clauses to which I shall now refer. First it described the monopoly held by the individual author or publisher, and then the unanimous view of the members of the committee is expressed in the following terms:
In such circumstances, the fear of music users that the society	
The Performing Right Society of Great Britain.
	may use what may be termed its supermonopoly to demand still higher fees appears to be well founded and it is not unnatural that they should desire to have a right of appeal to an independent body when they are faced with unreasonable demands, and are unable to come to a mutually satisfactory agreement with the society.
Your committee are agreed that a fixed fee cannot be applied to all the varying circumstances of public performance if the composer is to receive a reasonable remuneration. Nor do they wish to place any obstacles in the way of composers forming an association for the purposes of protecting and enforcing their performing rights. Such an association is undoubtedly a convenience and almost a necessity, both to the composer, music publisher and the user of music who would be considerably embarrassed if he had to deal separately with each piece of music performed. In fact it may be said to be the only practicable way in which the composer can collect his fees for performing rights in any adequate manner.
The sentiments expressed in this report are those of good, English fair play. The report continues:
If such an association is to function effectively, it must obtain as nearly a super-monopoly of the monopolies conferred upon composers hy the Copyright acts.
I shall now quote the following section:
Your committee consider that such a supermonopoly can abuse its powers by refusing to grant licences upon reasonable terms so as to prejudice the trade or industry of persons carrying on business in this country and to be contrary to the public interest and that it should be open to those persons to obtain relief in respect of such abuse by appeal to arbitration or to some other tribunal. This should apply only in those cases where the ownership or control of copyright has been transferred to an association.
Section 10 of the bill now before the committee is framed on that basis. It simply provides that a society such as the Performing Right Society of Canada which is owned and controlled one-half by an American company and the other half by an English company, must come out in the open and file a list of the musical works in which it claims to have

Copyright Act
performing rights, and let the public know its fees, charges and royalties whether for individual works, or for all its works, en bloc. The public of Canada, which is now admittedly under the control of this widespread monopoly, asks that it give information by filing at a public office a list of its works and of its prices. The company is not attacked in any way, but if a complaint is made with respect to it there is a provision whereby the governor in council may order an inquiry and a report as to whether it-
-unduly withholds the issue or grant of licences for or in respect of the performance of such works in Canada, or proposes to collect excessive fees, charges or royalties in compensation for the issue or grant of such licences, or otherwise conducts its operations in Canada in a manner which is deemed detrimental to the interests of the public,-
Then on the report of the minister-the Secretary of State in this case-the governor in council may take action. It is not unique to suggest that the governor in council may take action, because under sectioil 13 of the present act, it is provided that the owner of the copyright in certain cases may be ordered to grant a licence to reproduce or perform the work in public, as the case may be, subject to such terms and to such conditions as the governor in council may think fit. Therefore the vesting in the governor in council of a certain authority in this matter is not introduced into the act for the first time; the amendment suggested in section 10 is entirely consistent and compatible with the provisions of the old act, which are not interfered with.	.
I am so anxious to see this bill out of committee that it may have an early hearing in another place that I do not wish to debate this section further unless some hon. member has further questions to ask me in regard to it.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I have tried to
find a definition of the term " dramatico-musical" used in this section, but without success, although I know the term is employed in the Berne convention. It seems to me that the lack of any definition might give rise to ambiguity in connection with the distributors of motion pictures and the producers of straight plays. As hon. members are aware, a book or a piece of music may be the subject of copyright, and then if either is worked into a film those interested may copyright their film. Can the minister make it clear that this term will not apply to distributors of motion picture films?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We are using in our statute the very words which are used in the con-22110-155J
vention. "Dramatico-musical" is a term of the convention; "musical" is also a term of the convention. In our statute we have defined "dramatic" and "musical," and I think it is very clear from those definitions that when a work is both dramatic and musical it is "dramatico-musical." That is the best explanation I can furnish my hon. friend. It will have to be left to the courts to construe. Perhaps those learned gentlemen to whom my hon. friend has referred as occasionally sitting at Berne and passing judgment on all the rest of the earth, might be invited to give their opinion on this term.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Subsection 2 of section
10 reads:
Whenever in the opinion of the minister, after an investigation and report by a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act

And so on. I take it that that is a commissioner appointed by the minister?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No. The minister can only appoint a commissioner to inquire into his own department. The first part of the Inquiries Act has to do with a public inquiry under a commissioner appointed by the governor in council. The investigation contemplated by this subsection must certainly be ordered by the governor in council.


John Campbell Elliott: How is the machinery started? Is there an investigation and report by the commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: I take it that that report is made by the commissioner after somebody had complained that the act was being violated?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly.


John Campbell Elliott: In my opinion this subsection does not make it clear how you get your machinery in motion. The opening words of the subsection are:
Whenever in the opinion of the minister, after an investigation and a report by a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act,-
The minister starts in after the commissioner has reported?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: His opinion is expressed
after the commissioner has reported, but there is interim jurisdiction in the governor in council under part I of the Inquiries Act to institute an inquiry into any matter of public interest.
Copyright Act


John Campbell Elliott: Do I understand the minister to mean that apart from any jurisdiction conferred either upon the governor in council or upon the minister by this subsection, an inquiry might be started under the present Inquiries Act?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so.


John Campbell Elliott: Then what is contemplated by this section is an inquiry started under the present Inquiries Act, and the report of the commissioner 'being brought to the attention of the minister. After considering the report he may be of opinion that certain restrictions should be placed upon the offending company. I am calling the minister's attention to the fact that the section here does not in my opinion, after a careful reading of it, make the necessary provision. If he is satisfied that under the Inquiries Act, there is jurisdiction now,-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am so advised.


John Campbell Elliott: If he is not relying on this section alone, I am satisfied.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not relying on this
for authority to have the commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, as such authority to have inquiries held under the act already exists in our statute law. If an investigation is held-and anyone can ask to have an inquiry under the Inquiries Act- and the report thereon of the commissioner, in the opinion of the minister, justifies further action, then the minister must recommend to the governor in council to have such action taken. Every safeguard is, I think, taken to see that everything proper shall be done in dealing with the matter.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall section 10 carry?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Section 10 does not
carry except on division.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On division.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 11-Copies for library.
Mr. CAHA'N:	This is simply a provision
that two books shall be deposited with the library.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The minister refers to the provision in section 11 for copyrighting which, as is evident, requires that the publisher of every book, within three months after its publication, shall deliver or cause to be delivered at his own expense to
	*
the librarian of parliament certain copies of his work. Obviously there is something that is printed which is being delivered. Similarly, if it is desired to procure copyright of photographs or musical compositions, something again is printed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This has nothing to do with the granting of copyright.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I took it that
was the meaning. Perhaps the minister will indicate whether or not there is to be in the act as completed any provision empowering the issue of copyright in dramatic works by the deposit of typewritten copies of the work, similar to the provision which is in force in Washington, and has been in force there, to my knowledge, for at least twenty years.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have made no change
whatever with regard to the procuring of copyright in Canada. I may be simply displaying my, own ignorance, but I was under the impression that one could secure copyright in Canada by presenting a typewritten copy of any work and registering it as such.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I regret to say
that I have seen cases of that kind fail.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If so, the matter can be
dealt with under the regulations which the governor in council may be prepared to make. And certainly that should be done. I know that newspaper companies, publishing companies, present for copyright simply the ordinary first impression of the type. I should think that would apply. If not, I will see whether we cannot deal with the situation definitely by order in council, because it should be dealt with.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not suppose the
Secretary of State would for one moment entertain the idea that failure on the part of the publisher to comply with this section would in the least impair his right in the copyright.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, no.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It is merely a pious wish. I may say for the benefit of my hon. friend from Ottawa that I am glad to see, although it is stipulated in this section that two copies shall be deposited, that no redress or penalty has been provided in the case of failure on the part of the publisher to deposit two books. This is one case where we can agree that it is a good thing no redress is provided for. As I say, it is merely a pious wish.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Copyright Act
On section 12-Adherence to Rome copyright convention.
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I have a few remarks to make in connection with this section. In view of the opinions I have expressed in this matter I should perhaps refer for a moment to the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of the Canadian Performing Right Society versus Famous Players. According to our system of constitutional law, an international convention cannot alter nor supersede our own national law; and to be effective it must be incorporated in our own law. We have adhered to the Rome convention, and we are about to ratify this one. I may express now in the words of my hon. friend, a pious hope that, when this ratification is given, under the guidance of the present minister the operation of the law will be valid from the start. The last time there were a number of omissions and I trust that on this occasion the same thing will not recur. Now, we can legislate in any way we desire with respect to our own nationals. We make an exception in regard to unionist authors, and when we do so we must not legislate in their respect in any manner that might be in contravention of the Berne convention. If we do legislate with respect to them, then we must be careful to follow out the proper directions; and in order that there may be no mistake about it we must exclude them from the operation of that law. In other words we must clearly indicate in our Copyright Act those sections which affect nationals only, and clearly state that any such enactments will not affect unionist authors or their rights.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What is that quotation?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It will please my hon. friend when I tell him that the direction for so proceeding is given by the international bureau of Berne in its official organ, Le Droit d'Auteur of May 15, 1929, at page 57 in the comments on the judgment of the Privy Council in re the Canadian Performing Right Society versus Famous Players.
In conclusion I wish to make this statement. The convention has set out in a number of articles those things which under the International convention we are bound to do. These directions are imperative, and it is incumbent upon us, if we desire to remain in the convention, to follow them. This bill, No. 4, fails to follow these prescriptions in the instances I shall indicate. This may be a little tiresome but I wish to get it on the record, because it represents a complete expression of my views.
First, subsection 3 of article II of the Rome convention directs that:
The countries in the union shall be bound to make provision for the protection of the above mentioned works.
The Canadian Copyright Act as it stands now and, also, bill No. 4, fail to comply with these stipulations. I have gone through the articles of the convention, and in order to save time I have put these views in writing, indicating every one of the directions whereby, according to the Berne convention, we shall be bound. And I will show that we are following none of them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is the hon. member dealing with the bill or the Copyright Act as a whole?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am discussing section 12 of the bill which has reference to our adherence to the Berne convention. I say that under the terms of the law as it stands at present, and under this bill as we now have it, we have not complied with the directions of the convention.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member is reviewing the whole scope of the Copyright Act as it stands on the statute.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That seems almost irrelevant.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: No. I submit that the law is in such a state that we cannot adhere to the convention.
Secondly, article III directs that "the countries in the union shall be bound to make provisions for the protection of photographic works and of works produced by a process analogous to photography." The present act, as well as bill 4, fail to comply with this direction.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think they comply with it.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Very well; I say they do not. Thirdly, article VI bis of the Rome convention directs that the means of redress for safeguarding these rights-that is, the moral rights-shall be regulated by the country where protection is claimed. We have not included in the present legislation the means of redress stipulated by the Rome convention.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I submit that we have.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Fourth. Article 9 of the Rome convention directs that the legal consequences of the breach of these obligations, that is, the obligations respecting the press articles and other works published in the newspapers or periodicals, shall be determined by the laws of the country where protection
Copyright Act

is claimed. This answers the question asked a moment ago by the hon. member. Bill No 4 not only fails to comply with this article 9 of the Rome convention, but fails to enact that such works published in newspapers or periodicals shall be protected.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does my hon. friend contend that newspaper articles copyrighted in Canada are not protected?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: They are not protected in the manner provided by the Rome convention.
Fifth. Subsection 2 of article 2 of the Rome convention reads:
Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other reproductions in an altered form of a literary or artistic work, as well as collections of different works, shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the rights of the author of the original work.
There is no provision in this bill or in the Copyright Act for the protection of these works.
Sixth. This bill introduces into our act as principle in complete violation of the Rome convention and in complete violation of the fundamental principle of copyright, by giving many in clause 6 the right to use works without the consent of the author or of his assignee.
Seventh. This bill contains in clause 10 another principle in violation of the Rome convention, namely, the imposition upon the authors' collecting agency of so many formalities as to preclude them from functioning.
Eighth. This bill fails to remove from the present act the words "for private profit" which appear in subsection 3 of section 17, and in subsection 2 of section 26, which words prevent infringed authors from securing the redress prescribed by the Rome convention.
Ninth. The present bill fails to provide, in clause 12 thereof, the means for properly and effectively applying to Canada the provision contained in the Rome convention.
In order to facilitate the passing of the bill in time to allow our ratification of the Rome convention, I will support it with the reservations to which I have referred. However, I am confident that it will not be long before steps are taken by the proper authorities to bring these objections before a competent tribunal to test the soundness of the bill which we are about to pass.


Mr. HACKETT:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to go over any of the ground which has been covered so thoroughly by the hon. members of the committee who have devoted

almost three weeks of their time to a discussion of this bill. The subject matter of the bill is highly controversial. Nearly twenty years ago I had something to do with the preparation and submission of a copyright bill and I realize the difficulties which the committee, and especially the Chairman, have had to contend with. It happens not infrequently that expediency cuts across logic-and equity. I do not say that the authors have received unfair treatment, but this bill certainly does not give them that which they have a right to expect if we are to adhere to the provisions of the Rome convention. I shall not go further than to say that I should like to file a caveat and make it clear that while this bill may be the best that can be obtained at the present time, it is not considered by the authors to be satisfactory or entirely equitable.
Mr. 'GAGNON:	Mr. Chairman, I concur
fully in the remarks of the hon. member for Stanstead. It is quite true that this bill is a decided step forward, but at the same time, as the hon. the Secretary of State has said, it is a compromise, and I regret to say that at times such compromises are made at the expense of the authors. I congratulate the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) upon the very able study he has made of this matter. Any lawyer who has practised ten or fifteen years knows that there is no country where the rights of authors are less protected than in Canada. I know that you, sir, have with success defended theatre owners as against authors; I have had such an experience and in most of the cases the rights of the authors have not been considered. The hon. member for Ottawa has cited a large number of authorities to show that in the United States, in France and in England infringers receive sentences of up to three years' imprisonment-in France the benefits of the offender [DOT]are confiscated for the benefit of the author -while in Canada an infringer may be faced with a mere fine of only ten dollars. I hope the Secretary of State can assure the committee that within a short time the necessary legislation will be passed to give proper means of redress to the authors. I heard the very eloquent speech delivered yesterday by the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell), and I could not but think it is a shame that an author such as the hon. member, who has had his works published in all parts of the world, cannot be properly protected in this country. Mr. Chairman, I am not an author; my attainments are very humble, I

The Budget-Mr. Brasset
have never indulged in literature other than political speeches-I do not think they are fit material for copyright-but I am speaking because I think that some hon. members on this side of the house should express the opinion that the rights of the authors should be protected to a greater extent.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: One cannot promise that a general revision of the Copyright Act will be undertaken, but certainly I would not like to undertake it myself after the experience of the last three or four months. It would require a great deal of time and study.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 5, consideration of the motion of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ralston.
Mr. MAURICE BRASSET (Gaspe) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I listened with much
interest, these last days, to the speeches delivered in the House by members, but I especially paid attention to the budget delivered on June 1, by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who is equally the Minister of Finance. This financial statement was impatiently and anxiously expected by the Canadian people who anticipated the fulfilment of the Conservative party's pledges and the realization of a policy of progress. I should like to make a few comments as to the effects of the budget on the people of this country and the constituency which I am privileged to represent.
Being a new member, it is the first time that I listened to a Minister of Finance delivering the budget, however, for a number of years past, long before being a member of this house, I had acquired the habit of reading in Hansard or the newspapers the Minister of Finance's budget speech.
I was therefore somewhat amazed when I heard the Prime Minister state in the house that it was the first budget speech delivered here within the last seven or eight years. I wondered why the Prime Minister made such a statement. What difference could there be between this budget and those of preceding
years, to warrant such a statement? The only conclusion I could arrive at was that in the last preceding years the Minister of Finance announced surpluses, tax reductions, prosperous fiscal years, etc., so that it must have afforded him great pleasure and satisfaction in presenting his budget. The task was not as difficult as the one which our Minister of Finance, the right hon. Prime Minister, must have experienced this year in acknowledging to the house that now that our friends, the Tories were in office, the era of surpluses was at an end and that henceforth it would be replaced by an era of deficits and taxation.
History repeats itself and it does so with a regularity which should this time, I think, open the eyes of the public.
When, in 1896, Sir Wilfrid Laurier took office, the people were overburdened with all kinds of taxes. For years past, there had been invariably and steadily deficits,-in this respect the Conservatives are very regular- the wolf was at our door. However, by degrees, thanks to the sound administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the country emerged from its state of languor, surpluses began to appear, taxation dwindled from year to year.
In 1911, prosperity was general throughout the land. But as we seem to always want a change, the people got tired of being prosperous, they wanted a change, the Conservative party assumed office and kept in power until 1921, once more the country was plunged into debt and felt the pangs of poverty. In 1921 the Liberal party was returned to power. What happened then? By degrees, notwithstanding the financial depression of the first few years, the King government applied themselves to the task of bringing back prosperity. They succeeded, and in 1924, surpluses began to appear in our finances and continued doing so during the Whole term of the Liberal regime, without ever missing a year or showing signs of any weakness.
I listened a few days ago to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) comment on the high cost of living under the Liberal administration. It is a fact, that the cost of living was higher in those days than it is to-day, but there was then work for everybody; people were working and therefore had money to spend. To-day, the cost of living is perhaps lower, but this is entirely due to the fact that the purchasing power has left us, people are without work or are forced to work for hunger wages.
As just stated, since 1923 or 1924, we had steady surpluses up to this year. At the last
The Budget-Mr. Brasset

regular session, observing t'hat depression was spreading over us, the Prime Minister of the day, the right hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, with his usual sagacity and foresight, endeavoured to give the country a budget which, in my opinion, would have saved the situation and prevented the people from falling into the greatly depressed state in which they find themselves to-day. But before this budget could be given a trial an election took place and the Conservative party was placed in office by means of pledges often referred to and which it is useless to recall, since they are always present in the memory of the great majority of the people who suffer. In taking office, the Prime Minister seemed to be in a great rush to destroy the arduous and painstaking work of the Liberal party. By an emergency session, orders in council and all possible means, he wished to wipe out all traces of the good work done by his predecessors, he endeavoured to destroy the monument erected to prosperity by the Liberal party, in order t'hat he might impress the country with his personal policy. And the result is, that the first Conservative budget presents the country with a deficit of $75,000,000.
Is this the reason why the Conservatives were put in office? We had yearly surpluses and the Tory government plunges the country into debt. Was this the mission entrusted to them on July 28, last?
Furthermore, from 1924, the Liberals had decreased taxation from year to year. Thanks to the great perseverance of a statesman like the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), who wished the welfare of this country, the sales tax which was then six per oent was reduced as low as one per cent. The postal stamps which Laurier had already reduced from three to two cents and which later had again been raised to three cents by the Conservative party, were once more reduced to two cents by the Liberal party. Excise stamps on cheques were reduced considerably as everybody knows. The income tax was gradually lowered from year to year and so far as imported articles, such as farm implements, gasoline motors, etc., the customs duty was largely reduced in order to help the farmers and fishermen.
The Conservative party after assuming office, at their very first session, not only raised the postal tax stamp to three cents; increased the sales tax from one per cent to four per cent; reintroduced former taxes, those advocated by their friends and abolished by the Liberals; but they bring forth new taxes, which had never been levied before by any 
party. Was this what the Conservative party promised in July last? Was this why they were elected?
I heard some one the other day, mention the duty on tea. The King government had abolished the duty on tea imported from a British possession. We are all aware that tea is a popular drink to those who cannot afford a more expensive beverage.
The Prime Minister puts a duty of four cents when this article is imported from a British country and eight cents when imported from a foreign country. So that, heretofore, with the duty and the sales tax combined the consumer will have to pay eight or twelve cents to the government for each pound of tea purchased.
The Prime Minister again, at the emergency session in the autumn, promised that the taxes levied would not affect the prices of commodities. As a measure to protect Canadian industry, this caps the climax, since everybody knows that this country does not grow tea, has never grown any and will never grow it!
This is not all, sir, the country has a deficit, the Bennett government has plunged the country into debts, and we must resort to taxes to find money. Who is to bear the burden, on whom will these taxes fall? Will it be on the wealthy class, those who can better bear the burden of taxation? No, sir. As it might be expected from a Conservative government and the past policy advocated by its leaders, it will be the poorer classes which will be called upon to bear the greater portions of these taxes. Indeed, the wealthy class, the millionaires, those who have incomes of many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, those who live in luxury and do not know what to do with their money, these people, I state, find that their burden is becoming lighter, their taxes are reduced, while the poor people find theirs increasing out of all proportions.
Let us for instance, take the great majority of the people of this country-or to be more specific let us take the rural districts in Quebec, which are mostly composed of farmers and fishermen-there are not five per cent of these people who will ever be called upon to pay the income tax. On the other hand, each time that the head of a family wishes to purchase a bag of flour to feed his children, each time he buys a pair of boots, each time he purchases anything he must pay a tax to the government. For every dollar spent by the poor farmer or fisherman the government will receive four, five, six or ten cents more than they received last year. Was

The Budget-Mr. Brasset
this what the Conservatives promised last July? Was this why they were elected? It is not simply through necessity, because of the exigencies of the hour, that the Prime Minister has struck at the poor ratepayer by levying new taxes. It is also because he is thus inclined or if you prefer on principle, as his own words spoken during the session 1926-27 will prove, just before being chosen leader of the Conservative party. The following is what he says at page 401 of Hansard, February 27, 1927:
My idea is this. It is not original at all. You may have seen it presented by the late Sir Edmund Walker in addresses lie made to the shareholders of his bank from time to time.
I think, it is the Bank of Commerce.
He believed in a universal turn-over tax, a tax by which every man who buys something will be able to make some contribution, a percentage levy. It is simple, it is universal, it is convenient, it is equal, it is easily collected -it has all the qualifications that were mentioned by the late Adam Smith-
(Equality, universal, convenient and economic.)

and in addition to that it meets with modern conditions, and will help solve many of the diificulties that we have in this country to-day.
Mr. Bennett continues:	.
Until men and women have a realization of the money that the state is spending, and where the money comes from, there will not be that appreciation of the difficulties and responsibilities of government that is so essential for the maintenance of this dominion, and I do suggest that the Minister of Finance would be well advised to consider whether or not-there is still time-he could not devise some tax along those lines that would not have the objectionable features that attach to the so-called nuisance tax or to the sales tax as such. As between the sales tax and a tax upon turnover, which includes a tax upon everything that men buy, you would be able to get revenue more readily by a turn-over tax, and in larger quantities, and you would be able to make a clearance in the income tax.
Mr. Bennett, the present Prime Minister added these words as a closing remark:
I do say that it is wholly an erroneous proposition to say to the people of this country that the poor man should pay no taxes, and then say that he should vote. No man should vote who does not pay tax, and every man who votes should pay taxes, and, as a corollary every man who pays taxes should vote.
In 1921. Mr. Bennett desired no sales tax yet, in 1931, not only he levies a sales tax but increases it. However, what he has always forcibly advocated is taxing the poor. That is why he strongly urges the passing of these measures, this year.
The government endeavoured to palliate, to a certain extent, the disastrous effect of its deficit, by granting some slight compensation
to the west and the maritime provinces. It favours the latter by increasing the duty on coal imports and it promises a rebate on the freight rates of wheat exports. But what benefit does Quebec get from these grants? Her only benefit will be to pay more for fuel without any compensation whatsoever; and it wheat sells a little higher, owing to this government measure, the ratepayers of Quebec and Ontario will have to pay dearer for their flour. I am in favour of any advantage which the west or the maritime provinces may derive from the government's action, but I should certainly like to see my native province have its share. The other provinces should not be the only ones to benefit by the Conservative government's legislation, Quebec should also be included. In this case no favour is shown to Quebec. Nothing, unless it is increase in taxation.
The government intends to complete the construction of certain highways in Ontario and in the west. Quebec built her own highways at considerable cost, so that if the Conservative government builds highways in Ontario and the west, the province of Quebec will be forced to pay its quota in taxes for roads in other parts of the country without any benefit to herself. Nothing for Quebec, unless it is increased taxation. Thus does the Prime Minister fulfil his pledges, no doubt to thank Quebec for having sent 25 members to support him. In 1926, the Conservatives carried only four or five counties, while last year Quebec was generous enough to present Mr. Bennett with 25 seats, thus assuring him a working majority-and he thanks Quebec by [DOT] granting her nothing. The people of Quebec have been deceived, they will remember, the country will also remember.
The most important problem of this country at present, is unemployment. I read the budget speech through and not a single word is to be found dealing with that problem; the Prime Minister had talked so much about unemployment in the last election that he probably was sick of hearing it mentioned- perhaps he felt somewhat shy on the subject. That is why he brushed aside unemployment and the unemployed.
Last year he made them a gift of $20,000,000; he thinks it is enough. Although this policy produced practically no results for the country, although the number of unemployed has not decreased-on the contrary-although work is getting scarcer every day, nothing is said, nothing is done; parliament has now been in session almost three months and notwithstanding all the appeals of distress which reach us from the four corners of the
The Budget-Mr. Brasset

country, nothing indicates that the Prime Minister or the government have any knowledge of conditions which now prevail.
Before closing my remarks, sir, I deem it my duty to strongly protest on behalf of my constituency and those who are in need and who had hoped that the government would fulfil the pledges made last year.
As I stated in some of my speeches during the election, and again stated in the house, in a speech which I delivered at the outset of the session, smiles of contentment seem to creep over the faces of members of the government, for instance, at present, over the face of the Hon. Arthur Sauve, at the very mention of unemployment. If anyone who champions the cause of the people, of those who are in distress, could but see for instance the smile which I perceive, at this moment on the lips of the Postmaster General, he would rebuke the minister, under the present circumstances for laughing at the distress of the people.
I deem it, sir, my duty to once more protest and I do so not only 'because the government is not stirring itself to help the people, but also because members of the government smile when we mention the distress of the people. That the government are helpless, so much the worse for them; but if the government care not for the people, there will come a day of reckoning. The present government have not fulfilled their pledges, they have not alleviated the prevailing distress; they have increased taxation and customs and excise duties; they have therefore won the people's votes by false pretences, and before long the ' people will rise and act accordingly.
Mr. J. R. MacNICOfL (Toronto Northwest) : In the tariff proposals brought down by the Minister of Finance on the first of June, the government has gone a long way towaj-ds the goal of adequate tariff protection. Those proposals, coupled with the government's determination to safeguard the public ' against price exploitation, I am sure have met with approval throughout the country. Last fall, after the government took office, they called a special session and arranged for the Imperial conference and, in my humble opinion, their achievements in their few months of office have met with public approval.
As one who has served in industry for many years, I think I have some conception of the opinion of those who work in industry, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that in few places will the proposals of the government, as brought down in the budget, be more carefully read and studied than in the factories and

offices of Canada. I am satisfied that in those places the budget will be called a workman's and business man's budget, and in the term business man I include of course, agriculturists.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have called this a millionaire's budget, but the effects we can already observe from the tariff readjustment-made last fall in the way of increasing employment and stimulating industry indicate that we can confidently look for a still greater increase in employment and still greater activity in industry as a result of the present budget proposals.
Having had a background of many years' experience in industry I think I am qualified to state the viewpoint of the workers in factory and office. What is the viewpoint of the workers? If I may I should like to allude to the old plant in which it was my pleasure and experience to serve for many years. I wonder what a worker looking out of the windows of the old Dominion Radiator and Boiler Company plant would see. Probably hon. members would be interested in his view. He would see the smokestacks of many other industries in which, if he so desired, he might be employed and in which his fellow workmen are engaged. Offhand I can call to my mind the names of such large industries as the Canadian General Electric Company; Gray Forgings and Stampings Limited, manufacturers of tools; the Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Company; C. A. Dunham Company Limited; The Gold Medal Furniture Manufacturing Company; the Easy Washing Machine Company; The A.B. Ormsby Company, Limited; The Hamilton Gear and Machine Company; and the John T. Hepburn Company Limited. Then, about a quarter of a mile away he would see the plant of the McGregor-Mclntyre Iron Works Limited, and the Paton and Baldwin Textile Company. Those plants, Mr. Speaker, employ a great many men. If a worker were to observe the routine of the receiving office of the manufacturing concern in which he is employed he would see entering his plant either iron, brass, wire, cotton, woollen goods, lumber or other raw products which enter into the commodities to which the worker applies his labour and intelligence. In passing, Mr. Speaker, may I make the statement that there are no more intelligent workers in the world than those men and women employed in Canadian industry. There are none who give more serious consideration to the task they have in hand. Having worked with them for more than twenty-five years I have a very high regard for -their industry and integrity. If the workman employed in industry were to

The Budget-Mr. MacNicol
visit the shipping office he would see gomg out to many communities the finished product to which he had added his intelligence and labour. The Canadian worker is not an agitator. He is neither a book economist nor a book theorist. He is practical, however; he knows that work is life's currency. He knows that anything which interferes either with the receipt of the raw product upon which he works in his plant or with the application of his skill and intelligence to the goods. themselves or to their shipment takes from him the opportunity to work and to earn wages.
Let me refer to the 14,000 workers employed in the manufacture of rubber goods. This particular industry enjoys a tariff protection of 22i per cent, 30 per cent and 35 per cent, depending upon the tariff class under which the goods fall. Through the operation of a tariff those 14,000 employees are enabled to work in their plants and are in a position to manufacture nearly 100 per cent of the automobile tires and other rubber goods required in Canada. For home consumption goods are manufactured to the value of $45,000,000 and for export, to the value of about $21,000,000, for distribution in the different markets of the world. This industry is able to compete in the markets of the world and at the same time charges only a reasonable price in the home market. Before leaving my remarks on this industry may I say that the rubber workers are almost 100 per cent for tariff protection. They know if it were not for the protection they receive through tariff duties the rubber industry of Canada would be crucified.
I wish now to direct the attention of hon. members to an industry which was only recently revived in Carleton Place, Ontario. I refer to the old plant of the Hawthorn Mills, Limited, which manufactured woollen products. That old plant was put out of commission in 1922 as a result of tariff reductions in that year on cottons and woollens. In the same year twenty-five other plants manufacturing about 45 per cent of the total woollen manufactures of Canada were also forced out. Recently the Hawthorn plant was reopened by an English firm. Although I am not sure of the name, I think they are known as the Hirst Company. Some of the old employees, who about nine years ago were put out of employment through the reduction in tariffs, have been taken on again. Imagine any man trying to convince those employees that a tariff is not good for them. Imagine any man trying to convince those men who
have received work after nine years of more or less idleness caused by free trade that the tariff measures are not in the best interests of Canadians.
I rose, however, more particularly to direct my remarks to conditions in the iron and steel industry, because it was with that industry I was connected for a period of about twenty-five years. I am familiar with the industry from the bottom to the top, from the moulding shop to the high executive offices. For tariff purposes the iron and steel industry is divided into about 100 different items. In connection with the seven principal items of which we import into Canada foreign goods made by foreigners in foreign plants the totals amount to many millions. Those goods are imported to the detriment of Canadian labour to an extent to which I shall now direct the attention of hon. members. The figures I am now about to quote are approximate figures for the last fiscal year of the late government ending March 31, 1930:
Vehicles, composed principally
of iron and steel	 $74,000,000
Machinery (apart from agricultural machinery)	 65,000,000
Rolling mill products	 55,000,000
Farm machinery	 30,000,000
Engines and boilers	 15.000,000
Tubes of iron	 5,000,000
Castings and forgings	 4,000,000
These various commodities represent a total import value of $250,000,000, of which about $35,000,000 worth came in absolutely free of duty.
May I digress for a moment to deal with the statement that I have heard from speakers in this house that a policy of protection would interrupt and indeed prohibit trade with other nations. Nothing of the kind. I submit that no matter what tariff Canada has she will at all times have to import approximately a billion dollars' worth of goods.
From my knowledge of Canadian workmen and Canadian executives I have no hesitation in saying that under this new tariff they can with their present plants and equipment manufacture an additional $50,000,000 worth of steel goods. Almost daily we see in the newspapers reports that steel companies in the United States are going to erect new plants in Canada or increase their present branch plants here. Perhaps the most notable of these is the United States Steel Company, which has a plant at Ojibway, near Windsor. They are now completing a large mill which they started some time ago in the hope that the government would give adequate protection to the steel and iron industry of Canada. They know that now they can go ahead and bring
The Budget-Mr. MacNicol

their plant into operation under the tariff protection accorded to Canadian industry by this administration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what will an additional
S50,000,000 worth of steel and iron goods manufactured in Canadian .plants mean to the Canadian workman? I recall a statement made by an hon. member last session, and I have searched Hansard diligently to find out who it was, but without success.


An hon. MEMBER:: The index will tell you.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Perhaps it was cut out of .the revised edition. That statement was to the 'effect that the worker does not receive over 5 per cent of the cost of the manufactured article. I do not know what industry the hon. member had in mind, but I do know that in the fabrication of iron and in the woollen and lumber business, the worker receives in every case 30 per cent or more. I have in mind a statement made, I think, by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), but he can hardly have intended it in the way in which it appears in Hansard. This is my interpretation of the statement: Admitting that 30 per cent of the cost represents the cost of labour, the manufacturer gets the balance of 70 per cent. I do not think any man would believe such to be the case. There is the material cost, overhead cost, power cost, taxation-and new taxes are being imposed now-and other expenses which render very remote the possibility of the manufacturer obtaining anything but a reasonable profit on the output of his factory. I have diligently studied the import figures of iron and steel, and according to my best judgment Canadian plants will, as I said a moment ago, be able to supply at least $50,000,000 worth of those imports. That is something to be proud of, Ibut I will go further. Last year we imported1 approximately $864,000,000 worth of fully manufactured articles, and $95,000,000 of partly manufactured articles. I state without fear of successful contradiction that Canadian industry-Canadian workmen and Canadian executives-can manufacture at least $200,000,000 of those imports, which would give employment to another 50,000 Canadians.
Referring again to the industry with which I aim best acquainted and to which the new tariff will apply, the iron and steel industry, an increased manufacture of $50,000,000 worth of these commodities in this country will mean the employment of 12,500 more men. Using .the same figure mentioned by the member for Shelfourne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), five to a family, the employment of that additional number of Canadian workmen means 
that the new tariff of $7 a ton on steel imports will benefit another 62,500 Canadians.
I have heard hon. members depreciate the value of the home market.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 51 to incorporate Acme Assurance Company-Mr. Lawson.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 77, respecting the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river between the island of Orleans and the coast of Beaupre, in the province of Quebec-Mr. Dorion.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton) moved the second reading of Bill No. 16, to amend the Dairy Industries Act (increase of penalties).
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think, Mr. Speaker,
this bill might be referred to the committee on agriculture seeing that it proposes certain ' amendments that are very important, as was indicated on the last occasion on which this matter was under discussion in the house.


Mr. GOBEIL:: I have no objection.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I move that it be
referred to the committee on agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MAURICE BRASSET (Gaspe) moved the second reading of Bill No. 42, to amend the Bankruptcy Act as respects locality of a debtor.
Hugh Guthrie: Explain.


Maurice Brasset: This bill relates only to
the province of Quebec and has to do with the locality of a debtor in bankruptcy. The

Bankruptcy Act
object of the bill is to oblige the creditor to present his petition in bankruptcy only in the district having jurisdiction over the locality or domicile of the debtor. In other words, a person wanting to have a debtor declared insolvent would be required, if this bill were adopted, to present his petition in the judicial district wherein the insolvent carries on his business.. As the law stands at the present time a petition can be presented anywhere in Quebec, before any court in the province in addition to a court of civil jurisdiction. For example, if the debtor resides in Gaspe, a creditor in the Province of Quebec residing in Montreal, or even in Hull, at the other extremity of the province, may present his petition in Montreal, or in Hull, as the case may be, to have the debtor declared insolvent. The debtor cannot leave his place of residence and come down to Hull to defend his petition in the court there. I might mention by way of illustration a case that occurred recently in Chicoutimi where a petition was presented by a creditor while another creditor presented another petition in Montreal. Both petitions were granted, so that in two places at the same time the debtor was declared bankrupt. The debtor failed to respond to both petitions, with the result that he was sued in Montreal a second time. He had become a bankrupt in Chicoutimi but the proceedings were carried on in Montreal. These proceedings should be carried on at the place where the debtor resides. If a civil action is taken in the courts it is conducted at -the place where the defendant resides and it is only justice to a debtor that he should be sued in the district where he resides.


Mr. LAWSON:: If the debtor should happen to be a corporation with its head office outside of the province of Quebec, where would the petition for bankruptcy be presented, according to this bill?


Maurice Brasset: The application would
be made at the place where the debtor carries on his business in the province of Quebec.


James Earl Lawson: Suppose the corporation
was doing business in three or four different places in the province of Quebec, at what point would the application be made?


Maurice Brasset: If the company has no
head office in the province of Quebec the petition would be served at the head office. The civil code provides that this service must be made at the head office; if that head office is in Toronto, it would be served in Toronto, but if the head office is in Quebec the petition would be served at that place.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to object to the second reading of the bill; this is a legal matter and as a layman I should not like to pronounce on a measure of this kind. I have before me a letter from la chambre de commerce de Montreal which states an objection to this bill on the ground that it would considerably increase the costs of procedure. This letter is in French, and I will read it in the original language. It is as follows: (Translation):
The Council of the Chamber of Commerce of Montreal strongly protest against the enactment of Bill B "amending the Bankruptcy Act as respects the locality of a debtor" which is, at present, before parliament, and request me to ask you to kindly_ support this protest so as to prevent this bill being enacted.	.	. .
At the last session of the provincial legislature, a similar bill was thrown out at our request and for the following reasons: That the choice of the locality of a debtor in bankruptcy matters, if it were admitted would entail considerable travelling and other expenses inherent to the winding up of an estate and this, at the expense of the creditors. Moreover this would increase the law costs which are already very high. In every way this amendment would be prejudicial to the aim sought by the said Bankruptcy Act: the prompt and efficient winding up of the business.
These considerations militated in favour ot the rejection of the bill by the provincial legislature and it seems to us that they should carry the same weight with you.
Our council therefore kindly ask. you to request or support the rejection of said bill B which is of a nature to hinder considerably trade.	.
In anticipation, please accept our smcerest thanks.
I do not wish to comment on this letter nor do I endorse it; I merely want to place it on Hansard for the consideration of those who are discussing this measure.
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I
think that the bill moved by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Brasset) is entitled to the favourable consideration of the house. As representative of an agricultural county which is at a distance from the large centres, I deem it my duty to support this bill which, in certain cases, considering the present act and the amendments thereto, it might be helpful to the people of my county. I fail to discover what difficulties it could embody, although the fees might, in certain cases, be higher. One must bear in mind that the farmers and residents of rural districts might be caught napping if the act remains as it is and thereby put to a greater expense. For these reasons the house should favourably consider this -bill and enact it without any
Bankruptcy Act

change. Moreover, it has been considered and approved by the Senate, and I am also aware that the same measure was submitted in previous years to the former administration. For certain reasons it was found impossible to introduce then this bill in the house, as it should have been in the shape of an amendment, included in the general bill, to amend the Bankruptcy Act. I think that the bill such as it is should be enacted.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, the bill now under discussion deserves the support of all hon. members of this house. As the law stands to-day it creates a real injustice towards the small merchant and small creditors living outside of the big cities in the province of Quebec. A man may be declared a bankrupt in the county of Gaspe, where the hon. member who supports this bill resides, and he can be forced to attend all the proceedings which may be carried on in the city of Montreal. That is not fair. The tribunals of the province of Quebec, including I think the supreme court, have decided that according to the law as it stands to-day a district means the province. I maintain that it is not fair to force a man residing in the counity of Gaspe to come to the city of Montreal or perhaps to the city of Hull to attend the proceedings in bankruptcy. That is an anomaly which should be corrected. I do not agree with the arguments advanced in the letter just read by the former Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret). There would be no increase in the legal costs if the proceeedings were caried on in the district where the debtor lives or has his principal place of business. The wholesale merchants find it to their advantage to go out and sell their goods in Gaspe, and it would be only fair when there is difficulty about their accounts or when a bankruptcy occurs that they should go to that place and fight the action should there be any dispute. There is more in this bill than a mere question of law or a mere question of legal principle and judicial jurisdiction. We hear complaints about the centralization of all activities in one or two places throughout Canada. In my opinion the province of Ontario owes its success to the fact that business and all other activities have been decentralized. In the province of Quebec we have been suffering from a centralization of almost everything in two or three places. Speaking more particularly for those who reside in the rural sections of the province, I submit that there should be more decentralization and a chance given to those who live in the rural sections. After all, the strength of a country or 
of a province depends upon its rural sections. We all on certain occasions during the year ask the farmers to remain on the land; we ask those who are at present in the cities to go back to the land; indeed, we preach to them that their only salvation is to do so. It is very hard in certain parts of our country to preach with any measure of success this gospel of decentralization. If we deprive all the rural centres of their activities as well as their attractiveness; if we destroy the jurisdiction of the tribunals existing in all the rural districts, I do not think we are helping our country to regain its prosperous condition, and, after all, we are not rendering any measure of assistance or support to the big centres.
I repeat: there is in the bill more than the mere question of jurisdiction. If the members on the government side will support the measure, they will be making a step forward towards helping to give the rural sections of Quebec a certain degree of importance. In the rural districts of Quebec we are deprived of tribunals; we are deprived of judges.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who was responsible for that?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That was a mistake which was made, and I never agreed with it, because a judge residing in a small locality helps to maintain the standard of living and the morals of the people living there. He is an arbiter above political parties, above all the troubles connected with municipal or social affairs in the locality. When he walks along the street the people say: Here is the judge-they look upon him with respect.
Mr. PO'ULIOT:	Provided he is a good
judge.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Under present conditions a judge appears there occasionally, perhaps for a day or two once a month. It is said openly that for some of the judges the railway time table is their highest authority. It is time we afforded an opportunity to the rural sections of Quebec to keep within each judicial district the legal business pertaining to it. It is not fair to centralize everything in the big cities.
I know big corporations and financial organizations, the Montreal Chamber of Commerce and the Montreal Board of Trade are strongly opposed to this legislation; but all these organizations are to a certain extent local in their character; they look after their own affairs, and we cannot blame them for not having any consideration for the rural sec-

Bankruptcy Act
tions of Quebec. But I think it is time that parliament realized the situation in which the rural residents of our province are placed at the present time. This bill has been passed in the Senate at possibly three but certainly two consecutive sessions, and it is about time we adopted it.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Under the present law is there any difference between Ontario and Quebec? Can the same thing happen in Ontario, or, if not, will the hon. member explain the difference?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The same thing can happen in Ontario. A man living in the city of Windsor being in a bad situation from a business point of view, may be forced to come to Ottawa to answer a petition in bankruptcy, and all the proceedings in regard to the case may be had in this city. We do not, however, want to make the scope of this measure too wide. I have been in sympathy for a long time with the principle. It was thought probably it would be best to start by making an exception in the case of the province of Quebec-that, also, as the law in Quebec is quite different from that in the other provinces, it would be more justifiable, at least as a beginning, to have the law amended for that province.


Hugh Guthrie: My suggestion in regard to this bill which came to the house from the upper chamber would be that the matter be allowed to stand for the present session, as within a reasonable time, probably next session, I think there will have to be a more or less general revision of the Bankruptcy Act as it appears on the statute book. We know that almost every session since the year 1920, when the act was originally passed, one or two or more amendments have been made to it. I do not favour continuously amending the Bankruptcy Act or any other law, but from the numerous communications which I have received, I realize there are many respects in which the present act might be revised and improved. Speaking in regard to this point on a former occasion this session I think I intimated to the house that in my view a committee of the house should be appointed, probably at the next session, to consider all the suggestions which have been offered in recent times concerning amendments to the general act. This bill applies only to the province of Quebec. It must be pointed out that the Bankruptcy Act is not in its first essential an act for the benefit, or relief, or convenience of the debtor. The -most interested parties in an insolvency or bankruptcy proceeding are certainly the creditors.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If my hon. friend will permit me, there are also creditors residing in the rural districts.


Hugh Guthrie: I am quite well aware of that, but as a rule we find that a majority of the creditors are in the larger cities where wholesale businesses are carried on. I mention this fact only because it should be borne in mind that it is not altogether the convenience of the unfortunate debtor that we have to consider, while I admit that the act as framed and as passed by the house was an act greatly in favour of the insolvent, more so than any law we previously had in Canada, because it provides under certain conditions for the discharge of the honest insolvent. In the act as it is at present framed in regard to this particular section, there may be defects and there may be room for improvement, but the present act is pretty broad. It reads as follows in regard to the locality of the debtor:
"Locality of a debtor," whether a bankrupt or assignor, means (1) the principal place where the debtor has carried on business during the year immediately preceding the date of the presentation against him of a bankruptcy petition or the making by him of an authorized assignment.
That is the district in his own locality where he has carried on business for a year.
(2)	The place where the debtor has resided during the year immediately preceding the date of the presentation against him of a bankruptcy petition or the making by him of an authorized assignment.
If he does not live in the exact place where he carries on business, then the locality is the place of his domicile.
(3) In cases not coming within (1) or (2), the place where the greater portion of the property of such debtor is situate.
That, I think, is a fairly comprehensive arrangement which is prescribed under the present law. There is much to be said in favour of what the hon. member for Richelieu, who has just taken his seat, has remarked in regard to convenience in certain judicial districts or inconvenience, through the lack of constitution of sufficient judicial districts in certain provinces of Canada. But no one knows better than my hon. friend that the objection which my hon. friend has outlined to the house in this respect is one that lies entirely within the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec. This house cannot interfere in any way with the judicial arrangements in Quebec or in any other province
Bankruptcy Act

in Canada. The administration of the law, both civil and criminal, is entirely within the hands of the provincial authorities. The constitution of provincial courts, the number of judges, the districts over which the judges shall preside, and all interior arrangements for administration of the law are within the hands of the Quebec government. The premier of the province of Quebec, who is also the attorney general of that province, can remedy any difficulty in these interior arrangements at any moment he sees fit. The only power of this parliament in regard to judges is to -appoint and to pay them. If any grievance exists in the respect complained of in the province of Quebec, this parliament cannot remedy it. We cannot decree that the judges shall live or reside or hold court in this or that district, or in this or that county. The province of Quebec alone can control such a situation, and if any inconvenience is caused in this regard, if it be brought to the attention of the government of the province of Quebec, I have no doubt that it will be remedied.
I may say that I likewise have received some letters objecting to the passage of this measure. I have received a letter in English similar to the letter which has been read from the chamber of commerce of Montreal, as well as letters from boards of trade in the province of Quebec, and I have replied to those letters that the matter was not likely to be dealt with at this session, but that in the near future there would probably be a general revision of the Bankruptcy Act when full consideration would be given to these proposals. What I would ask my hon. friend who is sponsoring this bill to do is to allow this bill to stand and to bring forward this proposal when there is a general revision of the Bankruptcy Act. Personally I think it not well to pass an amendment applicable to a single province as proposed by this bill. Any amendment passed should have general effect throughout Canada. I realize, of course, that this cannot be achieved in every instance, that some amendments cannot be applicable to all parts of Canada and that some exceptions will have to be m-ade, but in regard to the present bill I think it would be unwise to introduce a new provision applicable to a single province, while disregarding the practices established in other provinces. For these reasons I would ask the sponsor of this bill to allow this bill to stand until a general measure for the revision of the Bankruptcy Act can be brought forward and a committee of this house be ap-

pointed which can give consideration to this and other proposals.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): I think there has been a -great deal of misunderstanding concerning the Bankruptcy Act. Certainly if the abuses referred to- because no other term would characterize what has been described by the hon. gentleman- prevail in -Canada there might be better reasons for the bill than actually exist. A debtor may not be hailed from Gaspe to Montreal, there to bear witness to the winding up of his business. A bankruptcy petition, as pointed out by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), must be presented according to subsection 5 of section 4 of the act to the court having jurisdiction in the locality of the debtor.
Mr. -CARDIN: It has been decided by the courts that the locality means the province. The supreme court has recently decided that.


John Thomas Hackett: Paragraph (y) of section 2 of the act defines " the locality of a debtor" as:
(i)	the principal place where the debtor has carried on business during the year immediately preceding ....
(ii)	the place where the debtor has resided during the year immediately preceding . . . .
(iii)	in cases not coming within (i) or (ii), the place where the greater portion of the property of such debtor is situate;
What has been attempted by this act is to determine that the " locality of a debtor " shall be the judicial district as defined by the statutes of the province of Quebec in which the debtor lives. I find that section 160 of the Bankruptcy Act gives to the governor in council the right to divide the province into bankruptcy divisions. The province of Quebec has been divided into twelve bankruptcy divisions. I have forgotten the exact number of judicial districts in the province; I think there are twenty of them. By order in council published in the official gazette, on August 25, 1923, the province of Quebec was divided into twelve bankruptcy divisions. They are: Montreal, Quebec, Beauharnois, Sherbrooke, Three Rivers, Hull, Chicouti-mi, Joliette, Roberval, Fraserville, New Carlisle and Amos. So it will be seen that these divisions are pretty evenly distributed throughout the province and a man cannot be taken outside of his own division. If the amendment passes, it will become necessary to erect a bankruptcy court in each judicial district, and it will be necessary to man from eight to fifteen more bankruptcy courts in the province

Bankruptcy Act
of Quebec, which will entail much additional expense.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That would have to be done by the governor in council.


John Thomas Hackett: It would have to be done by the governor in council. That is one reason for which I am opposed to this measure. But I think the best reason for following the suggestion of the Minister of Justice and not going further with this bill is that this is not the way to do it. If it is desired to re-subdivide the province of Quebec into twenty or twenty-five bankruptcy divisions instead of twelve, it is not necessary to have recourse to parliament. Section 160 of the act confers on the governor in council the prerogative and the right to do what it is sought to do by this legislation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


John Thomas Hackett: I will read section 160, in the hope that my hon. friend will agree with me.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The courts have already decided against your view.


John Thomas Hackett: Section 160 provides:
Each province of Canada shall constitute for the purposes of this act, one bankruptcy district, but the governor in council may divide any such bankruptcy district into two or more bankruptcy divisions, and name or number them.
The governor in council has power to do that by order in council. By order in council of August 25, 1923, the province of Quebec was divided into twelve bankruptcy divisions. Now if the governor in council had the power to divide the province into twelve bankruptcy divisions, he certainly has the power to divide it into twenty or twenty-five divisions. All that is necessary to achieve the purpose of the sponsor of this bill, if one concedes that the purpose is a laudable one, is to pass an order in council repealing the order in council which divides the province into twelve bankruptcy divisions, and pass another re-subdividing it into fifteen or twenty or thirty, as the wisdom of the governor in council may dictate. I therefore suggest that the bill itself is unnecessary to achieve the purpose in view, and I doubt very much whether the purpose be a wise or a useful one, because bankruptcy, fortunately, is to a very large extent restricted to the larger industrial centres. I know there are farmers who do go into bankruptcy, but their creditors are generally near home. For these reasons I am very happy to reiterate the suggestion offered
by the Minister of Justice that the bill be dropped.


Mr. CHARLES NAPOLEON DORION (Quebe-c-Montmorency) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I entirely concur in the statement just made by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). In my opinion, if the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Brasset) were enacted, it would be the cause of great inconveniences and particularly to Quebec. In fact, we have in the province of Quebec a judicial system which differs from that of other provinces. It happens in certain judiciary districts of Quebec that the judges sit only at intervals of two and three months. Let us suppose that in the county of Gaspe, at New Carlisle or Gaspe, for instance, there is a petition filed under the Bankruptcy Act against a merchant; if the party concerned refused to comply or acknowledge his state of insolvency a judge would have to come to the district. Consequently, in certain districts of our province it might happen that a merchant who is bankrupt, in order to gain time, might find means of delaying action and no further steps could be taken for two, three and perhaps four months. To meet the wishes of creditors the procedure of the judicial administration in Quebec would have to be completely changed. A further inconvenience, sir, is that in wishing to protect, as it seems, the small merchant, the latter would be debarred of all protection. I listened a few moments ago to the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin)-like all his colleagues of the Liberal party, especially when it is a question of public interest-appealing once more to prejudice, rebuking us and endeavouring to have our people believe that it is a matter of struggle against large corporations or trusts. There is, at present, no question of protecting large corporations or trusts but it is one of protecting the interests of the people of Quebec. I think that the small merchant will have less protection if wholesale dealers are compelled to undertake the prosecution of bankruptcy cases in certain judicial districts where small dealers reside, because the latter will certainly hurt their credit with wholesale houses. I therefore concur, sir, in the comments which the hon. member for Stanstead made; and as the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) stated, if the government intends to amend the Bankruptcy Act, it would be wiser, I believe, to put off this measure until next session. However, should the hon. member for Gaspe persist in bringing his amendment to an issue, I shall deem it my duty to oppose it on the two following grounds: First, in the interests of the small

Bankruptcy Act

rural dealers themselves, and secondly, because of our particular judicial system in Quebec.
Mr. CHARLES E. FERLAND (Joliette) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I deem it my
duty to give my entire support to the bill which the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Brasset) has introduced. We listened a few moments ago to the objections which the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) has against the bill. I am rather amazed at his stand because I would have thought that the hon. member for Stanstead, who, it is true, practises law in Montreal, but who is nevertheless elected by a rural constituency, would first have proved himself the champion of the interests of the people of his rural section, the county of Stanstead, in preference to boosting the interests of large corporations or wholesale dealers of Montreal, who have other means at their disposal to protect themselves.
As to the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Dorion), he practises law in the city of Quebec and it is in his habits to sponsor the interests of city folks instead of the ratepayers of rural districts.
The hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) and those on this side of the house who expressed their views on the merits of the bill under consideration, proved to us clearly that the present act should be amended, so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, because it is so unfair that it practically takes away the control of all bankruptcy matters from rural creditors and debtors. The debtor and creditors of rural districts have not the means to make numerous trips to the city to protect their interests, either before the Montreal or Quebec courts, or to assignees' offices where the meetings of creditors take place. Any member of the legal profession who has had any practice in rural sections, know how numerous are the abuses committed. I could cite many examples. May I point out an instance of such abuse: a merchant residing in the village of St-Ignace-du-Lac, in the northern part of the county of Maskinonge, 75 miles distant from the town of Joliette-this person was compelled, at the request of a creditor in the city of Quebec, most likely the only creditor in that city, to travel to Quebec in order to file his schedule and make an assignment. Most of the creditors resided in Montreal, in his parish or in Joliette. The facts of the case are that the numerous creditors residing in St-Ignace-du-Lac, who had given this merchant credit were unable to make numerous

trips to Quebec to watch over their interests. The Quebec dealer had full control of this bankruptcy, he directed the proceedings and liquidated the rather large stock of this merchant, and we discovered a year or two after that the debtor had concealed about half of his stock. As to the local creditors, they practically lost everything and they have no further recourse owing to the insolvent state of the debtor. This is one instance in a thousand. The present act has been so interpreted that it allows a creditor to present its petition in bankruptcy before any court in Quebec. I see no reasons why members from other provinces should object to our passing legislation which would apply to Quebec, and more particularly to the rural sections of that province. Other provinces have no interest in preventing us from enacting certain amendments to an act which, in Quebec, has reacted unfavourably on the credit of farmers, even ruining entirely their credit.
It seems to me that members of other provinces have no interest in impeding the enactment of measures which would benefit the province of Quebee. As to members from Quebec, I frankly state that if they reside in the city of Montreal or Quebec, they cannot, if they are lawyers, oppose such a move, because they will have the advantage of pleading in bankruptcy cases in their own city, regardless of the domicile of their debtor. So far as members of rural sections, if they are in earnest in their desire to prevent the administration being centralized in large towns, their duty is to support this measure destined to help the rural district ratepayers.


John Thomas Hackett: Would the hon. member allow me to interrupt him.


Mr. FERLAND (Translation):: Certainly.


John Thomas Hackett: Has not the hon. member in his own district, at Joliette, a bankruptcy court?


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I may state for the information of the hon. member for Stanstead that there is a bankruptcy district in Joliette known as No. 8.


John Thomas Hackett: The same as in Montreal and Sherbrooke.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: There are some bankruptcy districts-


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Which are not taken advantage of.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: There are some bankruptcy districts in the province of Quebec. May I first point out to the hon. member

Bankruptcy Act
for Stanstead that there are less bankruptcy districts than there are judicial districts in Quebec; secondly, may I mention to him that the bankruptcy districts to which he refers have never been utilized to my knowledge and that, in the general practice of the province of Quebec bar, petitions are filed in Quebec or Montreal, and the debtors are compelled to come to those cities and settle their bankruptcy affairs, with very few exceptions. What happens? Exactly what I was explaining a moment ago. The debtor- no more than the creditors of rural sections- is in no financial position to attend these creditors' meetings or to follow the litigation before the courts, so that bankruptcy affairs remain in the hands of people residing in large cities, and rural creditors can have no further redress and thereby lose all means of control.
I listened a few moments ago to the member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) complaining of the delays which would result if the amendment was carried. Was there ever an objection so flimsy as that? We are all aware that owing to the congestion of business before the courts of Montreal and Quebec, but especially in Montreal, it is impossible to plead a case even though it be a summary one, without having to wait seven or eight months. When, in ordinary cases in Montreal, it is impossible to get a hearing within twelve to fifteen months. Such is the actual state in the large cities of the province of Quebec. In our own rural districts when a case is filed in the prothonotary's office of the superior court, it may be proceeded with within two or three months. With reference to delays, if a debtor contested a bankruptcy petition, in the Montreal district, I am sure that the creditor could not obtain judgment as quickly as he could in rural districts.
I entirely agree with the remarks made, a few moments ago, by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Complaint is made, to-day, in rural sections that too much centralizing is carried on in large cities. We hear complaints as regards judicial centralization which allows judges to reside in large cities, while in rural sections we can only obtain judges for five or ten days per month. The management of the National railways centralizes all in Montreal, notwithstanding that there exists a contract which obliges the Canadian National Railway to have a superintendent and his staff at Joliette, which is a divisional point of the Canadian National Railway.
We hear complaints of the centralization of commercial and industrial corporations which is detrimental to the rural district ratepayers. What purpose is to be gained in centralizing all in Montreal and Quebec if we allow all rural districts and towns like Joliette to go to ruin.
Mr. LaVERGN'E: Tell this to Mr. Lanetot.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I was
delighted to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) state a few moments ago, that there would probably be a . general revision of the Bankruptcy Act, next year. I am aware that amendments have been suggested last winter by the council of the Montreal bar, but these amendments have not yet been presented to the House. I am also aware that other amendments have been considered and suggested by the Canadian Bar Association which is to meet this summer in Calgary, but even then, very few rural district lawyers will be called upon to study these amendments, and what will probably happen is that the delegates will be chosen from lawyers residing in large centres, so that it is unnecessary to await a general revision of the Bankruptcy Act to dispose of the amendment passed by the senate and at present being considered by the house.
I hope that in the general revision, it will *be suggested to leave the farmers out of the Bankruptcy Act, because I contend that pursuant to the B.NA. Act the Bankruptcy Act, so far as people not in commerce is concerned, is ultra vires and unconstitutional. In fact, in 1867, bankruptcy affairs were placed under federal control, while the province of Quebec Act with reference to the assignment of property included those in trade but not the farmers. For this reason, among others the Bankruptcy Act so far as farmers are concerned is ultra vires.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will revert to the consideration of the motion to go into committee of ways and means and the amendment thereto.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee
2452
The Budget-Mr. MacNicol
[Stage Direction]
of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ralston.
. Mr. MacNICOL: When the house rose I was just coming to the question of the value of our home market. Since the commencement of the session I have heard so much afoout the value of the overseas market that I had begun to wonder concerning the value of our. home .market. For the information of hon, members may I say that there are 700,000 employees in Canadian industry, and when we add to that number the families of those employees we account for about three and one-half million souls. On June 1, when the budget was brought down the right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) gave a list of some seventy-four United States manufacturing concerns which had established branches in Canada, as a result of the increases made last fall in the tariff schedules. To that number have been added some additional American branch factories until to-day we have eighty-one American factories comprising new branches, branches which have increased in size and Canadian companies manufacturing for American concerns-all as a result of the September tariff increases. From the days when the Laurier administration assumed office, when the American manufacturers learned that the incoming Liberal administration did not intend to give freer trade, and during the time of the Borden administration, over one thousand American branch plants were established in Canada, In all there are to-day over 1,400 branches of American firms in Canada, and about seventy branches of British firms. A large number of employees are engaged1 in the manufacturing activities of those plants and that number is being added to owing to the fact that new factories are now being built.
I have here some figures in connection with several new branch plants which are being erected as a result of the tariff changes made last fall. First I shall direct the attention of hon. members to the erection of a plant at Tecumseh by a company named "Fine Foods of Canada Limited" with offices at Windsor. In the construction of that plant there have already been used 220 carloads of material principally manufactured in Canada. At the present time 150 men are engaged in the erection of the plant and it is expected that business operations will be commenced within the next month. In the coming season 200 operators will be employed in the plant; it is expected they will use during the year 175 carloads of tin cans, sugar and other materials entering into the manufacture of their product and their output will be 3,000 tons.
(Mr. Speaker.]
Estimating the length of a car to be 40 feet, those 220 cars would form a train one and three-quarter miles in length. Had only one plant been erected surely this result alone would be worth while. However there are others. Let us now consider the Canadian Ceianese Company Limited at Drummond-ville, Quebec. During the past winter a large addition was made to their plant, which became necessary through trade conditions brought about by the changes in the tariff of last fall. In the construction of that addition 375 carloads of material were used, including sand, gravel, cement, crushed stone, brick, reinforcing steel, roofing material, plumbing and heating material, and sprinkler equipment. The major portion of these materials was manufactured in other Canadian plants by Canadian workmen. If we were to estimate the length of those 375 cars we would have a train about two and three-quarter miles long. In the transportation of the materials, railroad employees and equipment would be engaged, so that not only the men engaged in the erection and operation of the plant but also those engaged in the transportation of material to the plant receive substantial benefit. In the erection of that plant 450 men were employed during the past winter.
At this time I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to some facts concerning the erection of the Campbell Soup Company Limited, factory at New Toronto. The other day after listening to one of the blue ruiu speeches in the house, and feeling that surely if we were to believe what we heard in the house there could not be any industry in Canada, I went home and drove out to view the Campbell Soup plant. May I say to my hon. friends that there is a great deal of business in Canada. This country is to-day more prosperous than any other country in the world. However had it not been for the tariff changes made last fall we would find ourselves in the unfortunate position in which other countries are now finding themselves. Now, 680 carloads of material went into that plant and 350 men were engaged in its erection. It will give employment to 180 employees.
Mr. SANDERSON:: Will the hon. member -permit a question?


John Ritchie MacNicol: All right, if His Honour
allows me the extra time.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. gentleman
mentioned the Campbell Soup Company. Is he aware that that company made a survey of the dominion for the purpose of selecting a suitable location for the erection of a fac-

The Budget-Mr. MacNicol
tory immediately after the Dunning budget was brought down last session?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do know that they only started work on their factory last fall after this government came into power. The Paton and Baldwin Textile Company is also putting up a plant. I inspected it a few days ago and was surprised at the extent of the foundations. That plant will require 680 carloads of material, most of it manufactured in Canada. A train of 6S0 cars would be over five miles in length. Three hundred and fifty men are engaged in erecting the plant, and when completed and in operation it will give employment to 400 employees, and this number will be increased if next session the government-as I hope they will-impose a duty on some other commodities that that plant can manufacture. Then we have the Courtauld plant at Cornwall, the figures in connection with which are significant. After the tariff duties imposed last September they commenced an addition to their plant, which addition will shortly be completed and in operation. Hon. members will be interested to learn that 1,114 carloads of building material will enter into the construction of the additional plant, that 500 men are engaged in its erection, and that when in operation it will give employment to 500 employees. In the erection of those five plants 1,800 men have been engaged and four of them for which I have the figures will when in operation give employment to 1,280 employees. I think that is something worth while, Mr. Speaker. Any government that can provide employment for that number of men is doing something to build up this country.
Now, what does the tariff mean to the home market for our agricultural community? A few years ago the Michigan street railwaymen went on strike, and the governor of the state appointed a commission to investigate the cost of living. Mr. W. D. Robbins, secretary of the Toronto Street Raihvaymen's Union, submitted certain figures to the commission on what an average family of five require annually in the way of beef, pork, mutton and other food commodities. These are the figures:
Annual Food Requirements of an Average
Family of Five
Beef			400
Pork			125
Mutton			75
Fowl			30
Milk			1.000
Butter			156
Vegetables			1,500
Fruit			376
Eggs			100
Wheat, to be made into bread		flour for 	bu.	20
Other witnesses submitted a higher figure for wheat. I have already said that the new steel duties will within a reasonable length of time result in the employment of an additional 12,500 men to manufacture $50,000,000 worth of the iron and steel commodities that we now import. Taking each man as the head of an average family of five, those 62,500 people will consume each year farm products in the following volume:
Cattle			head	11,111
Hogs			9,765
Sheep			20.835
Fowl			187
Milk			6.250
Butter.. ..		975
Vegetables..		9,375
Fruit			2,312
Eggs			
Wheat			250,000
I think that	is something worth	while for
the agriculturists of Canada. These figures will give hon. members an idea of what the 700,000 employees in Canadian industry mean to Canadian agriculture; the total value of the farm products that they consume annually amounts to a very large sum. During the special session I was very much pained to hear attacks made on our manufacturers, and, through them, on their employees. It ill becomes any hon. member to attack out manufacturing industry and the employees engaged therein, for those who have built up our great industrial fabric deserve praise rather than censure.
Let me go a step further in demonstrating to the house what our manufacturing industry means to the farmer directly. I have communicated with the provincial department of agriculture of Ontario, in reference to a comparison between the counties of Huron and Waterloo, and I think these figures will be interesting to hon. members:
The acreage of Waterloo is 39 per cent of Huron.
Acreage
Huron	 829.000
Waterloo	 330,000
But the assessment value of Waterloo is 79 per cent of Huron.
Huron	 $41,390,000
Waterloo	 $31,350,000
Why is there that difference in the per cent assessed value of these two rural counties? The answer is very simple: Waterloo has 401 manufacturing plants while Huron has only 183. Let me continue the comparison :
Capital Investment in Manufacturing Plants
Huron	 $ 6,130,000
Waterloo	 89,198,000
The Budget-Mr. MacNicol

Number of Factory Employees
Huron	 1,500
Waterloo	 -[DOT]	19,750
Wages Paid to Factory Employees
Huron	 $ 1,200,000
Waterloo	*	21,500,000
I communicated with the agricultural representatives of these two counties, and I find that those figures reflect themselves in the market value of the agricultural products sold in the principle towns of the two counties. Let me give these comparative figures:
Comparative Prices on Kitchener
Eggs per doz	
Butter per lb	
Dressed chicken, per lb..
Goderich
Eggs per doz	 [DOT] [DOT]
Butter pei- lb	
Dressed chicken, per lb..
May 9, 1930
.17
.25, .28, .30 .30
.11 to .13 .20 .25
Now I will give similar figures for Galt as compared with Clinton:
Galt
Eggs per doz	18 to .20
Butter per lb	25 to .27
Dressed chicken, per lb.. .	.25
Hay per ton	 $15
Clinton
Eggs per doz	
Butter per lb	
Dressed chicken, per lb.. . Hay per ton	
.10 to .12 .20 to .25 .20
$9 to $10
One would think to hear some hon. members that our farmers have not anything to rely on but an export market. Let me remind them that the home market is of very great value, and is directly reflected in the buying power of the community.
I wish to spend a moment now in connection with wages in Canada as compared with those paid in competing countries. In this regard it might be of interest to quote the words of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) as reported at page 1925 of Hansard of May 9, 1924, when the hon. member spoke in the budget debate of that year. The hon. member said:
I do not favour a prohibitive tariff,-
Nor do we on this side of the house.
-but I believe in a tariff that will enable legitimate industries to live if they are efficiently conducted. I believe in that sort of a tariff also for another reason, namely, that it will give employment to our people.
And that is the reason I am in favour of a tariff, because it provides a very great deal of employment. Now what do we find in connection with wages? How are we to maintain the standard of living of the Canadian worker if he is compelled to compete

with foreign workers receiving wages at very much lower rates? In Russia, for example, the worker receives 14-4 cents per hour; in Jugoslavia he receives 16 cents; in Italy, 16 cents; in Spain, 17 cents; in Germany, 31 cents; in Holland, 35 cents; in Sweden, 43 cents and in Denmark, 45 cents. In Great Britain the worker receives 30 cents. These wages I am giving have reference to turners and fitters in the iron industry in these various countries. In Canada, for the same class of work, the worker receives 68 cents. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that there is an hon. member in this house who desires to see the standard of living in Canada reduced to the level of the average standard prevailing in these other countries. But how can we maintain a decent standard of living in this country if we do not make it possible to pay wages commensurate with such a standard? I am for good wages. The better the wages our workers receive the more competent they are likely to be and the better position will they find themselves in to buy the goods which the producers of Canada have to offer. I find that many people in Canada seem to be under the impression that the Canadian manufacturer adds the tariff to the price of his goods to determine his selling price. He does no such thing. I have an intimate knowledge of several industries in this country and I can assure the house that the prices charged are not arrived at in that manner. Take for example what the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) said in this house, as reported at page 326 of Hansard of September 17. The hon. member well said:
-I have no objection to protection; in fact I think it is necessary in this country. But when a manufacturer takes advantage of the tariff to the full extent it is time for the government, not to increase his protection, but to lower it. There are manufacturers in Canada, indeed there are several in the city of Sherbrooke, who have a protected product and who are not taking advantage of their protection to the extent of a single cent, but are selling their output to the Canadian public at exactly the same price as that at which similar goods are sold in the United States.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yresterday, when my hon.
friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) attempted to bring before the house the very serious condition that prevails in this country to-day, there was a good deal of opposition expressed. I note in this morning's Gazette that no less an authority than Sir George Paish uses such phrases as, "The economic

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
and financial dissolution," and the threatened "catastrophe."
It seems to me, in view of the very serious situation, that the budget reveals on the part of the government an absolute failure to understand even the elements of those problems which call so loudly for immediate solution. I have been almost inclined to characterize the budget as one of shameless arrogance. When one considers that it has laid heavier burdens upon the people of moderate means, and has absolutely failed to relieve the present widespread distress, in what other light can one regard such a budget? Doctor Randolph Burgess, in his book on the federal reserve system, points out that the proper policy of a central bank is usually to go directly contrary to public opinion. Now, the same policy ought to be adopted by a government in a time of crisis. Private corporations have some excuse for curtailing their expenditures and withholding credit. But the government has adopted a policy of so-called economy, a policy of retrenchment, at the very time when a government ought to extend its expenditures and thus supplement those expenditures that are being made by private individuals and corporations. The government, has coercive powers of taxation, and I submit that it should use the wealth of the nation, now largely held by the few, in the interests of the community at large. I take it that a budget that would meet the needs of to-day would provide for a scaling down of debts, however that can be brought about, whether by means of a direct reduction of debts or through inflation. Further, some form of capital levy should be instituted, because I take it that a comparatively small group of individuals have no right to retain wealth at a time when the great mass of the people are suffering as they are to-day.
My colleague from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has already called attention to the fact that the Prime Minister made no statement with regard to unemployment. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) stated the other day:
This is scarcely the time, just in the spring of the year, for us to be making proposals to the house to deal with unemployment which may be anticipated next autumn. ... The government is thoroughly alive to the situation, is bending every effort to meet it, and in good time will make its proposals known to the house.
I cannot believe that the government is alive to the situation, or it would not allow the budget to pass without a definite announcement regarding its policy on the great question of unemployment. Further than that, the hon. gentleman says that it is no time, in the
spring of the year, to make such proposals. But as we all know, unemployment has been far more prevalent this year, even in the spring, than it has been in any other year, at least so far as my knowledge goes. The spring has gone; this is the summer, and there is every prospect of the situation becoming worse. Yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce actually says that the government will make its policy known in its own good time. Here we are within a few weeks of the close of the session. We have been called from every part of the country to come here for the purpose of dealing with the problems of the nation, and we are told we are not to have an opportunity of discussing any government proposal with respect to this matter. I should like very much to have been able to get through one speech without having to refer to unemployment. But I find it impossible. I am here primarily to represent the labour movement and I cannot avoid bringing to the attention of the house on this occasion the condition as I find it among the labouring classes. The serious distress of the people here in Ottawa is quite manifest. One has only to come in by the Canadian National railways to see what is known as the Ottawa jungle, the place where the tramps and out-of-works gather on the dump heap where they have managed to erect some temporary shelters in which they exist as best they can. Such conditions exist in the capital city of Ottawa. The following editorial appeared in the Montreal Star of June 4:
An immediate crisis faces the city. There are vast numbers of genuine unemployed still walking our streets in dire need. A certain amount of promiscuous, unconeerted aid is being given by charitable organizations and individuals. The Dufferin school was closed in April, but it will soon be necessary to do something to relieve the distress. People cannot be left to starve to death with suicide as the only alternative.
Left to starve with suicide as the only alternative. Do you mean to tell us, Mr. Speaker, that in this country the only alternative to starvation is suicide? There are those who will refuse to accept this alternative. These are the conditions which exist in the city of Montreal, and yet the government tells us that it is alive to the situation and in good time will do something about it. I received a wire the other day from Glace Bay, from which I will read the following sentences:
Whereas the miners at 24 colliery are on the verge of starvation owing to the unemployment at the said colliery working from a day and a half to three days a week and the coal company says they can't give any more employment under present conditions.

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
And later:
Conditions are such that the men are getting out of control and anything is likely to happen.
Evidently these men are not going to accept suicide as the only alternative. Every newspaper -contains information with regard to unemployment. I have a clipping regarding the distress of workers of Abitibi near Sault Ste. Marie, which places have not been referred to this year. A short time ago I attended a meeting in Windsor, called to consider the question of unemployment. I suppose there were fifteen hundred people present and the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand) has drawn attention to the fact that there was considerable disorder. Why? Simply because those people were not content to be told what parliament is doing or what probably would be done by democratic institutions. I would like to pass on to the house a question put to me by one of the men at that meeting. He asked me: What can we do to obtain immediate relief? Only this morning a returned man who was in my office asked me the same question. These men are beginning to get desperate. I have referred already to my own city. On April 10 there were 18,000 unemployed in Winnipeg. According to an editorial which appeared in the Free Press of May 25, it will cost the citizens of Winnipeg this year, irrespective of what has been given by the dominion and provincial authorities, nearly three-quarters of a million dollars to provide relief. The city is almost bankrupt and cannot stand that drain. When we apply to the dominion government they reply: In our own good time. This is the government of which it has been said again and again that it was elected to do away with unemployment. I have a letter from Saskatoon which states that a private citizen is giving out free lunches in addition to the regular work being done. He is doing this simply to help out the boys and to keep down trouble and to bring the plight of these men to the attention of the rulers.
Another newspaper item here from Regina. Unemployment is reaching not only the casual or common labourer but has spread to the skilled mechanic and to the business and professional man. I have advices from Edmonton but I will not take the time of the house to read the details of the desperate situation. A thousand men are being fed with bowls of soup. This is early summer and nothing has been done by the government. Sadder even than the plight of the single man, is that of the married man with a family.

Conditions are not much better out on the prairies. The other day I received a letter from a personal friend of mine, an Englishwoman of good education and high character. She wrote me as follows:
I feel afraid of what another winter may bring; especially if this dry weather and these awful dust storms continue, rain might at least give us food for man and beast. Things are very disheartening for folks who have worked so hard many years. Locally eggs are six cents a dozen, and butter fifteen cents a pound. After investing our earnings in poultry, cattle et cetera, this is what many of us are depending on for ready cash and supplies. We've just had a hard frost which has touched the wheat, nipped any garden stuff that was coming up, and even the tender green leaves of our trees, which have cost us so much to grow, are blackened with the frost.
I received another letter along the same line from a friend in Alberta. There is one sentence which may be of interest to the house, as follows:
Buy feed and sell a five-gallon can of cream for $1.30.
And another:
Eggs are eight cents per dozen, in some places five cents.
Then he refers apparently to an expression of the Prime Minister when he says:
It may be that I do not understand what hardship is. I was born and raised at the west coast of Norway. There we fought the waves for a living from birth to death. I have fought the various drawbacks on the Alberta prairies for almost twenty years now and tried to do my best. ... I am beginning to think that the waves that rocked me while a child and young man were gentle and kind compared with the bumps we receive on the prairie.
When we call attention to these conditions we are called calamity howlers. These quotations show the sufferings of Canadian people, and this government is responsible for not taking action at this time. We are being told that the people must either starve or commit suicide. I wonder! The other day I received from a friend of mine, a parish priest, a copy of an editorial which appeared in the Catholic AVorld of May, 1931, entitled "Starve or Steal?" The opening paragraph read as follows:
AVhen Daniel Willard, president of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, declared in a recent speech that he would steal rather than starve, some persons and some newspapers considered the statement rather shocking, and novel. Ultra-conservatives possibly called him a bolshevik. But, as all moralists know, the declaration is neither new nor nihilistic. In Catholic ethics, Mr. Willard's daring proposition is a truism.
It is generally contended that the church stands. for the status quo, but I wonder if

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
hon. members have ever taken the trouble to read the sayings of some of the church fathers. Let me give the house a few samples:
St. Basil said:	The bread that you withhold belongs to the hungry.
St. Augustine declared that they who possess superfluities possess the goods of others.
St. Ambrose said:	The earth belongs to
all, not to the rich.
Pope Gregory I wrote:
When we give necessities to the needy, we do not bestow upon them our goods; we return to them their own; we pay a debt of justice rather than of mercy.
And according to St. John Chrysostom, "No one is able to become rich without injustice."
So there is some basis for the statement of Pope Pius:
It is therefore absolutely necessary to reconstruct the whole economic system by bringing it back to the requirements of social justice so as to ensure a more equitable distribution of the united proceeds of capital and labour.
These are not the wild words that are so often considered as desperate in the mouths of agitators against whom we are warned, but the words of those who have been considered the very bulwarks, the very founders of the civilization of western Europe. Yet we are told that the government, in its own good time, will attend to these matters!
Sometimes in the quiet hours I have heard the horses of revolt come galloping, galloping, galloping and I have felt constrained to add the warning of St. James to what I have already given:
Go to, now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you. . . .Ye have laid up great treasure in the last days. . . .Ye have lived delicately on the earth, and taken your pleasure.
I may be told that all this is out of keeping with parliamentary debate, but I feel under a responsibility to represent as best I can the cry of the distressed people of Canada.
What does the budget do under these circumstances? All but the very rich are to be taxed even more heavily and the very rich are to be relieved of a portion of their taxes. The Minister of Trade and Commerce ridicules the amendment which urges the bringing about of a more equitable distribution of the burden of taxation. That, he declares is so old and hoary that no one needs to be worried a particle about it. I ask him: What about his own statement? It strikes me that it is equally old and hoary. He warns us that a tax which drives capital out of the country is on the face of it a bad tax. In that statement there are many assumptions which are far from being true. An economist wrote me the other day:
While it is true that the burden of our income tax must be regulated to some extent by the rate in the United States, it is equally true that the standard of living of our workers must not be very different, if we are to hold our native-born population. If rumours prove correct, the budget is to pay more attention to the emigration of capital than to the emigration of men. No doubt the hoary argument will totter in once more-that the income tax reduces the supply of capital available for domestic industry. This, in spite of the fact that almost twice the proceeds of the tax go right back into the hands of the government's bondholders, 85 per cent of whom are Canadians.
Yes, we are to have very great consideration given to the people of wealth and to the big corporations. I do not think the big corporations have been doing badly in Canada even in this time of stress. We all read a few months ago the annual statement, for example, of the Bank of Montreal which said:
Profits, while reflecting the quiet state, during the past year, of the general business of the country and lower money rates in foreign markets, have been more than sufficient to maintain the usual distributions to shareholders	Rest and undivided profits are
now $2,947,000 in excess of our capital.
Yet these huge corporations are to be very tenderly treated. I come to another big eastern corporation, the Canadian Pacific Railway which has obtained hundreds of millions in money and lands from the people of this country; and yet the president of that great corporation has the assurance to say publicly that he thinks the government should not interfere so much in business. After the corporations have drawn in their hundreds of millions of dollars, from the people, they say: Oh, keep your hands off; we must not be taxed. I want to tell again what we did a year ago, in Winnipeg. We sent a bill to the Canadian Pacific for the amount that the city had had to pay in keeping the unemployed workers of the Canadian Pacific whom, when the spring opened up, they wanted to take back. We could not collect. Yet the corporation resent anything in the way of unemployment insurance or any other measure that might place any burden or responsibility upon them. I do not want to take the time to place on record the figures as to what the Canadian Pacific has received during the years from the people of Canada.
We are told that dividends of Canadian corporations up to $10,000 shall be exempt from taxation to the extent of one-half of the income of the taxpayer. This is another example of how carefully the interests of the big corporations and big taxpayers are being looked after. The. Minister of Trade an\ Commerce warned us of the unfairness of dual taxation, yet on the other hand I need
245S

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
hardly point out that the poorer people pay a triple tax. They pay the tariff; they pay the import tax of one per cent, and then they pay a sales tax of 4 per cent. If I may express my own opinion it is further through their exploitation that the large dividends are created. The whole burden of taxation comes back upon the poorer people. Just let me give a little illustration of how it touches us all. We have been told it was a good thing to have at least a certain amount of fruit and vegetables in our diet. I come from a section of the country where it is impossible to grow most kinds of fruit, where it is impossible to grow early vegetables; it cannot be done. If we want to have these things, we have to pay over and over again for them. Let me give one example. This was even before the heavier taxation was imposed. This is a statement as it appeared in the columns of the Manitoba Free Press a few weeks ago:
A typical case is that of a carload of lettuce which arrived in Winnipeg last week. This came from California. About 300 cases comprised the carload. The particular carload cost $375. The freight charges were $451, a total of $836. And then $968 dumping duty was charged. The duty was, therefore, more than the combined cost of the article itself, and the freight charges from California, an impost of more than 100 per cent on the cost delivered in Winnipeg. On another car, which also came last week, the duty for revenue was $913. Winnipeg consumes aproximatelv four carloads of lettuce a week. Toronto and Montreal would each consume five times as much. It is not difficult to visualize the enormous burden placed on the consumer-without any benefit to the Canadian producer

Because this was weeks before any of the Canadian product had come on the market.


Mr. MALONEY:: Did the hon. member say last week?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; several weeks ago. And I presume the situation is much worse since the new tariff came into operation. I have not the figures.
The Prime Minister is evidently coming to be just a little bit on the defensive. He says:
Can Canada in a protected world be other than a protected country?
I would like to ask another question which I think is much more important: Unless the various countries abandon their so-called protection, can we possibly survive? This is another way of looking at the matter. I should like to read a paragraph from a recent bulletin issued by the Chase National bank of the city of New York. I quote from Benjamin M. Anderson, Junior:
The most serious obstacle in the way of early recovery is the state of our foreign trade. The
[Mr. Woodsworth.l
most serious obstacle in the way of the revival of our foreign trade is our high protective tariffs. The quickest way to get out of the existing depression is to reduce our tariffs so that our foreign customers may sell more goods here and get more dollars with which to pay interest upon their debts to us and with which to buy our goods. If we do not buy we cannot sell. If we do not buy enough we cannot sell enough.
I commend those words, coming from an outsider, a leading economist and banker, to the consideration of the present government. The article goes on-I shall quote only a few sentences:
There are those who would say that it is well enough to reduce the tariffs if all countries will do it, but that no country can do it alone.
That is the position of some. He calls attention to the fact that Holland and Sweden have quietly adhered to their policy of admitting foreign goods without unreasonable restraints and that they are to-day eminently satisfied with the results of their policy. But he warns:
Wages do not depend upon tariffs, and standards of life do not depend upon tariffs. Wages depend upon the productivity of labour per man, and the productivity of labour per man depends, other things being equal, upon the abundance or scarcity of the land and capital with which labour works.
Again:
American labour has nothing to fear and everything to gain, by and large, from a lowering of the tariffs in the United States.
I want to quote a few sentences from an article by William Martin in the Journal de Geneve:
Protection has increased the cost of living and diminished ordinary consumption at the very moment when it was provoking in foreign countries reactions and reprisals and was compromising foreign markets. So that after a brief period of apparent improvement the statesmen in many countries have realized that they were following the wrong path.
Unfortunately they are prisoners of the machine which they have set in motion and which is destroying them. . . .
All the statesmen worthy of that name understand perfectly the remedies which might bring back prosperity to Europe; the unification of the world market or at least a much freer circulation of merchandise. But they feel themselves powerless to apply this remedy; individually, because the resistance of private interests is insurmountable in each country; collectively, because the League of Nations cannot have a determination different from that of its members.
Mr. Martin warns:
If improvement is not brought about, revolution is to be faced. ... If a serious revolution shmdd break out in a great European country it would doubtless only be checked by a war;

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth.
war itself, moreover, would bring about revolution. ... Is a capitalist regime still capable of organizing peace on solid foundations? If the answer is "yes" it will have time to reform its institutions and to assure its future; if the answer is "no" it is condemned to speedy overthrow.
My colleague from North Winnipeg has already called attention to the statement of the manufacturers' association that the policy of the Prime Minister is definitely aimed at making Canada a self-supporting country so far as that is possible. I wish I had time to read a very interesting document recently published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It contains excellent articles by our own James T. Shotwell and Mr. Raymond B. Fosdick. I will quote a few sentences from Mr. Fosdick. He says:
The solidarity of this new world of ours is the result, of course, of specialization. Each country makes its particular contribution, dependent upon its own resources and capacities, to the goods that the world consumes. It follows, therefore, that no country is self-contained.
He draws the chain of economic consequences as they exist in the world to-day, and I would ask hon. members, if possible, to read this article. He says:
In his recent address before the American Bankers' Association, President Hoover made this rather unguarded comment:
"We are able in considerable degree to free ourselves of world influences and make a large measure of independent recovery because we are so remarkably self-contained."
Mr. Fosdick replies:
A country that could not make a locomotive, an automobile or an airplane without materials from abroad can scarcely be called self-contained. A country that could not even carry on war without the aid of thirty essential commodities from other nations cannot boast of its national independence. By the same token a country whose excess wheat and cotton are rotting in fields and storehouses because its foreign market has gone to pieces is not in a position to talk in terms of Washington's farewell address.
There is the difficulty. We are thinking in terms of an antiquated political and economic regime, and we have not brought up our policies to conform with modern developments.
There is one good thing in the budget, for which I should like to give the government credit, and that is that they are putting on a 2 per cent tax on returns of all investments made by non-residents of this country. They confess that the tax is higher in most other countries, and that the tax here is actually credited to these non-residents in other countries. There is no danger of driving capital
out, of this country. Le<t me give the total investments of outside capital in Canada: Great Britain, $2,197,000,000; United States, $3,470,000,000; rest of the world $237,000,000. Why could we not tax these investments even more heavily? I proposed that last year. I do not know whether the government listened to what I said, but I am glad that they are making a beginning along the lines I suggested. I made another proposal, and that is that we should put a supertax on Canadian capital invested abroad. I am told that one reason why we should be so careful not to tax too heavily the very large incomes is that otherwise capital might migrate from this country. There is a great deal easier and far more effective way of keeping it here, and that is to put a supertax on all of it that goes abroad. If the government is really in earnest about having business retained in Canada, let them keep Canadian capital in Canada. I am not putting this forward as my own position, because I think that policy along these lines is all nonsense, but I say that if the government is in earnest about its policy, that is what should be done.
Let me give figures as to the amount of Canadian investments abroad. They are two years old, but the latest available from the bureau of statistics. They show that in Great Britain there are Canadian investments to the amount, $96,000,000; in the United States, $992,000,000; in the rest of the world, $65S,-000,000. Why not bring that Canadian capital home by taxing it, and taxing it until it does come home? But again I warn that it is absolute nonsense to pay so much attention to these international lines.
One of the speakers on the other side tonight spoke of some American firm building or proposing to build a factory in this country on the assurance that the government would carry out its promise to protect Canadian industires. It all seems so absolutely ridiculous. There are 1,500 branches of American industries established in Canada. A recent Canadian Pacific Railway bulletin actually listed some 1,150 of these branches. It- is very interesting to note that a great many of them carry the name "Canadian" or "Dominion". They are very anxious to be known as Canadian or Dominion companies, but they are essentially American industries, and the profits of these industries are going over to the other side of the line. These industries come over here very largely because wages here have been lower than they have been in the United States, not because wages here are higher.

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
I should like to have had time to call fuller attention to the fact that although there is so much hardship among a great many wage earners and the people generally in this country, the big companies have not been doing so badly. Just the other day I noticed this statement in one of our Canadian papers:
Despite reductions and omissions in the dividends paid by Canadian corporations, distributions to be made in the month of June will reach the large total of $27,467,187.
It does not look as though the big corporations were going bankrupt. We are in line in this as in other matters with the trends in the United States. I noticed that in 1930 the net profits of some nine hundred industrial corporations in the United States amounted to $2,097,823,000. The capital and surplus amounted to $28,929,975,000. The rate of return for 'the year 1930 was 7.2 per cent. Any government which really represented the interests of the people would see to it that a very considerable proportion of those big dividends were transferred from private people to meet the present, needs of the general community of this country.
In the few minutes which remain to me I should like to make a few remarks with regard to the income tax. In the year 1929, according to figures I have been able to procure, the amount of income assessed for purposes of income tax totalled SI,195,402,266. I notice that the vast majority of the people in this country do not earn enough money to pay income tax. Those earning under $2,000 numbered onbr 36,857 and paid a total tax of only $341,777. Farther down in the table before me I find that 523 people received an income of $50,000 per year and over. The total tax paid by them was $9,328,921. Coming to the corporation taxes I find that 1,181 corporations paid a total tax of $30,410,897. To the table showing taxes paid by corporations there is added the following footnote:
Totals include 7 corporations paying $18,007 in taxation, grouped to conceal net income and identity of taxpayers.
That footnote to my mind is most extraordinary. The fact is worthy of comment that even in our official figures there is an arrangement made so as to conceal the identity of large income taxpayers and the amounts paid by them. That principle to my mind is wrong. We are told this country belongs to the people, and yet when we came to matters of taxation we find the taxes are loaded upon only a few people. What are the great majority of these taxes collected for? They are collected so that we may turn them over to those people who during

or since the war managed to secure, a mortgage on the country. I have often thought that this government is nothing more or less than a vast debt collecting agency operating to collect from the poor people or the people of moderate means moneys to be turned over to the wealthy people. We are making provision not only to enable these wealthy people to retain their wealth but to enable them to secure more wealth.
I wish I had time to go into the moral side of this question, but I am afraid that upon this occasion, I cannot do so. In the earlier part of my address I ventured to quote from eminent authorities who had made statements regarding the moral issues involved. I think the time has come about when we shall have to definitely challenge the right of the rich to hold money in their possession at a time when other people are suffering.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must remind the hon.
member that his time has expired.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to say a few words on the amendment and also to make a few comments with respect to the budget. I shall direct my remarks more particularly to the conditions of distress and unemployment which prevail at the present time. I must say I was somewhat disappointed when no relief measures were mentioned in the budget, and I was further disappointed in the knowledge that greater burdens have been placed upon the shoulders of the Canadian people through the recent changes brought down by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I was particularly pleased with the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) because I believe he touched upon matters which since the beginning of the session have not been discussed as fully as they might have been.
Before passing on to my remarks concerning the unemployment situation I should like to say a few words regarding the remarks of my hon. friend from Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) concerning the Canadian National Railways. I do not intend to go very fully into the figures, but I for one feel that the ill-timed remarks of the hon. member with respect to the Canadian National Railways should not be allowed to go unchallenged. I am sorry the hon. member is not in his seat, because I wished particularly to remind him that as a lawyer he ought to know there are always two sides to a question.. One side has been ably presented by my hon. friend,

The Budget

Mr. Reid
and I shall attempt to present the other side. I should like to remind him when he talks about public ownership as opposed to private ownership, and about the position of the Canadian Pacific Railway as a business concern opposed to the position of the Canadian National Railways-


Mr. GOTT:: The hon. member (Mr. Hackett) is in his seat.


Thomas Reid: My hon. friend from Stanstead seemed to feel that from a business standpoint the Canadian Pacific Railway stood in a much better position to-day than the Canadian National Railways. May I remind him however that if the Canadian Pacific Railway were to-day called upon to pay back to this country what this country has given it that railway would not be in the happy position described by my hon. friend. I would remind him also that when the Canadian National Railways were first organized they filled a need which had been long felt in the minds of Canadian people.


John Thomas Hackett: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Thomas Reid: Yes.


John Thomas Hackett: Will he tell the house
how many acres of land were given to the Canadian Pacific Railway and how many acres of land were given to the constituent companies of the Canadian National Railways?


Thomas Reid: Well, I know they gave the Canadian Pacific Railway too much.


John Thomas Hackett: But not as much as was given to the Canadian National Railways.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, the interest my hon. friends opposite are taking shows that I have hit upon a popular subject. All hon. members will recall the arrogant attitude of the Canadian Pacific Railway employees in (he day when there was only one large railway in Canada. We were told in those days where we had to market our beef and our other products. Cars were held up for weeks and our stock could not be shipped owing to the fact that there was only one railroad. But what do we have to-day? When we go to the Canadian Pacific Railway it is, "Yes, sir," and "Yes, please," and so on. The different attitude now taken by the Canadian Pacific Railway officials is due entirely to the competition offered by the government owned Canadian National Railways.
As one of the new members, here for the first year, and one who has listened attentively to practically every speech made since parliament opened, I must say that it sounded just a little strange to me when I listened to hon. members opposite who, when the distress of the common people was being referred to, stated, and oftentimes shoulted across the floor of the house, "What did the Liberal party do during the last nine years?" Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal party did not realize the gravity of the economic distress last year, and did not take steps such as the right hon. Prime Minister said they ought to have taken, more especially as he himself has said he had warned them of what was coming; if, as has been said, the Liberal party was at fault-and I am not quite prepared to admit that-what shall the condemnation be of the present administration who, prophesying all the calamities now in existence as the result of the rule of the Liberal party, and who, with unemployment greater now than at any period in our history, knowing also that the general distress of the people is very great indeed in some parts of Canada, if not throughout the whole of our country; knowing as I say all these matters, what shall be said of the present administration who, to quote scripture, when the people cried for bread, gave them a stone? Because, Mr. Speaker, I find nothing in the budget to help the masses of our people who are in want to-day, and who, in their distress have been looking to the government as never before, for some measure of assistance.
Many times in this house, quotations of the right hon. Prime Minister's speeches which he made during the election of last year, have been cited regarding some of the promises made to the people of this country, especially with regard to unemployment. I would just like to point out at this time, Mr. Speaker, the very seriousness of all such promises made to the people of Canada and to point out to hon. members the seriousness of all utterances and promises made on the public platform by either the Prime Minister or by whoever happens to be leader of the opposition. The-average member of parliament or the average person running for office may at times make rash promises which perhaps are only applicable to the local districts concerned. But the utterances or promises of the Prime Minister or of the leader of the opposition are taken much more seriously by the people as a whole because they speak as it were with some authority. When the country is in a fairly prosperous condition such promises are easily and oftentimes forgotten and are not taken as seriously as I
The Budget-Mr. Reid

believe they should be. But, when the nation is in a distressed condition, when thousands are seeking work and many persons have no food or clothing or shelter of any kind, and when the great majority of fanners are also in distress and in need, the promises of either the Prime Minister or of the leader of the opposition are taken very literally by the people, and they expect that any promises so made will be carried out. There is absolutely no doubt that thousands of people throughout Canada were looking for someone who would at least help them in their serious difficulties, and so when the present Prime Minister and others of his government spoke from one end of Canada to the other in no uncertain language saying, "We will end unemployment''1-"work for every ablebodied man and woman who wants to work."-the people throughout Canada accepted those plain statements as a solution of their trouble. Here was at last someone or some party who would remedy their economic ills.
Hon. members opposite say, "Oh, we did not intend to end unemployment in eight months or even in one year. Give us time." But, Mr. Speaker, the people throughout this country accepted literally the very definite words of the Prime Minister and others and fully expected that he would accomplish what he and they said they would do, namely, end unemployment, now-not next year, or the year after, but if and when elected. That was the understanding of the people of this country, that was the way they understood the utterances, and the Prime Minister's words were so definite and so plain that at the time they were spoken no one was in any doubt as to their meaning. However, Mr. Speaker, there does exist no doubt now in the minds of the common people as to what he meant; they know now that those promises meant less than nothing. And the bitterness and disappointment felt by many of those who are to-day in terrible financial straits and in poverty can best be realized by those of us who have daily dealings with the farmers and the workers, or with those who would be glad to work if only work could be given them. I believe that a very grievous injustice has been imposed on the people by such utterances and the failure to fulfil those promises, and that failure has had far reaching effects on the morale of the people of this country since the election of last year.
The confidence of the common people in the rulers of this country has been shaken

to an extent never before realized in the history of Canada, and I have no hesitation in stating, Mr. Speaker, that the idle promises made to the unemployed and to the farmers of this country by the Prime Minister which promises in large measure gained them control or power, have had far more serious effect on the minds and the morale of many people throughout Canada than any socialist propaganda could possibly have.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a new member of the house, may I inquire if we are to be permitted to read our speeches in their entirety?
Mr. SPEAKER,: The point is well taken. The house will recollect that I called attention to the matter a few days ago. It is no more in order to read from a prepared speech lying on the desk than from one held in the hand.


Thomas Reid: I am very glad the point has been raised, Mr. Speaker. After your ruling an hon. member on the other side addressed the house and I observed him very carefully. I am now endeavouring to follow his method.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Surely the hon. gentleman is mistaken. No hon. member , has read his speech since I made those observations while I have been presiding. And it is none the less the rule, even if it was violated on the occasion referred to.


Thomas Reid: But, Mr. Speaker, I believe I am following my notes just as closely as he was. I respect your ruling, sir.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I may remind the hon. gentleman that smart remarks do not alter the rule.


James Herbert Stitt: The reason that I raise the point of order is that the hon. member-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. Sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The point has been raised and my ruling is that it was well taken.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: May I speak on the point of order, sir? I understand that any hon. member is permitted by the rules of the house to refer to extended notes.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: What point of order is the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) raising?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am referring to the misconception created by the

The Budget-Mr. Reid
point of order raised by the hon. member opposite.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) raised a point of order which was well taken, and it has been dealt with. I am at a loss to understand the observations of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was
asking if it is not correct that the rule permits any hon. member to speak from extended notes?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre is quite correct in that assumption.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank
you.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, it has been repeatedly stated by members to your right that no solution has been offered by hon. members on this side. I may state that very many suggestions have been made by hon. members from this side of the house, but it would seem that any suggestions so made fall on deaf ears. I believe that the right hon. the Prime Minister would have been well advised to study some of the methods adopted by countries such as Great Britain. The laws enacted in that country have had the effect of directly distributing her wealth more evenly amongst the forty some odd million people, without impoverishing the resources or the great wealth of the country.
The British government went after the wealthy millionaires, taking the bulk of the taxes from those that had the greater surplus of wealth. The right hon. Prime Minister, however, has taken a very different method. By the budget recently brought down his policy is to tax the masses more than ever, and allow the very wealthy to get still wealthier. We have in this country great wealth, wonderful natural resources and plenty for all, but it is held in the hands of too few of our people.
In the new budget and one which he says himself had been the only budget brought down in a great number of years, the bulk of taxation is most certainly placed on those least able to bear it, and the money barons, amongst whose numbers members of the present government I believe, can be counted, and who, Mr. Speaker, are in a class by themselves-these have been relieved to some extent of the taxes they formerly paid, and which had been imposed on them by the Liberal party, and which I maintain they could very well afford to pay out of the abundance of the wealth they have and control. The Conservative party is certainly running true to form; the very wealthy, it seems, must be protected. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to read you something to show what they have done with millionaires in Great Britain-and in passing I would observe that no country has been such a bulwark against what is termed bolshevism or against revolution as the mother country has been; that land where such things as free speech and unemployment insurance, coupled also with the taking of the surplus wealth from the millionaires and giving it back to the people, have done a great deal to maintain the country in the wonderful position in which we find it to-day. And that, after passing through the terrible conditions of the war, with its after effects. The mother country has always taken an interest in the welfare of the masses.
The article from vrhich I am going to quote appeared in the Vancouver Province of March 29 and reads thus:
Millionaires are fast dying out in British Isles. High taxation, reducing numbers at rate of nearly two a month.
London, March 28.-Twenty-five years hence, a wealthy Britou-the kind of man who can write you a cheque for a million pounds-will be world-famous whether he wishes it or not. He will be the last millionaire in the country. Enormously rich men are fast dying out in the British Isles, so rapidly are they losing their great possessions at the hands of those grim despoilers, who have their dens in the
inland revenue departments	However,
the national wealth is still growing in spite of the decline of the super-rich. There are 50,000 more income taxpayers now than there -were a year ago. Taxation may be redistributing wealth, but it does not seem to be diminishing it. Still, even yet, there is a wonderful concentration of money and its equivalents in the hands of a very small group of people in Britain.
In that country, Mr. Speaker, a man is termed a millionaire if he has over $250,000 a year; and a man with an income of $750,000 contributes $350,000 of that amount to the state. Yet the mother country is a land we are all proud of. As I say, it has been the great bulwark against revolution. I say therefore that it is about time that we in this country learned a lesson from the motherland.
I observed, Mr. Speaker, that while in his speech the Prime Minister assumed responsibility for the various measures brought down in the budget, he did not do so with respect to the changes introduced in the new income tax schedule. When, in his address, he came to the income tax changes the Prime Minister quoted the findings of Mr. Walters, saying, "We adopted his findings." Well, no wonder
The Budget-Mr. Reid

the Prime Minister hesitated in this connection, for by the changes that have been introduced the money barons of this country will be saved large sums. I just wonder what representations they made to gain that relief. I honestly believe that if ever there was a time when the millionaires should be forced to give up a part of their great surplus wealth that time is the present. I do not say all their wealth, because I do not believe in an equal distribution to all men. I do say, however, that this it a time when they should give up some of their great surplus, and I believe they will have ultimately to be gouged out of it. They will have to give part of it back to the state. In the midst of this economic blizzard we are passing through, this would have been the time for the government to have gone a long way in that direction. But as the Prime Minister said at page 2171 of Hansard, the taxes imposed should be those with which the people are most familiar. Yes, the people have been very familiar with taxes of this kind. After all, Mr. Speaker, should not the workers of the country, the people who have helped in large measure to build up this dominion, participate to a greater extent in the great wealth which they have been instrumental in creating? I believe I am safe in saying, as has been said by many before me, that without land and without labour no wealth is possible.
Let me quote from the Prime Minister's peroration with respect to the Pilgrim Fathers. The right hon. gentleman said in part:
Will not a few idle drones spoil the whole stock of laborious bees? So one idle belly, one murmurer, one complainer, one self-lover, will weaken and dishearten a whole colony. Great matters have been brought to pass, where men have cheerfully, as with one heart, hand and shoulder, gone about it, both in wars, buildings and plantations; but where every man seeks himself, all eometh to nothing.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister really believed these fine Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers. I am somewhat afraid they were empty words; because if he was sincere he would certainly not have placed the burden of taxation on those least able to bear it, without first of all going after those wealthy barons to whom I have been referring. Members of the Conservative party have protested that they must have time to solve many of the problems involved in the promises they made during the last election. Well, the greatest problem, and the most serious one, has not yet even been mentioned. The Prime Minister said that the government would end unemployment or perish in the attempt. I am afraid it is the people who are going to

perish in the attempt. The Conservative party seems to have done fairly well so far. Employment is increasing every day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Reid: Unemployment, rather. Yes,
I know hon. gentlemen opposite would like me to say that intentionally. And, Mr. Speaker, I should certainly be glad to be able to make such a statement truthfully.


Leslie Gordon Bell: But the truth will out.


Thomas Reid: You will get the truth in regard to unemployment in a few moments if you wait. Unemployment is increasing every day. This is almost the middle of the year and many cities and municipalities are at the present moment looking after hundreds of unemployed, preparing in advance to take care of those within their own borders who are likely to be up against it this winter. They have given out that only transients will be taken care of this winter owing to the fact that their resources are gone. Soup kitchens are being advocated, and many cities and municipalities intend to provide only for those who have been resident twelve months or more, so great has been the burden during the past year.
The Prime Minister called a special session last year in an endeavour to deal with the situation', and many hon. members would have us believe that something wonderful has been accomplished. While I am free to admit that had not the offer been available last winter to contribute 25 cents for every dollar spent by the municipalities, conditions would have been worse. The fact remains however that every city and municipality was forced' to borrow on future tax payments if it wanted to take advantage of that offer. Every city and municipality, in British Columbia at least, went into debt by so doing, and necessary works have had to be curtailed this year by reason of that borrowing. And, Mr. Speaker, if the same offer were made this fall-and at the present moment unemployment is quite serious and is likely to be worse this fall and winter-no city or municipality would be in a position to avail itself of that offer. It will be all that the cities and municipalities can do to provide for their usual expenditures. The government will have, to step in and provide the funds necessary and now is the time when ways and means should be discussed as to the best method to pursue and the various works and projects which should be carried on. This parliament should not prorogue without putting into effect some

The Budget-Mr. Reid
scheme to alleviate both now and this coming winter the suffering which is facing this country.
In regard to unemployment the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said: We are aware of it, and before the session ends some announcement will be made. He mentioned something about its not being a good thing to speak about this matter on account of the effect upon the morale of the people. We should not be afraid to grapple with this situation; no good will come if we refuse to meet it honestly and openly. Cities and municipalities along with public and charitable organizations cannot cope with this social disease which to my mind is almost as serious to-day as was the late war.
The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce quoted some figures to show that unemployment to-day is just as favourable as it was some years ago. However that may be, the fact remains that the figures furnished by the government show that unemployment .has increased, especially in British Columbia.


An hon. MEMBER:: And everywhere.


Thomas Reid: Unemployment is certainly
more prevalent to-day than it was last fall and it is increasing month by month.
I would like to quote from correspondence and some cuttings which have been sent to me and which refer to this serious situation. The first article is from Vernon, British Columbia, and is headed, "Bishop Urges Clergy to Investigate Conditions Cities' Jungles." Surely no hon. member will accuse this body of being partisan. The next communication is from Burnaby and is to the effect that its unemployed list has increased 25 per cent during May over the April figures. The situation is growing worse and they have no funds left for unemployment relief. The article continues:
The reeve submitted correspondence with Hon. Gideon Robertson, Minister of Labour, who stated that while relief of destitute was primarily a municipal responsibility, the government had set up a fund to assist municipalities with direct relief. But, the minister said, the fund for unemployment relief is exhausted.
I could quote many other reports from other municipalities, but at this time I do not intend to go deeply into this matter. The government of British Columbia sent out notices to the various municipalities asking if they wished to participate in the relief funds. Many municipalities sent back the reply that they were unable to take advantage of any offer in connection with which they would be called upon to contribute any money. I would direct the attention of the house to a letter which I received this morning from a 22110-157
gentleman at Aleza Lake. He wants to know how it will be possible for him to live on the wages he is receiving. This man is being paid 20 cents per hour for a nine hour day, six days per week. He draws $10.80 per week, out of which the company takes $8.81 for board. He has $1.99 per week left to send to his wife for the support of his family.
I am of the opinion that many hon. members do not fully realize the gravity of the situation. Unemployment stalks throughout the land, not only in this country but in nearly all countries of the world. Ways and means should be considered from a much wider national point of view and with the object of so changing our whole social and economic system as to cope with affairs as we find them to-day and endeavour to alleviate the sufferings of our people so as to preserve this great country from action which might be called revolutionary. It is my belief that not only is the wealth of the country in the hands of the very few to the detriment of the masses, but the hours of work should be distributed-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I regret that I am obliged to interrupt the hon. member again, but in my opinion he is violating the rule, which I think meets with the approval of the house, that speeches must not be read.


An hon. MEMBER:: He has done it right
along.


Thomas Reid: I have dealt with this question at some length because I feel it is a very serious one. Shall I be allowed to read some of these articles?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, certainly.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. member understands the rule as well as anybody else, and knows whether or not he is violating it.


Thomas Reid: The Prime Minister has
spoken many times in this house of the great courage and loyalty inherent in the Canadian people. I submit that never was that courage more strongly exemplified and that loyalty shown to greater advantage than during the past ten or twelve months. I am of the opinion that had our ten millions of people been in one province only, conditions would be much more serious than they are to-day. The fact that Canada is three thousand miles across has helped to alleviate conditions.
I will touch briefly upon the tariff, more especially in connection with the one per cent impost and the three per cent increase in the sales tax. I do not believe in the policy of attempting to have Canada live and trade within herself. That is not a sound or

The Budget-Mr. Reid

sane policy; no country can tax itself rich. A nation is similar to a person; no country can live unto itself and prosper, and neither can a person. I believe that the putting up of tariff walls is a bad policy, and if persisted in by nations will lead ultimately to war. This country should not erect a high tariff wall simply because other countries have done so. There are those who would like us to trade with Russia, while others are in favour of a complete stoppage of trade. I believe it was unwise to attempt to fight Russia economically. By that move Canada has been left high and dry in her righteousness, and it would be a brave man who would point the finger of scorn at the motherland or any other country for being wise enough to trade with Russia.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has spoken about the duty on coal, and for a moment I will discuss this particular matter. It may be that the duty on coal has been increased in order to help out certain provinces, such as Nova Scotia, but I can assure the house that the province of British Columbia is receiving no benefit. The following is a report which appeared in the Vancouver Province of May 31:
Premier Tolmie to-day put himself on record as definitely opposed to duties on bituminous coal imported into Canada. In a telegram to the federal government, he said this province would suffer from such duties which, according to Ottawa despatches, may be included in the Bennett budget on Monday. The Premier said that from what he had heard in Ottawa himself he was not at all certain that coal duties would be included in the budget, but in case any such plan is under %vay, he wants this province's views to be known in advance. He explained that a duty on American coal would be almost sure to bring retaliation from the United States, which would shut Crowsnest pass coal out of the American market and seriously damage British Columbia coal mining. "This," the Premier said, "would be a serious blow to us."
In connection with the question of coal, I should like to draw the attention of the government to the fact that Colonel Villiers says that many thousand tons of coal are entering British Columbia ports as lignite free of duty; on tests being made they are found to be bituminous and are sent out from United States points listed as subbituminous, but when they come to this country they are classified here as lignite and so enter free.


Mr. STEVENS:: Does the hon. member
object to the duty that was provided by the budget on lignite coal?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: It is on run of mine.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is on lignite and anthracite.


Thomas Reid: If there is a duty on lignite
entering Canada, I accept that statement from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but Colonel Villiers, speaking for the coal industry in British Columbia, said just the other day that this coal was coming in free as lignite.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It has been coming in
free. We have now put a duty on lignite as well as on anthracite. I asked the hon. member:	Does he object to that duty being
imposed on lignite?


Thomas Reid: No. I have doubts as to just what effect the proposed payment of five cents a bushel to the farmer on export wheat will have. I sincerely hope it will be of great help to them, but I am not sure that it will not mean more to the railway companies and to the buyers of wheat in foreign countries than to the Canadian farmers generally. We in British Columbia, instead of receiving any such help, have been further penalized to the extent of a 25 cents per bushel tax on corn from Argentina or elsewhere. Had the growers of barley been given a bonus of five cents a bushel or more on all barley shipped out of their province, or had the purchasers of grain in British Columbia been given a bonus as they should have been, in view of the exorbitant freight rates we have to pay for olir domestic supplies, we in that province could have enjoyed this with the same fervour as the wheat farmers in the prairie provinces are enjoying it, if they are doing so. But it seems that what I have previously stated is only too true: British Columbia appears to be too far away from Ottawa. It will certainly be a blow to our farmers in British Columbia when they are called upon to pay this extra 25 cents a bushel on the corn which is a very necessary part of the ration used on all farms.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Can they not use a little barley in place of corn?


Thomas Reid: If I have time, I shall be glad to go into that question, because it is evident the hon. member was never in the poultry business or he would not ask the question. I believe that some 35,000 bushels of corn entered British Columbia last year. Corn is a very necessary article. Barley has been discussed in the house, but those who argue that barley is just as good as corn as a poultry diet are evidently office farmers; they are not practical farmers. Poultrymen in British Columbia are not accustomed to using barley; they have always preferred corn because it is more palatable and in past years it has been much cheaper than barley on account of the high freight rates on barley from the prairie

Beauharnois Power Corporation
provinces. This tax of 25 cents per bushel on corn which the poultrymen will be called upon to pay will be prohibitive. This is a fine gesture after the goodwill mission that we sent down to Argentina not so long ago. It will block this channel of trade that has been nmning between the two countries.
On motion of Mr. McDade the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.42 p.m.
Wednesday, June 10, 1931