1931-07-17

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury) moved that the second and final report of the select standing committee on privileges and elections be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question yesterday of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman). Could the minister give me an answer to-day?


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. gentleman concerned a headline appearing in the newspapers, as follows:
Announcement of new duties on refined gasoline was made yesterday.
This statement is hardly correct. The value for duty of gasoline is appraised by the department from time to time, and on July 11, 1981, a bulletin was issued by the department appraising the importations of refined gasoline from various refining points in the United States. I have no doubt the hon. gentleman will find some satisfaction in the fact that the values for duty have been reduced.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Could the minister give the house the changes which have been made?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I cannot give what they were before because they were carried out to the third decimal point, but it may be of assistance to my hon. friend to read the bulletin issued on July 11. It reads as follows:
Wine
gallon
cents
Pennsylvania, New York and district,
which includes Atlantic seaboard.. ..	6-315
Toledo, Detroit, Cleveland and district. 6-928
Chicago and district	 5-828
Minneapolis and district	 6-178
Wine
gallon
cents
Wood River, St. Louis and	district..	..	5-428
Mid-Continent district, which includes the states of Oklahoma, Kansas, part of Missouri, part of Arkansas, and
north Texas	 3-678
South Texas, Louisiana	and	district..	5-228
Wyoming and district	 3-678
Montana and district	 6-678
Provided, that goods are not to be entered at less than their invoice values, nor less than the fair market value as sold for home consumption. The above prices are based on to-day's prices of crude oil in the different fields, and you will be advised of any adjustment to the above prices, due to changes in the price of crude oil.
As the price of crude oil changes, these bulletins are made up and sent to the collectors of customs. I shall be glad to hand this bulletin to my hon. friend as it may help him to understand the matter.



SAINT JOHN HARBOUR

Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the resolution standing in my name covering a loan of $3,500,000 to the Saint John harbour commissioners be discharged. As hon. members probably know, since this resolution was placed on the order paper, a tremendous fire has taken place, and it is proposed that this amount be included in a larger amount to be covered by another resolution which will be placed before the house next week.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Customs tariff-184. "Newspapers and weekly
literary papers, unbound, tailors', milliners', and mantlemakers' fashion plates, when imported in single copies in sheet form with periodical trade journals: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Customs tariff-184a. Periodical publications, in the English or the French language, consisting of magazines or fiction, unbound or paperbound, per pound: general tariff, 15 cents.
Provided, that the governor in council may from time to time by order in council exempt from the duties specified in this item such of the periodical publications herein referred to as are deemed by the governor in council to be of a religious, educational or scientific character.
Provided, further, that the rates of duty specified in this item shall not have force or effect until July 1, 1931.
Provided, further, that nothing in this item shall affect in any way the provisions of item 1201 of schedule C to the customs tariff.
3878	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Chairman, the various items have been adopted with the exception of items 184 and 184a. With respect to that we have made a very careful effort to meet certain criticisms that were urged against it, one of the principal being that the governor in council was perhaps not the best tribunal in the world to make the determinations that were called for under the item as read. It is therefore proposed to make it somewhat clearer than it read. Item 184 would read as follows:
184. Newspapers, unbound, n.o.p.; tailors', milliners' and mantlemakers' fashion plates, when imported in single copies in sheet form with periodical trade journals: magazines published in other than the French or the English language: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
That, hon. members will observe, is substantially item 184 as printed with some slight changes in the wording of the resolution. Then item 184a would read;
184a. Magazines, unbound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free.
They will thus be free under the British preferential tariff and the intermediate tariff, but not otherwise. Under item 184b these magazines are divided by the application of a new standard of division, as follows:
184b. Magazines, including agricultural, business, technical and trade journals, unbound or paper bound, which, by reason of their advertising content, are subject in the country of origin to zone rates of postage based upon such advertising content:
(i)	w'hen the space devoted to advertisements exceeds 20 per centum, but does not exceed 30 per centum of the total space, per copy: general tariff, 2 cents.
(ii)	when the space devoted to advertisements exceeds 30 per centum of the total space, per copy: general tariff^ 5 cents.
That is the application of two principles:
first, that in the country of origin the magazines are subject to a surtax or higher rate of postage by reason of their advertising content; second, the determination of what per centum of advertising shall subject them to a given standard or rate of duty. The next division is 184c:
184c. Magazines in which the advertising matter does not exceed 20 per centum of the total space: general tariff, free.
Lastly, to meet a difficulty to which I shall presently refer, we would have 184d:
184d. Periodicals or portions of newspapers consisting largely of fiction and/or feature stories or articles and/or, comic supplements, per pound: general tariff, 15 cents.
(The Chairman.]
Provided, that the duty under this tariff item shall be not less than, per copy: general tariff, 15 cents.
Provided, that nothing in tariff items 184, 184a, 184b, 184c or 184d shall affect in any way the provisions of item 1201 of schedule C to the customs tariff.
This is the item in the customs tariff providing for censorship and for the prohibition of magazines and newspapers that fall within the category mentioned.
Provided, further, that the governor in council may make such regulations as are deemed necessary to carry out the provisions of tariff items 184, 184a, 184b, 184c and 184d.
Provided, further, that the rates of duty specified in tariff items 184b and 184d shall be effective on and after the first day of September, 1931.
Some question has been raised as to when this should become effective; but inasmuch as magazines with a circulation of 1,000,000 copies or more have to commence printing a month or six weeks before the actual issue, in fairness to such magazines the date of the coming into effect of these items has been made the first day of September next.
May I say to the committee that the matter has not been free from difficulties. For the last twenty-five or thirty years Canada has imposed a tax by way of a tariff upon advertising matter. That tariff amounts to fifteen cents per pound or not less in any event than 35 per cent ad valorem. But amazing as it may sound, that class of advertising that was most potent, namely, the advertising in the magazines, periodicals and newspapers to which I have referred, has been free from the collection of any tariff with respect to advertising. Our great neighbour to the south early learned that it was undesirable to let this condition continue, and so they provided first of all that there should be a tax imposed upon advertising in such periodicals or publications; second, that wherever the amount of advertising exceeded 5 per cent, a graduated rate should apply. That rate was determined by the zone distances that established the rate in parcel post transportation or transmission. These rates are as follows:
Per pound
First and second, up to 150 miles. 1| cents
That is in addition to the ordinary postal rate of one and one-half cents, this being second class matter.
Per pound
Third, from 150 to 300 miles.. ..	2 cents
Fourth, 300 to 600 miles	 3 cents
Fifth, 600 to 1,000 miles	 4 cents
Sixth, 1,000 to 1,400 miles	 5 cents
Seventh, 1,400 to 1,800 miles.. ..	6 cents
Eighth, over 1,800 miles	 7 cents

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
As I observed a moment ago, these are the rates charged for parcel post transmission within the United States. It has been found in the United States that the publications which we are seeking to reach by these items average approximately 45 per cent of advertising matter, and the average charge of postage	paid as	a surtax	amounts	to notquite two and one-half cents but 2-45 cents. It will be observed that the rate is slightly higher than the rate we have fixed because we realize the tremendous hold that such publications have upon this country. The circulation is tremendous; as a matter of fact, the ' sum total of the various publications amounts to 1,400,000 copies per issue, as against less than 950,000 of our own. I was recently	reading	a rather	extensive	articleupon the subject and I was somewhat amazed at the extent to which these publications have found a	home in	Canada.Then	there is	another	class altogether.
There is a class which we reach by censorship and a very large number of those publications have been placed under the ban by reason of article 1201 of our tariff, which is the prohibition article to which I referred a moment ago. But there is a class that one would hardly describe as coming within the exact language of the words used in that article, but which is most offensive to a very considerable number of the Canadian people. It was found that the imposition of a high rate of duty would accomplish the end aimed at and in the budget resolution the rate was stated at fifteen cents per pound, which is the rate that will continue.
In the resolution we have endeavoured to be fair, because it is rather late in the day that this action is being taken. It is amazing that we should have continued all these years to tax ordinary advertising and yet permit this form of advertising to remain free from any tariff charge. I have never quite been able to understand just why this is so; I suspect there are many reasons with which I am not familiar, but at any rate, that is the fact. If other countries are right in making this charge on advertising content, I think it cannot be said that we ape treating the matter unfairly by endeavouring to secure some revenue from it ourselves, but we must, as I have said, endeavour to be fair for we have so long continued not to collect any revenue. Therefore, instead of adopting the principle that has been adopted in the United States,
of charging for advertising content beyond 5 per cent, we have left the advertising content up to 20 per cent free from this tariff charge. On advertising content from 20 to 30 per cent we have made the charge, as I have indicated, two cents per copy, but when the space devoted to it exceeds 30 per cent, then the rate is five cents per copy. I read to the committee the rates prevailing by way of surtax in the United States, showing that for transmission of a magazine of the class indicated, where the advertising was in excess of 30 per cent, the rate from the east to San Francisco would be seven cents per copy in addition to the ordinary postage. I think, therefore, it cannot be said that this is in any sense an unfair impost.


Mr. EULER:: Is the tax going to be imposed on a monthly basis, because the quantity of advertising will vary from month to month?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend from
North Waterloo has asked me- the same question upon which I sought information when I was giving consideration to this matter, and I found that in the United States the publishers are compelled to file with the post office in the community in which the magazine is published a statement of the reading content and the advertising content of each issue as it leaves the press, and that determines the matter so far as they are concerned. In some instances you will find a copy from the press containing 45 or 50 per cent advertising content and 55 or 50 per cent reading content. In this item you will find the words, "which by reason of their advertising content are subject in the country of origin to zone rates of postage based upon such advertising content." That is, magazines which are not published in this country but come in here and have a wide circulation must, in order to fall within the provisions of that item of the tariff, be such as are subject to zone rates by reason of their advertising content. We apply the same principle, with the modification that we have been slightly more generous than in the country of origin for a reason which I think is not difficult to see, and which I think will appeal to the committee. That is, we have no zone system in this country. So in a broad and general way we have sought an average which I think the committee will agree is fairly represented by the charges that are made.
3880	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The right hon. the Prime Minister has removed so much by way of exception that I find it rather difficult to realize what is left of the original resolution. The resolution as introduced was almost in the nature of an embargo on periodicals and magazines coming from the United States and other countries to this country, and as such it seemed to me to be a tax on thought and literary art. The protest that I wish to make at the moment is against a tax of that character. If the effect of the amendments, which my right hon. friend has just moved, has been to eliminate the greater part of the original resolution, I have little further to say; but as originally introduced, the resolution amounted, as I have said, so far as it concerned magazines and periodicals coming to this country from abroad, to all but a complete embargo, and to that extent to a prohibition upon thought and ideas conveyed through those media to the people of this country.
May I say that thought, as hon. members well know, is cosmopolitan. It should have mo limitation with respect either to place or time. All advances that are made in civilization are the result of ideas, and in any way to preclude the possibility of a good idea having its opportunity of fruition to the full in any quarter is to retard to that extent the progress of civilization itself. In these days there is probably nothing more important than what we now describe as the international mind, that effch nation should begin to appreciate the intellectual ideals and currents of thought that prevail and sway opinion in other countries. Viewed in this light the tax becomes a tax upon international good will. So far as our immediate neighbours are concerned, I venture to say that their thought on the great questions of the day finds its expression in the leading periodicals and publications' of the United States. I believe it is all in the interests of international good will that the people of our country should become as familar as possible with the trends of thought in the United States on all classes of questions, just as it is all important that our neighbours should also become acquainted with our trends of thought and thereby in a more immediate way become familiar with the thought which governs British communities generally. I dleplore any tax which will in any way restrict the widest spread of views and ideas throughout communities, particularly communities that are neighbours.

May I say further that it seems to me a tax of this kind is doing an injustice to our own authors and writers. My right hon. friend has sitting immediately behind him one who has distinguished himself as an author, and only a few days ago in this House of Commons he made the statement that but for the fact that he had been able to place some of his writings in the United States he doubted very much whether they would have found a market at all. If my right hon. friend is going to tax the magazines that come into this country from the United States, I venture to say that it will not be long before American publishers will cease taking contributions from the pens of Canadian authors and poets. Many of our writers have won distinction not only for themselves but for our country through their contributions to some of the large publications in the United States, and an inevitable reaction, it seems to me, to a tax of this kind will be the refusal hereafter by some of these publications of the work of some of the best writers in Canada. In that respect the tax would be a great mistake. How great a mistake no one will ever know, because none of us can value the thing which might have been but which is not because of certain circumstances.
May I mention another fact which comes to my mind, and that is the effect which this tax may have upon tourist travel? That may seem remote, but as we all know the tourist traffic from the United States into Canada is becoming a very important item in the revenues of this oountry. Tourists particularly desire when away from home to receive the publications which they are accustomed to read in their own country, and I do not believe it is stretching the point too far to assume that if our American friends travelling in different parts of Canada find that they can no longer secure at a book store, a hotel or anywhere else, copies of the publications they have been accustomed to read at home, they will prefer in the future a trip to some of their own national parks or * other fields of recreation to coming to Canada. Those are indirect effects, which nevertheless are quite important.
Again, American magazines and periodicals in some part use Canadian newsprint in the preparation of their material for publication, and to the extent to which my right hon. friend's tax operates against some of these magazines coming into Canada, he is dealing

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
a blow to the pulp and paper industry of this country, on the product of which our neighbours to the south are in large part dependent.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Is my
right hon. friend quite sure of that statement? I understand that magazine paper bears a duty of 40 per cent in the United States, and that very little of it is exported to the United States from Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot give
the particulars, but I am making a statement which I think is generally accurate. There is always the possibility of conditions changing with respect to importations of paper, and at any moment the American magazines may become more dependent on Canadian paper than ever. To the extent to which that is the case anything which will restrict the sale of these publications will I believe be injurious.
May I point out another feature, one which to my mind is the most important of any. So far as the well-to-do are concerned, the difference of a few cents on a magazine or periodical would be a matter -of no concern. This change will not affect the homes of those who are already in fortunate circumstances. However if there is one right above another which the poor man is entitled to have respected, it is that he shall be able to get at the lowest possible cost his sources of knowledge and inspiration, and that there shall be available to him immediately, and through the libraries of the country anything in the nature of helpful reading material and literature. I venture to say that in many humble homes in this land the first sacrifice which because of additional cost will have to be made as a result of the general depression will be magazines and periodicals which come from across the line into our country and which have served as* sources of information and inspiration in the different homes of Canada. Particularly will that be so in many of the more remote parts of the country and in the libraries of institutions not supported by the state, but which depend upon private contributions and grants to secure their different publications.
I do not wish to specialize, because as I 3ay if between now and September 30, was it?-


Richard Bedford Bennett: September 1.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, Septemoer 1. If between now and September 1, the Prime Minister strikes off the list of the original resolution all the publications of any
importance, of course my objection would be wholly removed. I submit however that there again my right hon. friend has made a mistake characteristic of him in that at the very start he attempts to do everything in a wholesale manner, and after he has shaken up as much as possible the existing order of things he endeavours to remedy the situation by making changes and eliminations. I do not think that is a good policy for industry', nor in this instance is it good for the social and literary life of the country. With respect to taxes in other directions his action has been definitely harmful to the financial and industrial structure of the country.
I do submit that my right hon. friend in the first instance might well have gone through the list of magazines and periodicals and have come to the house with a list of those publications which because of their pernicious or salacious nature, he thought should be prohibited. He might have prohibited, with the consent of all, publications of a type that we do not wish to have in Canada. So far as pernicious and salacious literature is concerned I am entirely at one with the Prime Minister in a desire to prevent its spread. I believe, however, that the better way to deal with that sort of literature is the method which has been adopted in the past, namely to have some known form of censorship which under the minister will be responsible for the decisions made, and have all such publications banned entirely. I would go a step further and say that there are publications in our own country which might well be suppressed and which should not be permitted to find a place on vendors' stalls. So far as that class of literature is concerned, I am entirely in accord with my right hon. friend in his desire for its suppression.
With respect to all other classes of literature however I think the people themselves should be left to choose for themselves what they may wish to read. As I said to my right hon. friend the other day, I do not doubt the sincerity of his desire to be a protector of this nation with respect to what people shall pay, what they shall eat and what they shall wear-and now, with respect to what they shall read and think-but I do submit that the people themselves are much more capable of judging what they should read, what they have the right to read and what they wish to read than is my right hon. friend.
That voices not only my own feelings but those I believe of all hon. members who sit on this side of the house. The proposed tax is one upon art, because after all art is a
3882	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
result of the expression of ideas. It is a tax upon invention, because invention is the offspring of ideas. To my way of thinking it is more or less of a tax upon everything which makes for progress.
I suppose we shall have to wait until September to see the extent of this tax upon the literature and periodicals coming into Canada from the United States and other countries. I know there is something to be said in connection with what the Prime Minister has expressed with regard to advertising. If advertising from other countries coming into Canada can be taxed in Canada, I think it should be taxed to the degree the same kind of advertising is taxed in Canada. I am afraid, however, my right hon. friend will find that not only will he fail to raise the revenue he hopes to raise from this particular source of taxation, but he will lose a considerable amount of money in revenue, and in the end will be obliged to cancel a good deal of what he is attempting to do at the moment. As 1 have said we will wait until September to see what he allows to come into the country. In this connection may I say to him I do hope he will act from the Liberal point of view and not the Conservative when he considers what constitutes scientific, educational and religious publications, which, I believe, are the three types of publications to be exempted. May I point out that While many imported magazines are not distinctly religious, nor scientific nor educational in character, vet in the broad sense of the words they are all three, because they are, to an appreciable degree, a composite of the thought of a nation.


Mr. YOUNG:: Mr. Chairman, with respect
to people living in remote districts away from news stands who subscribe for these magazines, what arrangements are made for the clearance through customs every week as they come in?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not apprehend any
clearance will be made through customs. The proprietors will pay the duties before the magazines come into Canada, or as they pass the boundary.
I am sorry I was not in k position to hand this amendment to my right hon. friend before the house met. As a matter of fact I was not able to complete it until just before lunch. The officials of the department and myself were busy all morning with the amendment because it was desired that it should operate with as little inconvenience as possible to everybody. I think my right hon. friend has not quite appreciated the full importance of the change. It was because of certain ob-

jections made to the Minister of Finance and the government of the day becoming the judges of what people should read that it has been dealt with in the manner indicated by the changes themselves. It can be no longer said that the governor in council will determine what is religious, what is scientific or what is educational. The matter is placed upon another basis altogether. Particularly there are three classes which we have to consider: First, that class, with respect to the importation of which into the country there is no question raised at all. Those are the magazines that supply food for thought. I will not mention them by name because that might be taken as being in some sense an erroneous thing to do. But they are the great monthly periodicals, they are the digests of thought that contain very little or no advertising matter. Those will continue to come in free. Then there is the second class, which is mainly of a type that we would prefer not to have. It divides itself in turn into two great subdivisions: (a) those that are principally advertising material; and (b) those that contain reading of such a type that it is better out of the country than in it, and as to the advisability of its importation into this country the right hon. gentleman agrees entirely with myself and I with him.
Now I put this to my right hon. friend. If in the country of origin it is thought desirable to tax the advertising in those journals or periodicals or publications, the reading matter of which cannot be excelled, when they are also carrying advertising according to their own statements that is referable to Canada, why should not we also receive from them some revenue? Every argument that my right hon. friend has made as to taxation imposed upon thought and literature applies to the country of origin, only the tax is higher there. The tax, however, is-absorbed largely by the publishers in the country of origin, and we believe that in most instances the two cents and five cents will be absorbed by the publishers here. For instance, the journal or periodical sold at five cents in the United States is sold at ten cents here-we will say it is sold in New York at five cents and at the same price in San Francisco-and the postal charge to California is seven cents. If the journal is sold at ten cents here, why should not that extra five cents be absorbed by the publisher? That would be an illustration of what I mean. Owing to the fact that we have no zone system in Canada in connection with postal rates-and personally at the moment I think with our limited population it would be very undesirable to have

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
chat, and in this respect I agree with the former administration-we cannot secure revenue from this advertising through the postal department, and this is the only method by which, so far as we can see, it is possible to secure revenue.
I will not repeat myself. We are desirous of causing as little inconvenience as possible, and therefore our desire was to approach this problem not in the reckless, ruthless manner described by my right hon. friend, but rather to approach it from the standpoint of moderation, and a charge of two cents or five cents cannot be said to be immoderate when in the country of origin the advertising material is taxed seven cents.


Mr. NEILL:: Is that five cents per pound, or per issue?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Per copy in this instance; in that instance it is seven cents a pound, but in many cases the journals in question weigh a pound and a quarter and sometimes a pound and a half. My right hon. friend perhaps has misunderstood me. There was no revenue derived from this source before, except the revenue from the postal department in connection with the transmission of these periodicals through the mails. This is new revenue, whatever it may be, much or little.
Might I also point out that the efforts to secure some revenue from this source is the more warranted because in the very journals themselves they state that by reason of there being American branch industries or factories in this country, the advertising carried in their journals, which have a circulation of 1,400,000 copies per issue-that is the sum total of the single issues of the most important of these journals-this advertising medium in this country-Canada-is so important and their rates are so reasonable that they can cater to the Canadian demand, although they publish abroad and make no contribution to our wellbeing, except the contribution I have mentioned through the postal department.
Now my right hon. friend has raised four or five points that are worthy of consideration. He said, first of all, thought is universal, and there should be no restriction on its transmission. With respect to that I think it will be found that there is no departure from the general rule in this country with regard to the publications in question more than there is in the country of their origin, and the great magazines and digests that supply the seed-thought for so many will still enter without payment of duty. I think, so far as is reason-22110-247
ably possible, we have endeavoured to meet that very situation to which the right hon. gentleman referred.
Dealing with the next point, namely, the question of the interference with authors and making it impossible for them to sell the product of their brain, their mind, their thought, their pen, I can only say this: I do not believe, despite what the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) has said of their already having done so, that any great, reputable magazine or publication will decline to accept the products of the mind and thought of a Canadian because the Dominion of Canada sees fit to place upon the entrance into this country of the medium through which that thought is disseminated a lesser tax than that which is imposed in the country of origin. I have yet to believe that that is so. On the other hand, I am inclined to think it will have the effect of stimulating the demand for the product of the mind and thought of Canadians.
On the newsprint item I was rather amazed at the right hon. gentleman. It is one of the interesting circumstances to which many of us have alluded that while the great republic [DOT] to the south permits our pulp and paper and newsprint to enter free into their markets because they need the raw material, if we tried to sell them a pound of magazine paper we would find ourselves confronted with a forty per cent tariff. So that so far as selling them magazine paper is concerned, we practically sell them none, nor is it possible for us to do so. But with respect to pulp-I think that perhaps is what the right hon. gentleman meant-there are importations into the United States from this country to be worked up into magazine paper, and I am bound to say that some quantities of that pulp have been reimported into this country in the form of the finished article. But I do not think they will cease to buy our pulp, because we have taken some of the profits from the publisher in the form of a contribution to the revenues of the country that transports the magazine thousands of miles at the same rate as it does ten miles, there being no zone system here as there is there. So for a great publication of one hundred pages, of which fifty is advertising matter, we in Canada, transporting it through the mails for ten miles, would receive exactly the same sum as for transmitting it from Niagara Falls to Vancouver or Victoria. This remedies that condition and provides that the principle which applies in the country of origin, namely, the imposition of a tax based upon a zone system shall be recognized

am	commons
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
by the payment of a sum per copy which represents an average sum that might fairly be contributed to the revenues of this country.
Then my right hon. friend has made the suggestion that this discriminates against the poor man. If he will read that schedule with care he will find that every thought-provoking publication, as distinguished from publications for pure amusement, pleasure or recreation, will still have access to this country without the payment of any charge whatever. The only limitation imposed in the first instance is that the advertising contained must not exceed 20 per cent.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I ask how that 20 per cent is computed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I explained that to my right hon. friend before the hon. gentleman came in. In most countries, and certainly in the great republic to the south, the publishers must lodge in the post office in the town of origin a copy marked plainly upon the back with the reading and advertising content.


Mr. IRVINE:: I understand the tax will be imposed on the basis of the weight of the paper in the magazine?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not by weight; by the copy.


William Irvine: Then my question is answered.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: In a general way I must endorse what was said by the leader of the opposition. With regard to the advertising, I am not sure that this end could not be reached in some other way than by interfering with the reading material. As I see it- and I, together with the other members of the committee, have not had a chance to study the modification proposed-the literature must be divided into three broad classes.
First there is the objectionable literature, which undoubtedly should be shut out entirely. The whole point there is what is objectionable, and I have very serious doubts as to whether we are wise to entrust censorship powers to a department. I know that at present an officer of the department reads books and rejects a certain number, and there are certain instances in which I find myself somewhat of a different view from that of the censor, if I might call him such. On the whole I have no particular quarrel with the work he has done, but it does seem to me that we should set up some sort of appeal board so that one man, unknown to the general public, sitting in his own closed office, should not have the right to shut out literature that might be adjudged perfectly decent by a great many people throughout the country. I think if we must have a censorship we

should have some sort of board of appeal to which might be referred matters in dispute. I would respectfully make that suggestion to the Prime Minister for his consideration when-he is considering future arrangements. There are certain matters verging on religion which are very objectionable to some parts of the community but which are considered quite innocuous by other sections. There are certain matters relative to sex on which certain members of the community have very strong ideas while other members look at the subject in a very different light. I do not think that in these matters we should leave the decision entirely in the hands of one man, however good he may be.
I am not very clear with respect to the second class of literature I have in mind; I refer to what we generally regard as to the better and more educational magazines. The Prime Minister has said that all thought-provoking magazines will be permitted free entry. There are certain magazines which are very popular with a good many of the women in our homes, such as Good Housekeeping and the Ladies Home Journal. I do not know whether or not these would be admitted free. I do not read them a great [DOT] deal, but I think they contain a good many thought-provoking articles. I know a good many housewives have been accustomed to read these magazines for the information they obtain therefrom. It is true that these magazines cany a good deal of advertising material, and as far as I am concerned I think there is a good deal of nonsense in them, but at the same time I believe thousands upon thousands of women across this country welcome magazines of this kind, and I do not think they should be excluded by heavy taxation. I am afraid they will not come under the thought-provoking classification of the Prime Minister.
There is another class about which I am not clear; I refer to magazines such as Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. These again are magazines which are welcomed in our homes by our boys, who are very keen to read what has been done in the way of invention and what are the latest discoveries of science. I do not know whether or not these would be classed as educational. If they are not so classed I think they should be regarded as such. It is true that they contain an enormous amount of advertising; I have often wished that they did not contain so much, but along with that advertising there is a great amount of good material which appeals to our boys, so I think that they should be admitted free.
3S85

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Then there are those other magazines such as The Literary Digest, The Atlantic, The New Republic, The Nation, The Forum, American Foreign Affairs and a number of others. I do not know whether they come under the Prime Minister's classification of thought-provoking magazines. I find some of those quite informative and thought-provoking, and it seems to me that decidedly they should be admitted to this country and given as wide a circulation as possible. At this stage of our development, with only ten million people in our coimtry, of whom three million speak French as their mother tongue and two or three million more who have come recently from Europe and have not acquired a good knowledge of the English language, and hence are not capable of reading magazines of that kind, I submit that the English speaking constituency in Canada is altogether too limited for us to hope to publish magazines of that class in this country. I know we have a Canadian Forum published in Toronto and several quarterly magazines such as the Queens Quarterly, the Dalhousie Review and others connected with the universities which are doing excellent work, but we cannot hope to have published in Canada those semi-popular magazines which deal with economic and political questions. They have a hard enough time to keep them going in the United States; it is only because they have people who are philanthropically inclined and who come to the rescue from time to time with large donations that certain of these magazines and papers keep alive even in the United States, where the reading public is so much larger than in Canada. I would hope that magazines of this class would be admitted free. Here again I suppose the difficulty is that many of these magazines carry considerable advertising matter. None the less they are decidedly educational in character.
There is, in addition, that other class of magazine which I think the Prime Minister will agree we should prefer not to have our people read. They are for entertainment and recreational purposes. Some of them do not provide a very high type of entertainment, but I do not know that we should try to exclude them. If our people have not been educated to the point where they themselves reject such magazines; if they are still at the grade 3 or grade 4 stage of development, where they like to read these things, I do not know that we should shut them out. It must be remembered, after all, that most of our people like to see the movies, which, on the whole, do not demand a very great deal of
22110-247J
intelligence, so why should we attempt to keep out literature of this kind when we let in the movies which appeal to intelligence of the same degree of development? I do not know that they appeal to any lower ideals than do the movies. I do not know why people who may be said to have somewhat highbrow notions should undertake to educate forcibly the great masses of the people, and why they should refuse to allow the people to read that which they like to read for purposes of recreation. I am told that some of our men occupying very high positions like .to get hold of a detective yam once in a while. They find great recreational value in such stories. It is true that some of us would like to see our young people reading other classes of literature but I do not think such lighter magazines should be rigidly excluded. I was .talking the other day to a bookstall man in Ottawa, and he told me if this legislation went through that he would have to shut up his shop because there are not enough Canadian magazines to supply the needs of the people or make it worth while to keep a magazine counter open.
There are many people who like to read those magazines which many of us do not regard as being of the highest educational character, but I think we should be very cautious in taking away from any class of people that which is of great interest to them. I protest against this particular way of raising revenue; I think almost any other way would be more desirable than the imposition of a tax on the magazines which serve either the educational or recreational needs of the people.


William Irvine: Mr. Chairman, judging from the amendments which have been moved, I am not sure whether or not I should protest against this item. I attended a convention in Wetaskiwin riding a few weeks ago at which very strenuous objections were taken to the tax on magazines. However, as I understand the amendments, most of these objections have been removed. I agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Woodsworth) that it would be a very difficult thing for either a department or the governor in council to judge what literature is religious, scientific, or educational in character. This amendment removes this necessity, and to that extent I think it will be very welcome.
As to the classification of literature which will come under this tax, I agree with both the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that it would be better if a certain class
3886	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
of literature did not come into this country. However, the deciding of what shall or shall not come in will fee faced with the difficulty which always surrounds a censorship of this character. The hon. member who preceded me stated that although a certain class of literature may not be considered as being of a high character, it suited the minds of a certain class of people and therefore should be allowed to come into the country. That same principle could be applied to salacious literature. If there are certain people whose minds are just at the stage where they enjoy salacious literature, they should have that class of literature for their own satisfaction. I mention this merely to indicate the diffi-culities which would arise under a censorship, and yet, after all, perhaps some sort of censorship of this sort of literature would be perfectly permissible.
Another objection has been removed by the amendment. The previous tax was imposed by weight rather than upon the individual periodical. Under that system of taxation the better class of magazine, generally printed on heavier paper, would have been taxed more heavily than the salacious literature which is very often printed on the cheapest and lightest grade of paper.


Edward James Young: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know whether or not the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) realizes it, but he has spoilt many excellent speeches this session by the frequent changes he has made in his budget.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change here.


Edward James Young: Some time ago we came
into the house prepared to make speeches protesting against the minister's proposed changes in the sales tax, only to find that they were not to go into effect.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a shame.


Edward James Young: Then we had prepared
speeches in connection with the changes in the income tax, but by the action taken last night we have been denied the pleasure of delivering those speeches. We had speeches prepared in connection with the magazine tax, only to find that the item has been amended. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman hoped to save time by this procedure, but I do not know.
Several reasons have been given in support of this magazine tax. We were told that it was designed to shut out the salacious and immoral literature which comes into this country from the other side. We have been told that it was designed to protect Canadian publications and keep American advertising out of this country. During my speech on 
the budget, I made that charge, but my good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) laughed and said that that was nonsense. Consideration of the amendments leads me to believe that that is really what the right hon. gentleman has in mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not to shut out American advertising, but to obtain some revenue therefrom.


Edward James Young: It is designed to shut out the magazines which carry that advertising.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Edward James Young: If the idea is to shut out immoral literature, the measures adopted will defeat their own purpose. The tax first proposed was to be so much per pound, which would have permitted the salacious literature to come in at a lower rate than the better class of literature printed on the better class of paper. The other day I went into a newstand I said, "I want the most immoral magazine you have that comes from the United States."


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Mr. STEVENS:: Why did not the hon. gentleman judge for himself?


Edward James Young: The news dealer gave me a magazine entitled Gun Molls, in which I found that the heroines of the stories are depicted as being the mistresses of Chicago gangsters. The picture on the cover is of a girl with a gun in each hand, holding up some men at a poker table. Each story deifies into heroines these girls who make their living by holding up people at the point of a gun. That magazine weighed about five ounces, and under the first arrangement would have had to pay a duty of five cents, while the Saturday Evening Post, to which no exception on moral grounds could be taken, would have had to pay a duty of from twenty to twenty-five cents. Under the terms of the amendment, as I understand them, the first magazine I mentioned would come in free.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. It will have to pay a duty of fifteen cents.


Edward James Young: There is very little advertising in it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it comes in at all it will have to pay a duty of fifteen cents.


Edward James Young: It is not censored.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman is giving good reasons why it should be. I hope no irretrievable harm has been done by the copy which the hon. gentleman has bought.


Edward James Young: In order that no irretrievable harm may be done, I will try to make sure that my right hon. friend does not get it


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I trust the hon. member is as incorruptible as he credited myself with being, a few days ago.


Edward James Young: Thank you. I should like to know who asked for this legislation. If I understand the matter aright, it was not asked for by the Canadian publishers. I have gone to the trouble to dig out from the records of the tariff advisory board exactly what the Canadian publishers asked for, and I should like to read it into the record. On October 28, 1926, the Canadian magazine publishers did ask for a duty on magazines.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is before the tariff advisory board?


Edward James Young: Yes. At that time they believed a protective tariff would be of some assistance to them. On November 18, 1927, they came before the board and in the report at page 300, reference 9B, we find these words; this is what the magazine publishers say:
The original application of the M.P.A.-
That is the Magazine Publishers Association.
-was for a tax on the advertising contents of foreign periodicals. It was made about one year ago, and since the presentation of that case and the second hearing of it, we have had some opportunity to make a survey of public and parliamentary opinion in regard to our request.
Our conclusion is that, while we have the sympathy of all Canadians, public and parliamentary, and while they think it would be desirable to restrict the importation of some foreign periodicals, at the same time it would be a dangerous thing to place a tax on reading matter. It is generally felt that the consequences implied in such a principle would be dangerous.
In the same reference, at page 302, we read:
We take the ground that this is a matter of public interest; for after all, while our case is one of equity and justice, the aspect that commands particular attention is the public welfare. The people of Canada have a right to the most efficient service the publisher can provide. They have a right to expect the publisher to give them publications comparable to anything turned out anywhere.
The only obstacle in the way of greater service which will make for the prosperity of the farming community, the working people, the consumers of Canada generally, and which will promote a true Canadian spirit, is the cost of publishing.
At page 303 of the same reference, we find the following:
I am instructed to say to the board that we cannot be protected.
This is what the magazine publishers say.
If we cannot be protected, then the minimum of service which the Canadian public have a right to expect that Canadian publishers shall give them can be secured only by their being placed on a parity of production costs with their foreign competitors.
At the hearing on January 29, 1929, at page 78 of the same reference, No. 9B, there is the following:
The publishers ask for 99 per cent drawback of duty on printing plant and machinery, art work for editorial purposes, engravings for printing in two or more colours, etc., and the removal of sales tax.
Referring to an 80 per cent drawback of the duty on fine paper, granted in February, 1928, the publishers said:
The foregoing drawback has been materially helpful to Canadian publishers in meeting foreign competition and has resulted in an expansion of the Canadian publishing industry, which was predicted in our previous representations to you.
Our application requested a 99 per cent drawback on paper and we would ask the board to keep the possibility of increase in the drawback before it.
In discussing the nature of the publishers' application, their representative said:
It is our purpose to include-we are not attempting to disguise it-everything that can be practically included. We wish to have everything possible, under the customs law, on a free trade basis.
That is what I understand the magazine publishers wanted. They said: We are willing to compete with publishers in England, the United States or anywhere else in the world if you put the things we have to buy on a free trade basis. In 19(28 the government of that day granted them a drawback of 80 per cent on their paper and some of their printing material. The result was they were able to effect enormous savings in their production costs, and those savings were put into improvements in their magazines, the consequence being that the qaulity of their publications was improved to such an extent that they were able, by selling a better article at a cheaper price, to compete more successfully with United States publications.
My right hon. friend referred to the fact that he was giving the western farmer five cents a bushel on his wheat and that no farmer in the west would be called upon to pay as much in the tariff as he would receive through that provision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If he had a reasonable crop.
3S8S	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edward James Young: How many farmers in the west will have a reasonable crop?


Richard Bedford Bennett: About 40 per cent.


Edward James Young: No change will be made in the status of the Saturday Evening Post. I believe the tax on it will still remain at fifteen cents a pound. The distributors figure that the price per copy will be forty-five cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is wrong as to that.


Edward James Young: How much will the tax come to?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think five cents a copy. .


Edward James Young: Will that be all the duty on it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Outside of the postage.


Edward James Young: The distributors figure it would retail at forty-five cents from now on. Does the right hon. gentleman say that is wrong?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no reason why it should retail at anything beyond the present price of ten cents per copy if the publishers absorb the five cents additional in Canada over the present price in the United States.


Edward James Young: I am glad to hear that. It illustrates the point I made in the beginning that the right hon. gentleman has spoiled part of my speech by changing the rates. I was going to show that the duty on that one magazine would cost the farmer more than he would get under the five-cent bounty on his entire crop for a year. The right hon. gentleman says that the cost will still be ten cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that would be my appreciation of it. I do not want the hon. gentleman to take that as a statement of fact, because I do not administer the act. It depends on the volume of advertising, the advertising content, and I have not a copy before me to enable me to say what that would be. I am answering my hon. friend's query to the best of my ability without having any definite data from the magazine itself.


Edward James Young: Judging from the amount
of advertising in that magazine, and the weight of it, I would say that the duty on it would be fifteen cents a pound.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will not come under the pound rate.


Edward James Young: I hope the officials of the
department will follow the same interpretation as my hon. friend does. My leader referred to Canadian authors who would be shut out of the United States market because of this. A friend of mine told me some time ago, within a week of the announcement of these rates on magazines, that a friend of his, who is, I understand, living in the city of Ottawa and who writes for some fifteen United Stales magazines, was notified by fourteen of them that her articles were no longer required, just because of this budget.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did they say that?


Edward James Young: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is thirdhand information, unfortunately.


Edward James Young: But I think it is pretty
nearly as first hand information as some that my right hon. friend gets.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to know what the underlying motive is of the tax which my right hon. friend has imposed. I gather that there are three objectives: one, the moral reason that this is to exclude certain classes of publications which for the moment let us say, we are all agreed upon excluding. If that be the reason, I would say it would be much better to prohibit them absolutely than to impose any tax, because people who want to read stuff of that sort will pay any price for it, or find a way of paying a considerable price. I do not think a tax is the way to deal with the matter of meeting anything which should be prohibited. It should be met by straight prohibition and exclusion.
The second is the motive of revenue. I wish my right hon. friend would tell us frankly if his reason is that of revenue, because it will be interesting to find out later how much revenue he will obtain from this particular tax. I am not taking into account what this will mean in cost of administration features by the post office and other departments. It will probably mean a good deal of increased expenditure, more than will be raised in the way of revenue. I should be glad, however, if he will indicate as in his budget speech he said should be indicated, what revenue will be obtained from this tax, and then next year we shall see how close he comes to his guess. After excluding the publications which he says should be excluded, I confess the publications left do not seem to be very considerable and I rather doubt whether he will obtain any revenue.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
The third motive would be that of protection, and high protection at that. May I in that connection point out that it will not be the Canadian magazines that will be protected. I doubt very much if the magazines coming into Canada from the United States or other countries interfere to any considerable extent with publications of a like character in this country. We have a very limited number of magazines. Perhaps the most important in the matter of circulation is one semi-monthly, and I doubt if its circulation would be particularly affected by anything in the nature of protection of this kind that may be given. So it is not the magazines in Canada or those who are contributing to magazines who are being protected. It comes back to the advertising feature to which my right hon. friend has just referred. Apparently he desires to exclude as largely as possible the advertising material that comes into Canada because, I assume, some of these advertisements may be those of concerns which compete with industries in this country. Then let my right hon. friend be quite frank about it and say that again it is to protect the manufacturer in this country, and that he is going to protect him by closing the eyes, so far as that is possible, of the Canadian people to opportunities to buy elsewhere at less cost or to have any knowledge of the kind of articles that are being produced in another country which might serve the purposes of the consumer equally well if not better. That to my mind is the really mischievous feature of the whole proposal. It is a further restriction of trade,, it is again an effort to further the interests of a particular class at the expense of the great body of consumers with respect to what they may wish to wear, what they may wish to eat, wherewithal they may wish to be housed and clothed, and the means by which their various other needs and satisfactions are to be met. I think that is the real explanation of it, and if it is not, I should be glad if my right hon. friend would make the matter clear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have endeavoured to
make it clear to the right hon. gentleman that he had a somewhat erroneous appreciation of the situation, but I shall endeavour to answer his questions by first of all asking a question or two bearing upon the policy of this country as administered by his government for a period of eight or nine years.
There is a tax on books of 10 to 25 per cent. Why not on periodicals? Under his government the tax on fiction was, by the privy council decision sustaining the ruling
of the customs board, made 25 per cent ad valorem. Why not on periodicals that contain fiction? I merely ask that question.
Secondly, the right hon. gentleman asked, what revenue do we expect? That is a perfectly proper question. In view of the fact that the magazines that will be published in September are now in process of being printed, some having been in print for some time, it follows that whatever is done should be done so as to cause as little inconvenience as possible, and this tax therefore becomes effective on the first of September. There will be seven months left in the fiscal year, and I estimate that we should receive $700,000, or $100,000 a month, for the balance of the fiscal year. My conviction is that the tax will be paid principally by the publishers.
Thirdly, the right hon. gentleman has suggested that we are endeavouring to protect the manufacturers of this country. I pointed out that the basis of this whole provision is found in these words, "which, by reason of their advertising content, are subject in the country of origin to zone rates of postage based upon such advertising content." Not being able to reach them through the Post Office Department without changing our whole scheme of postal imposts, we are reaching them in this way, but at a somewhat lesser rate than that which they would pay if the postal charges were similar to those in the United States. I pointed out that in the United States the first zone, which is up to 150 miles, makes a tax against the publisher, which he has to pay at the post office where the magazine is posted, of li cents per pound; if it goes 300 miles he pays 2 cents a pound, and that is in addition to the ordinary postal rate; it is a charge by way of surtax. If it travels 600 miles, the charge is 3 cents per pound, and if it travels 1,000 miles, the charge is 4 cents per pound, and so on up to 7 cents per pound. Some of the magazines to which reference has been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Wey-burn weigh li to 1J pounds, and in the United States, the country of origin, for transportation up to 1,000 miles they pay 5 and 6 cents each as a surtax over the postal rate, the maximum being 7 cents per pound for a distance over 1,800 miles. That amounts in some instances to 10 cents per copy. In view of the circumstances to which I have alluded, and to which I shall not again refer, we have made -the advertising content 20 per cent before the magazine or publication pays any tax at all, and from 20 to 30 per cent the rate charged, as I have said, is 2 cents per copy only. From that point onward the
3890	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
rate is 5 cents per copy. It is erroneous to say that we have endeavoured to reach the prohibition point with respect to that class of magazine which does not fall within the censor's powers, but which is one that we believe is not conducive to the best thought on the part of the youth of the country in particular. They will pay 15 cents per copy, which we believe in some instances will operate to prevent them coming into the country at all.


William Daum Euler: I have read a copy of the
amendment, but I am not very clear as to its effect. I think it would be of interest to the committee and the country to know whether the rate of 15 cents a copy will apply to what are usually called the Sunday papers coming in from the United States, which would make them 25 cents a copy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I dare say it would.


William Daum Euler: They are usually sold for
10 cents, and now there will be a 15-cent tax?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those containing fiction, feature articles and comic strips. I want to put a question to this committee which has been in my mind during the last few years, and I put it to members of this committee because I think they are better able to find a solution than I. Most of us realize that the generation that is now reaching manhood and womanhood is the first generation that has been subject to the indiscriminate influences of the class of literature to which I refer and of the movie, to which my hon. friend referred. It is one of the most debatable problems to which men might direct their attention, as to what the result is going to be. What sort of men and women will be produced from this generation which has been subject to the indiscriminate influence of the movie to which my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre referred, and to such influences as were mentioned by my hon. friend from Weyburn, with his sample copy?


Mr. CAYLEY:: And the radio.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. We have put this in here deliberately. Do you mean to tell me that there is any member of this house who does not realize what the pernicious influence must be upon the young boys and girls, of seven and eight and nine and ten and eleven and twelve, who read some of the comic strips and find deceit and fraud and theft and cunning magnified into virtues? What is going to be the result? I am not the keeper of the morals of this country-


Edward James Young: Why not prohibit them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are many difficulties about prohibition in a matter of that kind. I could tell the hon. gentleman, if I went into the international aspect, of features that would make him realize that previous governments when the matter was brought to their attention did not take the action of prohibition because of the difficulty, but every state concedes to every other state the right of censorship as to the kind of literature that should come within its borders. But there is a kind that lies on the border line, not being on the one hand, clearly such as should be excluded because of violation of ethics or morals and matters of that kind, and the convictions of the people, ye't on the other hand exerting the very influences that work so insidiously upon the formation of character. Hon. members in this house are more concerned than I because they have given hostages to fortune and are concerned as to what their children's attitude towards life shall be. I say however one of the problems that every thoughtful man and woman in Canada must be thinking about is: What will be the attitude of mind and the character of the rising generation which every Sunday is permitted to read that form of comic strip? Children seven, eight, nine and ten years of age are permitted to read those strips which magnify every device to which youngsters might resort to cheat, to circumvent their elders and to make them think that to lie is a virtue. I say that is one of the problems this country must seriously consider for the welfare of the generation of manhood and womanhood which is marching forward, the first generation in Canada which has been subjected indiscriminately to that influence.
We have not sought prohibition in this connection for many reasons, and I want my hon. friend from Weyburn to know that the publishers did not seek it; I know of no man who asked that it be done. The government believes it should be done; I believe it should be done; every member of the administration believes it should be done not because we are censors, not because we arrogate to ourselves any virtues we do not possess, but because for the moment being trustees of power we must exercise its sway over what is best for the people of this country and the new generation of manhood and womanhood marching up.
I put the question again to the committee: Is it not clear that while one may not prohibit, the net result of imposing an extra charge of fifteen cents in addition to the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
ordinary price upon that sort of thing will render it not so easy for the head of the house to provide such literature for Sunday reading.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What about the high class magazines to which I referred a little while ago?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The high class magazines are on the free list; we have not touched them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understood the Prime Minister suggested any thought-provoking magazines.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say "any"; I said "most of them."


James Shaver Woodsworth: As we have not had the new list in our possession I am not in a position thoroughly to understand the situation. I referred to magazines such as the Atlantic Monthly, Current History, The Nation, The New Republic and Children's magazines, such as Popular Science, Popular Mechanics and so on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From my perusal of the advertising content of the last two magazines named I would say that they would be free. The second named would also be free. In connection with the first there would be a maximum charge of 2 cents, and I am not clear that it would be that much. Before anything would be payable an excess of 20 per cent advertising content would be necessary. The typical publication I took for the purpose of ascertaining what the effect would be went over 19 per cent, but not 20 per cent. I do not know whether that particular publication was absolutely typical or not, but as the hon. gentleman knows in the main in that type of magazine the advertising is limited. For instance, Foreign Affairs has only four pages of it. With regard to the first magazine named by my hon. friend and I do not care to name them-my memory is that the advertising is limited to schools and institutions of learning along with book advertising in connection with its own publications which of course, for advertising purposes, do not count. Those advertisements refer to its own publications. The second one named clearly has not 20 per cent advertising content. Without giving any names- because I believe it might properly be urged that I should not-may I say that in these days there are small digests of current literature and news. I have no doubt hon. members must know that they will continue to be
free because in connection with the ones 1 have looked at the advertising content does not exceed four pages.
That is the position. There is no desire to protect industry or manufacturers or anybody else, except the Canadian people, in the broad and general acceptance of that term. One of the best known and most widely circulated magazines in Canada has a weekly circulation of over 100,000. The largest circulation of any magazine coming from the republic is 180,000, or practically 6 per cent of its total circulation. The weekly average of all American magazines is 1,400,000 copies, or about 4 per cent of the whole circulation because, as is well known, the total circulations are enormous. I would point out that 64 per cent of the advertising in one of those magazines was the advertising of businesses with branches in Canada. It might fairly be said that to that extent Canadian newspapers and publications were deprived of that advertising. Although this fact has not been urged upon me, nevertheless it is a fact. That magazine solicits advertising on the basis of an enhanced price per page because of a circulation in Canada of 100,000 copies or more. Is it not fair to say that when we are operating our postal department at a deficit of several million dollars that deficit has been made up by such magazines. In the United States contributions are based on the zone system through the postal department..


Mr. CHAPLIN:: We are carrying some of
that stuff -at a loss.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All of it which comes
any great distance. The proposed change will do something to compensate for this loss.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was going
to ask my right hon. friend if he is quite sure he is not confusing two things, namely, a worthy object and the method by which it should be attained. I believe all agree that regard should be had by governments, federal or provincial, for the morals of the people. However, when it comes to regulating morals by tariffs I think there is danger of very grave confusion. Neither my right hon. friend nor I are authorities on how to bring up children, and I think we ought each to speak with great humility on this subject.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For that reason I say that my right hon. friend would be much wiser to stick to the side of the matter with which he is really familiar, namely, the question of tariffs and the protection of industry, and leave the protection of the chil-
3892	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
dren to someone else. As I have said the danger of the type of legislation now before us is that it confuses two entirely different aims and purposes. One is a moral purpose which I think should be dealt with by censorship and prohibitions with regard to those things which should be censored and prohibited. The other is the question of protection of industry and the raising of revenues by tariffs. Those two matters should be kept separate and distinct. I think we may well let the homes be run by those who have homes, in the full meaning of the term, and that some of us who are less fortunate and therefore less entitled to speak on all matters might well confine our energies more particularly to fields with which we are more familiar.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I wish to express my
appreciation of the modifications the government have seen fit to make in connection with the duties in this particular item. I am informed that the Minister of Finance received protests from public and university libraries in connection with the item as it stood originally. I was wondering how far the modifications have eliminated the reason for the protests, and if the changes have covered the points raised. If I understand the Prime Minister correctly, magazines containing for the most part fiction will be subject to an import duty. I think it is generally agreed that the library facilities are not very adequate in this country, particularly in our rural seotions, and if they wish to read fiction people in the country must subscribe to magazines such as those mentioned by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). Therefore those who have not library facilities will be penalized by the imposition of this tax.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On magazines?


Angus MacInnis: On magazines that are
largely fiction, as differentiated from those whose contents are of an educational nature. I think some consideration should be given to this point. I should like the Prime Minister to state to the committee how far the modifications he has introduced have met the protests made by the libraries and educational institutions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say to the hon. gentleman that I do not recall any protests from such sources. Large numbers of telegrams came, however, from news vendors who did. not seem to appreciate just what the proposed tariff revision meant, but after a few days they stopped. In one city a large advertisement was displayed asking all who wanted to protest to send letters to

the Minister of Finance, but I do not think five letters came from that community. The truth is, I believe, public opinion very strongly supports this action. But because of the criticism that the government was constituting itself a high authority upon the question of religious, educational and scientific qualifications and characteristics of newspapers, I thought it better to remove that cause for complaint and relieve this house from listening to the speech of the hon. member for Weyiburn (Mr. Young). The result is that parliamentary action is substituted for executive control and, as the bon. gentleman has said, that is all to the good.


Edward James Young: Will my hon. friend consent to remove the gasoline duties on the same terms-if I promise not to speak on the item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is too great a price to be paid by Canada-to be deprived of the dulcet tones of the hon. gentleman on every occasion. But I think he must have bought that hold-up magazine some three or four days ago, because he says this is a "bold-up", and I notice that in recent days almost every time he has been speaking he points his finger at me in a menacing fashion, and I am perfectly satisfied that the influence of that magazine upon his mind has been such that he is practising its methods upon this house.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: I do not desire to delay the item, but I think a little light can be thrown on this discussion by quoting from what I believe to be an authentic copy of a letter circulated among American magazine publishers by the American Magazine Advertisers Association. It is a letter written by Mr. B. C. Duffy, who is chairman of the committee on magazines in connection with the association, and if I may be permitted I should like to read the letter into the record. It states:
The revised Canadian tariff schedule on June 1st contains the following paragraphs:
There is no occasion to read the paragraphs. After quoting them the letter continues:
This means that the tax of 15 cents per pound will be placed on all American periodicals entering Canada, effective July 1. 1931. Publications such as the Saturday Evening Post will pay in proportion to their weight and it is likely to cost approximately 25 cents for a copy of the Post in Canada, likewise, magazines such as the American, Cosmopolitan, True Story, which are already charging in the neighbourhood of 30 cents per copy will cost approximately 45 cents per copy.
Undoubtedly this tariff action on magazines was brought about by the activity of certain Canadian magazine publishers together with the Canadian Manufacturers Association. Its effect,

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
however, reaches much further than the volume circulation of American magazines which will be affected.
To the publisher it offers the problem of making up for this loss in Canadian circulation in order that the total magazine circulation will not fall below that quoted to the advertiser.
To the manufacturer, however, it offers a very decided problem of merchandising advertising and selling in this market and will possibly necessitate a revision of the sales policy and selling costs.
The influence of American magazines in Canada until this time has possibly been underestimated, but consider the fact that- the total circulation of every general magazine which is a member of the ABC in Canada amounts to only 993,000. (This includes nineteen publications, even the French magazines). Compare this with the seventeen leading American magazines which have a total circulation of over 1,378,478 in Canada and the necessity of American magazines for reaching this market becomes apparent.
The cost of a page to reach 993,000 readers one time using Canadian magazines would be $5,812.80, whereas the cost of the 1,378,478 circulation which the United States magazines give in Canada would amount to $3,973.40-in other words 27*96 per cent less Canadian magazine circulation in Canada. A comparison of the cost per page per 1,000 is as follows:
19 Canadian magazines	 $5,854
17 United States magazines..	2,882
Therefore the simple problem of reaching people with _ your advertising message is not only restricted by the smaller circulation, but also more expensive by the higher rates.
American manufacturers and business houses have established over 524 branch manufacturing plants throughout Canada valued at $540,593,000. Canadian manufacturers whose sales have been influenced by the advertising of American commodities through our magazines circulating in Canada have been an important factor in trying to restrict this means of propaganda for our merchandise. If the magazines allow this tariff to interfere with their circulation, it is an injustice to American manufacturers and advertisers as it means restriction of the most important factor in setting style trends or taste in the Canadian market.
Saturday Evening Post.. .
Collier's	
Liberty	
Literary Digest	
Time	
American	
Cosmopolitan	
Red Book	
National Geographic	
Photoplay	
Ladies Home Journal.. ..
Good Housekeeping	
Women's Home Companion
Pictorial Review	
Delineator	
McCalls	
True Story	
Therefore, it is not a question of how much circulation these magazines can pick up in the United States, to offset their loss in Canada, it is a much broader question and one which, in justice to the American manufacturers, should be taken more seriously. Anything that is not good for the advertiser is not good for the publisher or agency. It is for this reason in our talks with magazine publishers that we are stressing the importance of maintaining their Canadian circulation without cost to the advertisers, if possible.
Several publishers have already agreed to do this. We know some are thinking about printing in Canada which would overcome the obstacle of tariff, but few Canadian plants are equipped to handle the volume. Others are thinking about absorbing this tariff so that the price of their publication will not be materially increased.
The tariff goes into effect July 1, many of the monthly magazines will arrange to have their August issues shipped and in Canada before this time. The weekly publications, however, will possibly be able to ship only during the month of July in advance of the tariff date.
There will possibly be some exceptions; magazines such as the Atlantic Monthly, National Geographic, may be excepted under the heading of educational publications. On the other hand, such week-end newspapers as the New York Herald Tribune, the Chicago Tribune, New York Times and American Weekly, are likely to be put on the tariff list in the near future, according to the latest information we have received.
Canadian magazines are making, rapid steps to improve the appearance and editorial contents of their publications. Many Canadian publishers have already called on agencies in this country disclaiming any credit for sponsoring the tariff measure a3 applied to magazines. American publishers who have looked over the Canadian situation with a view of printing in Canada, have declared it is not practical in view of the present printing facilities in the Dominion.
The following is a list of seventeen American magazines, together with the circulation in Canada. The percentage of this circulation to totals and the total circulation of these publications.
Total	Canadian	Percirculation	circulation	cent2,998,786	101,660	03*392,302,682	75,690	03*292,415,904	109,410	04*531,481,438	33,532	02*26329.679	2,936	[DOT]00892,130,892	35,308	01*661,650,040	65,791	03*99689,419	61,853	08*971,277,041	56,633	[DOT]0443608,151	45,597	[DOT]07492,671,139	93,536	03*501,917,903	76.647	04*002,619,227	71.119	02*722,616.254	181.909	06*952,364.032	107.173	04*532.581,819	152,111	05*892,118,581	108,093	05*1032,772,987	1,378,478	[DOT]04213894	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
At the present time no American publisher knows definitely the final answers to this problem. The McFadden publications, True Story, Liberty, etc. have told us they will not lose any circulation in Canada. We feel the Curtis publications will take the same stand but just how this will be handled is not decided.	_	.
Latest reports from Ottawa indicate that the tariff on periodicals will not become effective until August 15th (it was originally set for July 1st).
This communication is signed by B. C. Duffy, chairman of the committee on magazines. I thought it would be of interest to the committee to have this information, and that is why I have taken time to read it into the record.


Charles A. Stewart: As a great
many items have been changed since the introduction of the tariff, I am beginning to get confused as to what is the real object in this particular item. Last night we were told that the changes in the income tax were not to be proceeded with, and to-day there is a very drastic change made in this item. I do not know that I am going to complain a great deal about it, but I have this complaint to make, that after going to a great deal of trouble to get information we find that the items are altogether changed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is useful.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I confess it is; it keeps one out of mischief, at all events. In common with other members of the committee, of course, I am somewhat disappointed; I had a speech prepared on this matter for which there is now no need. In connection with this, as with other matters, I want to congratulate the government on being a little more sane than they were at the start.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change in
the principle.


Charles A. Stewart: There is a
change from 15 per cent to 2 per cent and 5 per cent. All that my hon. friend has done is to take item 184b, which includes all those magazines, and if they exceed 20 per cent of advertising matter and are under 30 per cent there is the 2 per cent duty, and if they exceed 30 per cent there is the flat rate of 5 cents per copy. I am greatly at sea; the 15 cents per pound tax applies on periodicals and newspapers which are largely devoted to comic supplements. I have no great objection to the present proposal, but I do not think the imposition of the tax will accomplish the prohibition of these undesirable periodicals and newspapers, which the

Prime Minister says is desirable. I realize the difficulty mentioned by him in connection with censoring and the international difficulties which result from this method of dealing with these periodicals which are deemed to be undesirable, but after all it is the only method that can be applied. Total prohibition is the only remedy that can be applied.


Mr. STANLEY:: The censor will remain


Mr. BURY:: Does not my hon. friend know that the easiest way to get over the censor, and over any provisions looking to prohibition, is to change the name of the magazine and bring it into Canada under a slightly altered title? If there is the mere prohibition of a magazine of a salacious character having a certain title; if it is known and prohibited under that title, it is the easiest thing in the world for the publisher in the United States to change the title and the general make-up of the cover and send back the magazine, and there is nothing to stop it from coming in. The same thing is true of a censorship. When magazines of this type are prohibited the name is changed over night and it comes back again.


Charles A. Stewart: It is known that that system is practised, but we have the censorship for that purpose. This undesirable literature is coming in at the present time, we see it being sold in cigar stores, and if it is to be kept out, a proper system of censorship will have to be established. I do not believe that any system of taxation will prevent it coming to this country. There is a certain element who like to read this sort of literature, and a tax of fifteen cents per copy will not curtail the circulation in Canada. These newspapers are sold for ten cents, and there are plenty of people who would be willing to pay the additional fifteen cents.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: What is the price of these
magazines?


Charles A. Stewart: The price
of the newspapers is ten cents.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am glad the hon. member
knows the price, because I do not.


Charles A. Stewart: I know
that all these Sunday editions are sold at ten cents per copy. I have never read them but I do not take any particular credit for not doing so. For the sake of his education, I would advise my hon. friend to purchase one once in a while, and then I think he would understand the complaint which is

Australian Trade Agreement
being made. My contention is that a tax will not keep these newspapers out of the country. Even although a thirty cent tax were put on them, they would be purchased by the people who like that sort of thing. These papers get into the homes and they have an undesirable influence upon the minds of the young people and even upon the minds of the old people. I agree with the suggestion of the Minister of Finance that we are entitled to the same rate for the carriage of this material as is received in the United States, but if the desire is to keep these magazines and newspapers out of the country, a vigilant censorship will have to be established.


Mr. HEENAN:: Will the labour union
magazines be affected by this legislation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not at all.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I do not quite agree with the contention that the idea of this legislation is to keep out undesirable magazines. Even although they are kept out, things come in over the air which are more injurious than the magazines themselves. We have but to turn on our radio and we are flooded with the very stuff that is contained in these undesirable magazines and newspapers. We turn on the radio Sunday morning, before the church services and we hear Uncle Ned or Uncle Bill taking page after page of these newspapers of the Chicago type and telling about the escapades of the Katzenjammer kids and other characters. He goes through the newspaper page after page, and that is what our children listen to on Sunday morning. It might just as well be admitted that this legislation is for the purpose of raising the revenue needed by the country in an emergency, and not as a means of censorship. There are ways of evading any censorship, and the public is appealed to in one way or another. This is not the correct way to instil in the minds of our children the appreciation of better things. Another danger will be that these people may come right into our own country. In fact, they are here already, publishing these undesirable magazines, and certain types of pictorials. If we object on moral grounds let us go after this thing vigorously. I approve of the taxation being placed on some of these periodicals because we need revenue and protection. I do not know that I have anything further to say only just to protest against the argument being used that the morals of the country are being protected.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I intended to move that the committee rise and report the resolutions, give first reading to the bill founded thereon,
and let it stand until Monday for second reading. There is an understanding that hon. gentlemen opposite may have the opportunity to discuss certain items in the September tariff resolutions, and if it would suit their convenience it would be much appreciated if they would make their speeches when the bill is being considered in committee.


Mr. YENIOT:: That understanding would apply to the June tariff?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, to everything.


Edward James Young: There is one item to which I would like to revert.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Every hon member will have full opportunity for discussion when the bill is in committee. If it is agreeable to the committee, I move that the committee rise and report the resolutions.


Peter Heenan: During the discussion on the items I offered an amendment, which could be presented at this stage or perhaps at a later one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: An obligation rests upon me purely in my official capacity and it would suit my convenience to have these resolutions reported. When the bill is in committee, or at any other stage in its progress, I shall see that the hon. gentleman is afforded every facility he desires.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. Ill, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The second reading will
be on Monday, it being understood that in the meantime the various items will be checked up with the resolutions themselves, because there is a large number of tariff items that will have to be exactly compared with the resolutions that have been adopted by the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was proposing to take up the Australian trade agreement, but the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) who leads the Progressives informed me that owing to his
Safety of Life at Sea

duty on a committee he has not had an opportunity to meet his colleagues and discuss the matter with them, and he would like it to stand over until the next sitting on Monday. I trust the house will regard this as reasonable under the circumstances.



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. 96, respecting the international convention for the safety of life at sea, signed in London on the 31st day of May, 1929, and the international convention respecting load lines signed in London on the 5th day of July, 1930-Mr. Duranleau-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
Alfred Duranleau: The amendment under discussion at the last sitting on this bill was the proposed addition of a further section whereby the coming into force of this act could be postponed by order in council, the purpose being to withhold the coming into force of the act until a sufficient number of nations had ratified the conventions so as to put them into effect; otherwise, in the perhaps somewhat hypothetical case of five nations failing to ratify the convention, this would be law in Canada but not so in a majority of the other maritime nations. The discussion took place in regard to the wording of that amendment. The wording is about the same as that of the similar section in the bill now before the British House of Commons, which section reads:
Provided that His Majesty may from time to time by order in council postpone the coming into operation of this part of this act for such period not exceeding on any occasion of postponement one year, as may be specified in the order.
Since the committee rose, I have discussed the matter with my officials, especially with Mr. Johnston, my deputy minister, who was the representative of Canada at those conventions; also with officials of the Department of Justice and with Doctor Skelton of the Department of External Affairs. We came to the conclusion that we should substitute another section which is perhaps clearer and which I shall read to the committee:
This act or any portion thereof shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council published in the Canada Gazette.
I think this substitute section is clearer and will meet the purpose.


Alan Webster Neill: What is the number of tho
section?


Alfred Duranleau: It will be No. 15, because it is at the end of the bill.


Mr. VENIOT:: Is the publication to be
in just one issue or in a number of issues of the Canada Gazette?


Alfred Duranleau: Just one issue.


Peter John Veniot: Would it not be better to
have it in more than one?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Publication in one issue
is the usual formal notice.


Alfred Duranleau: It is only a formality. Publication in one issue is enough.


Hugh Guthrie: I beg to move that the
bill be amended by adding the new clause 15:
15. This act or any portion thereof shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council published in the Canada Gazette.
I also beg to move the following changes in the various sections to comply with this amendment. Different dates were set forth in the bill as printed and they will have to be changed:
To delete the words "after the 30th June, 1932" in section 9.
In section 10, to delete the words "after the 30th June, 1933."
In section 11, to delete the words "after the 30th June, 1933."
In section 12, to delete the words "after the 30th June, 1933."
In section 13, to delete the words "after the 30th June, 1933."
There is also another amendment included in this and perhaps I had better mention it now. There is attached to the bill as printed a Final Act under which no obligation is assumed by Canada or any other country that becomes a party to the convention. The Final Act is really no part of the convention at all; it is merely a statement as to who were present and of reservations made by certain countries to be considered by themselves, but it was printed along with the bill in the two schedules attached to it, and it should be deleted. The pages to be deleted are pages 105 to 124 and pages 191 to 207. That will leave schedule I and schedule II standing. They are the convention. I have put this into the form of one motion.
Mr. MaoINNIS: It seems to me that this amendment or any amendment covering the date this convention shall come into force is not necessary, because article 65 reads:
Date of Coming in Force
The present convention shall come into force on the 1st July, 1931, as between the govern-

Safety of Life at Sea
3S97
tnents which have deposited their ratifications by that date, and provided that at least five ratifications have been deposited with the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Should five ratifications not have been deposited on that date, the present convention shall come into force three months after the date on which the fifth ratification is deposited. Ratifications deposited after the date on which the present convention has come into force shall take effect three months after the date of their deposit.
It seems to me that the proper procedure ' to follow-I may be wrong-would be for this parliament to pass a bill approving of the convention and then deposit it with the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and then when four other nations had deposited their ratifications the convention would automatically come into force if that were done before July 1, 1931. Article 65 says:
Should five ratifications not have been deposited on that date, the present convention shall come into force three months after the date on which the fifth ratification is deposited.
So all that is necessary is to deposit our ratification, and if five ratifications have been deposited before July 1, 1931, the convention will come into force on that date, and if five ratifications have not been deposited by that date the convention will come into force three months after the date on which the fifth ratification is deposited. So I see no reason whatever for this amendment. It is just as objectionable as the previous amendment because it leaves it to the governor in council to say when our ratification shall be deposited, and that may hold up not merely this country but other countries which have ratified the convention.


Alfred Duranleau: The reason why we want to delay the coming into force of this law in Canada even after five countries have ratified the convention is that we do not want to have this law in force in Canada if adjoining countries have not ratified the convention, because in that case our boats would be discriminated against. This convention will be in force only in those countries which have ratified it. If we ratified it without any clause such as the one suggested1, we would be bound by the convention and other countries close to us which had not ratified would not be bound. So, after long consideration with our officials, we thought it better tp postpone the coming into force of this law in Canada until adjoining countries had also ratified the convention.


Angus MacInnis: In that case it would be better to change the title of the bill, "The Safety of Life at Sea and Load Line Conventions Act, 1931." If we are going to make
provision for the safety of life at sea, and if the convention in its wisdom laid down that ratification by five countries should be sufficient to bring it into force, I see no virtue in holding up the convention indefinitely until some countries adjacent to us have ratified it. We should set the example, along with four other countries, by depositing our ratification immediately with the British government. If the convention itself is necessary for the safety of life at sea, we should not allow the matter of competition with other nations which may not be as humane in this matter as we are, to prevent its coming into force. The minister himself stated that there was no reason for deferring the convention. As a matter of fact, it is violating article 65 to delay ratification any further. Article 65 lays down the requirements necessary to give effect to the convention.


Alan Webster Neill: While this bill contains only fourteen comparatively short sections, it is really a very long and intricate bill covering over 200 pages, and I venture to assert that there is not a man in the house who has even a working acquaintance with the bill or would be capable of passing a schoolboy's examination on it. I should like to know why this bill was not sent to the marine committee, where there would have been at least some opportunity to investigate it. It contains another feature which I never saw in any bill presented to this house before, and that is that page after page contains deletion of words or sentences struck out. Who struck them out? Did we authorize the striking out? Is there any record of that striking out? Is there anything to prevent anybody, after this bill passes, making a few more deletions and saying: That is the bill as you passed it? I do not believe the regulations were read or even called here. We probably passed them by passing a section to the effect that the governor in council shall have power to make regulations. The house does not know the first thing about this bill. It should have gone to the marine committee. What is that committee for but for matters of this kind?
Since the Minister of Justice has in some sense opened up preceding sections by giving notice of an amendment which covers several sections that we have already passed, it might be permissible for me to ask this further question. Section 3 of the bill reads:
This act shall not apply to ships while engaged on voyages between Canada and the United States of America on any lakes or rivers.
3S9S
Safety of Life at Sea

I think probably, speaking without positive knowledge, that the percentage of loss of life on the great lakes on a given number of ships is as great as on the Atlantic, which is covered by this convention, yet we are not going to make it apply in our own waters, or waters contiguous to our territory, on which are boats manned by crews of our own nationality and where the waters, especially in the fall, are very dangerous. We do not put this provision in. Does not charity begin at home; does not safety begin at home? These are things which illustrate the fact that we know nothing about this bill, and I would suggest that even at this late date it should be sent to a committee so that some expert opinions may be heard in connection with the matter.


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


Alan Webster Neill: No, it is not carried until
I have had an explanation of the bill and some statement concerning the suggestion I have made. We should have more information about the bill.


Alfred Duranleau: When this bill was
before the house the other day it was explained that we have nothing to do other than to ratify the conventions. We cannot alter the findings of those conventions. In one convention 19 countries were represented and in the other 30 countries, which all agreed to certain shipping regulations, and this house is asked to ratify the terms accepted by the Canadian representative. The other day when the bill was discussed section 3 was considered at length and explanations were made in connection with it but I do not think my hon. friend was in the house at the time. Despite that fact however I think it unfair that we should revert to sections which were adopted the other day.
The present intention is to suspend the coming into force of this law.


Alan Webster Neill: Why suspend?


Alfred Duranleau: As I told the committee a moment ago there is before the senate of an adjoining country a similar bill which will be taken into consideration next December. If the bill is adopted we think it advisable to suspend its coming into forco until proclamation be made by the governor in council. We want both countries to be on the same footing. The moment five countries have ratified these conventions this law will come into force. If on the other hand we act before other countries our ships may be penalized.


Alan Webster Neill: We are to wait and are not to bring this bill into force until five other countries have adopted it?


Alfred Duranleau: Five in all.


Alan Webster Neill: Very well; we are to wait
until four other countries have adopted the bill. Supposing each of the four other countries adopt the same policy and wait until four other countries do the same. Supposing each country decides to wait on the others. If one country does not start how will we get the action of the five countries necessary to make such legislation effective? We are waiting for four other countries, and it may be that those four other countries are waiting until we proclaim ourselves. I understood the minister to say that we should ratify these conventions because they were international in character and were agreed upon by representatives of a large number of countries. Their findings could hardly have been unanimous when they could not secure five countries to subscribe to them. I understood the minister to say that in one case nineteen countries were represented, and in another, thirty-five.


Alfred Duranleau: Nineteen countries
were represented at the convention held in 1929 for the safety of life at sea, and at the international convention respecting load lines held in 1930, thirty nations were represented.


Alan Webster Neill: And so far from unanimous
was their action that we cannot get four other nations besides ourselves to agree. I am not objecting to a postponement, but even if the conventions were international in character and supposing we must accept or reject the proposals as they stand, would it not be a good idea for the legislatures of Canada to have some knowledge of the proposals contained in the bill?
I admit that in connection with section 3 I am asking my question at the wrong time, but when the section was before the house I was not present. As the Minister of Justice, however, will have to ask leave of the house to go back to sections 9 and 10 I think I am justified to ask similar leave to revert to section 3.


Hugh Guthrie: Does the hon. member
know the reason for section 3? The convention dealt with the safety of life at sea, and lakes and rivers are not included in the term "sea."


Alan Webster Neill: Oh.


Alfred Duranleau: Great lakes navigation is under our Canada Shipping Act.

Pension Act


Alan Webster Neill: I understand that lakes and
rivers are not included in the present measure, but if it is so highly desirable and advisable to have this legislation for the safety of life at sea, why not introduce a Canadian law so that similar measures may apply in our waters?


Hugh Guthrie: We have our own act
on the subject.


Alan Webster Neill: Along the same lines?


Hugh Guthrie: Our own shipping act
is in force in regard to Shipping on lakes and rivers. The present bill, however, deals only with the safety of life at sea, and it was thought proper expressly to exclude the lakes and rivers of Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: I still think we should look
after the safety of seamen on the lakes. Will the Minister of Justice explain-because I think he understands the bill more than anyone else in the committee-why there are so many deletions in the regulations? I refer particularly to pages 92 and 93, and so on.


Hugh Guthrie: I think those deletions
were made when the printed copy was compared with the originals. The changes were made to make the copy now before us conform with the original convention.


Angus MacInnis: The Minister of Marine
(Mr. Duranleau) pointed out that there were two sections to the bill, namely, the fourteen sections of the bill itself, and the fifteenth, or the added amendment. The remainder of the printed copy before us includes the articles of the conventions. The minister has said that we are not competent to change or modify the articles of the convention, and when the Minister of Marine has said that we cannot change article 65, I agree with him.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes we can; article 65
deals only with the date of coming into force.


Angus MacInnis: If we can change article
65, which states when the convention shall come into force, then we can change any article in the convention.


Hugh Guthrie: Not necessarily.


Alan Webster Neill: To what page is my hon.
friend referring?


Angus MacInnis: Page 39.


Alan Webster Neill: I see the point made by
the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis). A minute ago the minister told us he was introducing clause 15 to change the bill.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I do not think my
hon. friend understands. By this bill we are adopting the conventions. We are postponing now the final announcement of our action until we in this country think it proper to make such action known. We are adopting the conventions, word for word.


Alan Webster Neill: With a modification.


Hugh Guthrie: No, we are adopting
them, but we are not announcing to the world our adoption until we see fit so to do.


Alan Webster Neill: Are we postponing ratification?


Hugh Guthrie: No, we are postponing
the formal announcement of our own action. We are not announcing our final adoption or notifying London of our adoption, as we are required to do, until it suits our pleasure. We are adopting the convention, however, word for word.


Finlay MacDonald: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to. .
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 110, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
On section 1-Pension tribunal.
Mr. MacLAREN:: On the first reading I
explained to some extent the purpose of this bill. It is not intended to disturb the Pension Act passed at the last regular session except as to one principle and in one direction. The reason is that the act has been in operation for such a short time,-well under a year -that it is not advisable to subject it to a general revision at the present time. These amendments are proposed to relieve to a certain extent the congestion which now exists in the administration of the pension board owing to the very large number of applications pending before the board.
I wish to amend section one of the bill by inserting before the words "section nine" in line four the words "subsection one."

Pension Act


Robert Knowlton Smith: I do not rise for the purpose of taking exception to the bill. If I had any complaint to register it would be that other amendments are required in addition to those presented by the minister to do justice to the returned men. In saying this I do not wish for one moment to criticize the minister or his administration. As a matter of fact my experience has been that he and his officials are conducting the department-which is one of the most important, and certainly the most overworked of all the departments of government-as satisfactorily as possible under the circumstances. In the legislation we passed a year ago it was thought we had established the principle of giving to the returned soldier the benefit of the doubt in all circumstances, but unfortunately we now find the ex-service man in certain instances not given the benefit of the doubt at all, in fact in my judgment he is very little better off than he was before the said legislation was enacted. To illustrate this perhaps I cannot do better than state an actual case which was heard in my own county. A pensioner's case was tried by two commissioners who after hearing all the evidence, at the conclusion of their deliberations-the court sat for a couple of days and heard other cases besides the one with which I am dealing-rendered a decision in favour of the applicant receiving a pension. They said to him:	We have heard your case and
on the evidence presented have decided that you are entitled to a pension; we are submitting a report to this effect to the proper authorities and in due course your case will go to the Board of Pension Commissioners for assessment and pension. In addition to the two commissioners, witnesses and tribunal officials there were present expert medical men and, counsel for the department-the devil's advocate-and the returned soldier's advocate. While I did not hear the evidence adduced in this particular case, I heard the evidence in other cases before this same tribunal, and I am convinced that the court was conducted in a fair, judicial and logical manner and their verdict was a good one. An appeal was carried by the devil's advocate to the pension appeal court where the decision of the pension tribunal was reversed, and the man will not now receive a pension, after having been instructed by the pension tribunal that he would.
Now, I contend that having a year ago decided that in every case the returned man was to receive the benefit of the doubt, this judgment of the pension appeal court in reversing the former decision is a direct viola-[Mr. MacLaren. I
tion of that principle, because certainly not only a reasonable but a judicial doubt was established by the fact that one court decided in the applicants favour; and this is not the only case where such a doubt has been established with disastrous results. Such an anomaly should not be allowed to continue, for the very excellent reason that it works a grave injustice to the returned man who is seeking justice, and it is not in accordance with the principle, that all ex-service men were to be given the benefit of the doubt, which we thought we had established by the legislation enacted over a year ago. I think ir. is a proper suggestion to make to the minister that if possible some legislation should be brought forward to remove that anomaly.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Unfortunately the case referred to by the hon. member for Cumberland is not the only case of that kind. A tribunal sat in New Glasgow, and one forenoon was occupied with one particular case. I heard the evidence, and the chairman of the tribunal stated that the decision would be rendered the following morning. The decision was given, in favour of the applicant. Shortly afterwards the case was appealed, and after some weeks of delay the appeal was heard and the judgment of the tribunal sustained. So far as I am aware that man has not yet received his pension. That sort of thing is not creditable to this country; it is not 'the sort of treatment we thought we were according the returned men when we passed this legislation a year ago.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Mr. MaoLAREN: I have another amendment to propose, as new section 4:
4. Section 10 of the said act as enacted by chapter thirty-five of the statutes of 1930 (first session) is amended by adding the following subsection:-
(3) The governor in council may appoint a judge of the superior court, or of a county or district court in any of the provinces of Canada, as an acting member of the pension appeal court, to serve in the absence of any member thereof, and may prescribe the allowance to be made for expenses of such judge while so acting.
The purpose of this amendment is to expedite the hearings. The entire bill is intended to expedite the hearing of cases and prevent delay, as much as that can be done without disturbing the organization under the act. There are only three members of the appeal court; as a rule all three must be present, and this amendment is designed to care for a situation which might arise from absence of a member.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

Loan and Finance Corporation
Murray MacLaren: I have a further amendment as new section 5, making it conform to section 4 in the act. Lt is:
5. Section 70 of the said act as enacted by chapter thirty-five of the statutes of 1930 (first session) is repealed and the following substituted therefor:-
70. Unless the parties agree that an appeal or other matter as to which the court has jurisdiction shall be heard before only two from among the members or acting members of the pension appeal court, three of them shall sit; if an appeal is heard before two only and they cannot agree as to its disposition, it shall stand dismissed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Robert Ruff Martin.-Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Norah Kathleen Nevins Scott.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Albert Thompson Johnston.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Isabel Catherine Rohrer White.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Lily Adele Caswell Dyson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Thora Mary Balfry Walker;-Mr. Young.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Marjorie Kathleen Younger Cooper.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Frank Godsoe Wilson.-Mr. Bell (St. John-Albert).
Bill No. 125, respecting The Wapiti Insurance Company.-Mr. Weir (Macdonald).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Souris) moved that Bill No. 118, to incorporate Service Loan and Finance Corporation, be recommitted to
the select standing committee on banking and commerce.
William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, when this matter was first referred to by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) I took exception, and I desire to take a few minutes to show why I think the bill should not be again referred to 22110-248i
the select standing committee on banking and commerce. As hon. members know this is a Senate bill which was passed and forwarded to the House of Commons. When bills come from the Senate perhaps hon. members in this house do not give to them as careful thought as is given to bills originating in this house, the usual practice being to send such bills to the committee for consideration. Hon. members probably have not read this bill very closely, and perhaps are unaware of the nature of the legislation. I will refer to one or two clauses to which objection was taken by the committee, and my contention is that no matter what explanation is given by the hon. member for West York, it is quite unlikely that a further reference to the committee will accomplish any definite result. The bill was before the committee, it was considered very carefully, and received the support of but a few hon. members. The bill was thoroughly explained by counsel for the company; it was also explained by the superintendent of insurance, so that there was no doubt left in the minds of the committee as to what the bill meant or as to its specific provisions.
Paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of section 5 of the bill reads:
The company may throughout Canada-
(b) notwithstanding anything contained in the Interest Act, or in the Money Lenders Act, or in paragraph (c) of section sixty-three of the Loan Companies Act-
That is to say, the other acts which govern the operations of such a company are set aside and special provisions are made in this bill to give the company concerned almost unlimited powers to charge those who borrow from it. It is permitted to:
(i)	lend money secured by assignment of choses-in-action, chattel mortgages or such other evidence of indebtedness as the company may require, and may charge interest thereon at the rate of not more than seven per centum per annum, and may on all loans deduct the interest in advance and provide for repayments in weekly, monthly or other uniform repayments: Provided that the borrower shall have the right to repay the loan at any time before the due date, and, on such repayment being made, to receive a refund of such portion of the interest paid in advance as has not been earned, except a sum equal to the interest for three months,
The following is the most objectionable paragraph:
(ii)	charge, in addition to interest as aforesaid, for all expenses which have been necessarily and in good faith incurred by the company in making or renewing a loan authorized by the next preceding sub-paragraph (i), including all expenses for inquiry and investigation into the character and circumstances of the

Loan and Finance Corporation
borrower, his endorsers, co-makers or sureties, for taxes, correspondence and professional advice, and for all necessary documents and papers, two per centum upon the principal sum loaned.
The powers given to the company to make extra charges in this connection are almost unlimited. We cannot even imagine the extent to which the company may go in this respect. These were the chief objections to the bill. The committee believed that greater powers than should be granted to any company were provided for in this legislation, and they objected to the setting aside of the Money Lenders Act, the Loan Companies Act and the Interest Act merely to give this company special power. Further, it was pointed out by the Superintendent of Insurance that this company is already operating under a provincial charter. If it wishes to extend its business into other provinces, all that is required is for it to secure licences from the provinces which it desires to enter. It may then carry on its business there, so that even if this bill should not be proceeded with further, the company would not suffer any serious disadvantage. The House of Commons, however, by rejecting this measure, will not be regarded as being remiss in its duty to protect the public interest, and if a provincial government wishes to grant a licence to carry on a business of that sort, that is its concern.
It may be pointed out further that the bill gives this particular company, power to lend money to a class of people in Canada who would not be able to borrow from the banks or from other money lending institutions. The contention is that people of that class have very little or no credit, at least not sufficient for the banks to recognize them. It was argued by those supporting the bill that if it were not passed we would be doing an injustice to that particular class. The answer to that will be apparent to everyone. This is a class of people, who, it is alleged, have no credit with the banks. Therefore, in all fairness, that class of people, if they borrow, should receive a lower rate of interest than any other class. But by this bill we are providing legislation which will permit the company to charge them at least 17 per cent. To ask the poorest class in the community, with practically no credit at the banks, if they are forced by circumstances to secure a loan from this company, to pay 17 per cent is, I submit, not helping that class at all. That is usury of the very worst kind, and if parliament cannot do anything better for that class than pass legislation of such a character, we had better not legislate at all.

Moreover, I do not think it is good business, especially at this stage of the session, to duplicate our work. In the banking and commerce committee we considered this bill to the best of our ability, and it was defeated in that committee. I cannot see any reason why an exception should be made of this bill by sending it back for the reconsideration of the select standing committe on banking and commerce.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I wish heartily to support the contention put forward by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) with regard to bis criticism of this bill. Only the other dlay, when it was before us in the banking and commerce committee, it was most thoroughly discussed. The legal advisers who were advocating the bill had ample time to put forward their case, and I was quite surprised when the sponsor of the bill rose in his place in the house the other day and asked permission that it be placed again on the order paper after it had been defeated' in the banking and commerce committee, giving as his reason for wishing to have it reconsidered that he was not present at the banking and commerce committee when the bill was brought uip, and that possibly he could have presented the case with different results. The hon. member knew he was not going to be at the banking and commerce committee that morning; he knew the bill was up for discussion and he had made full arrangements to have it presented. An hon. member to your right, Mr. Speaker, had full charge of the bill; he informed the committee that the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) could not be present, and that the latter had asked him to take his place and present the bill for him. I can assure the hon. member for West York that the bill was put forward very aibly by the hon. member who took bis place. Therefore, in that regard he has no reason for asking the house to reconsider the bill and have it sent back to the committee-simply because he was not present the other morning to stand sponsor for it. That was the only reason I heard him give.
The powers given to this company, the Service Loan and Finance Corporation, are, as outlined by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, very large. We were led, before reading the bill, to believe that the main security on which this corporation would lend money was simply that of two signers, but I find the following in section 5 of the bill:
The company may throughout Canada-
(a) buy, sell, deal in and lend money on the security of conditional sales agreements, lien notes, hire purchase agreements, chattel mort-

Loan and Finance Corporation
gages, trade paper, bills of lading, warehouse receipts, bills of exchange and choses-in-action; and may receive and accept from the makers, vendors or transferors thereof guarantees or other security for the performance and payment thereof and may enforce such guarantees and realize on such security;
The privileges given to the company in this bill are second only to those given to our banking institutions. If anyone wanting to borrow money has any security at all to offer and is a good risk, our present banking facilities are available. As was mentioned by the previous speaker, the superintendent of insurance when asked what rate of interest could be charged under this bill, although it calls for only 7 per cent, informed the committee that in view of the many provisos whereby the company can charge a little here and a little there, and take advantage of the borrower by demanding repayment weekly or monthly, together with the privilege of discounting. the rate of interest would amount to not less than 17 or 18 per cent. In some twenty-three years of my life I have seen what happened to men who borrowed at no higher rates than 8 or 9 or 10 per cent. I have seen many a business eventually go to the wall and many and many a family driven from home. I have seen people who at one time had great hopes of success struggle on for perhaps a quarter of a lifetime only to be compelled in the end to go into bankruptcy or worse, simply because of the high rate of interest charged on the money they borrowed. If that is the case when interest rates are 8 or 10 per cent, what can we expect to be the result when the interest rate is 17 or 18 peT cent? It is terrible to think of. Some say that these companies are working very well, and probably they are so far as the shareholders are concerned, but I cannot imagine for a moment how they can be working well in any respect so far as the borrower - is concerned. If a 'borrower is so down and out that he cannot get accommodation either through his life insurance, or through a bank or through a mortgage company or from friends, if he has not two good backers, then in any event if he has the security that this bill calls for, he should be able to get accommodation through the various channels at present available.
As the hon. member for Wetaskiwin pointed out, section 5, subsection 1 (b) of this bill provides:
(b) notwithstanding anything contained in the Interest Act or in the Money Lenders Act, or in paragraph (c) of section 63 of the Loan Companies Act-
The company may;
(i) lend money secured by assignment of choses-in-action, chattel mortgages or such other
evidence of indebtedness as the company may require, and may charge interest thereon at the rate of not more than seven per centum per annum, and may on all loans deduct the interest in advance and provide for repayments in weekly, monthly or other uniform repayments: provided that the borrower shall have the right to repay the loan at any time before the due date, and, on such repayment being made, to receive a refund of such portion of the interest paid in advance as has not been earned, except a sum equal to the interest for three months,
So even when the company refunds the interest that has not been earned on account of the loan being repaid before the due date, they make the proviso: Oh yes, we will refund the interest, but we intend to keep three months' unearned interest.
This bill, if it means anything at all, means short term loans. The argument was put up 'to us the other day that money might be suddenly required to pay the expenses of a doctor in ease of sickness, or hospital expenses, that the money would be wanted for a short time. If that is the object of the bill, why provide that, the company may retain three months' unearned interest? Although the bill at first sight looks quite harmless in calling for a rate of 7 per cent, when you take into consideration its many provisos allowing the company to charge for looking into the bona fides of the co-signers, into the value of securities, and the proviso that the lender may deduct the interest before the loan is made, and may make various charges here and there, we find according to the testimony of the superintendent of insurance himself that the rate the unfortunate borrower would have to pay is not 7 per cent, but between 17 and 18 per cent.


Mr. ROBINSON:: How does the hon. mem-bre figure it at 17 or 18 per cent? It is 7 per cent, plus 2 per cent for investigations.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I shall have to refer the hon. member to the superintendent of insurance, who, I would say without hesitation, is one of the ablest mathematicians and civil servants that Canada is proud, to have working for her. After carefully looking over the bill he came to the conclusion and stated to the banking and commerce committee that the rate in all would amount to 17 or 18 per cent. That is all we have to work on. It may be more than that, but he put it at 17 to 18 per cent. That makes this bill nothing more or less than a usurer's bill of the worst sort, and I do think, Mr. Speaker, that it is not in the interests of the people of Canada for this parliament to pass it. I think the committee did right in turning down the principle of the bilL I

Loan and Finance Corporation
support the chairman of the committee entirely in the report that he has made to the house, and I very much regret to see that this bill has been put back on the order paper.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Do I understand that this company already has a provincial charter? I am not a member of the banking and commerce committee, and I ask for information.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Yes.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Do they already enjoy these privileges under provincial legislation?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I do not know whether they have exactly the same privileges under the provincial legislation, but I have never seen quite such a raw bill as this presented to the house.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I was simply wondering whether they were carrying on raw practices under provincial legislation.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Even if they have these rights under provincial legislation, I do not think we should soil our hands in supporting such cruelty as to allow a usurer to penalize unfortunate borrowers to the extent allowed under this bill.
Mr. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Souris): I find myself in an unfortunate position, Mr. Speaker. The sponsor of the bill, the bon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson), has been called away on account of sickness in his family. I am a member of the banking and commerce committee, but I was not able to be present when this bill was under consideration due to the unfortunate time at which the meeting was held, and I have not the same intimate knowledge of it. as has my hon. friend from Battle River (Mr. Spencer). I desire that this bill be referred back to the committee for a number of reasons. First, I think if the hon. member for Wrest York were present he would be able to make such explanations as would satisfy the house. Secondly, I myself was not present at the meeting of the banking and commerce committee and I should like to hear the discussions which would take place when all persons were present. I am advised that a company known as The Central Finance Corporation is now operating under exactly the same terms as are outlined in this bill, and went through the committee in precisely the same way. I am further advised that the company now in question and the company known as The Central Finance Corporation both operate under the Loan Companies Act and are subject to the inspection of the superintendent of insurance. In themselves these facts are safeguards for the public.

I am not sponsoring the bill, but it does appear to me that when it came before the committee it was the duty of that body to suggest such safeguards as would be beneficial to the general public. It is my further opinion that if through negligence another company has been incorporated which ought not to have been incorporated it is the duty of the committee to take such steps as are necessary with regard to it.
In any event it seems to me that no harm would be done if the bill were referred back to the committee whence it came. If in the opinion of the committee the measure is unwise it of course could kill the bill. I do think however that the proposed legislation should be given fair consideration before the banking and commerce committee, especially so in view of the fact that the hon. member for West York has been suddenly called away.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Does the hon. member
intimate that the bill was not thoroughly discussed before the banking and commerce committee?


Hugh Guthrie: Only fifteen out of fifty
were present.


Mr. WILLIS:: I have given the reasons
why it should be referred back: First, the bill ought to be sponsored by the hon. member in whose name it. stands. Secondly, as a member of the banking and commerce committee I desire to hear the discussion which might take place. I still think that no harm could be done if the bill were referred back, particularly when another company has been incorporated with exactly the same powers sought in the present instance.


Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: I
desire to associate myself with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) who has just taken his seat. I wish to be fair with the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) who this afternoon sent me a note that he was unavoidably called away because of illness.
I shall not direct my remarks to the merits of the bill, but it does seem to me when the hon. member for West York, who sponsored the bill, was of the opinion that it had not received fair consideration and that it ought to be reinstated on the order paper, he is entitled to have his bill heard before the banking and commerce committee. As the hon. member for Souris has explained, no harm can result from allowing the sponsor properly to present his bill. For those reasons I support the remarks of the hon. member for Souris.

Loan and Finance Corporation


James Dew Chaplin: What did Mr. Finlayson
have to say about the measure?


Ross Wilfred Gray: I am sorry I cannot tell the hon. member for Lincoln, (Mr. Chaplin) because I was not on the committee. As I have said I am not here to discuss the merits or demerits of the bill but to say that the hon. member for West York, with whom I am paired, has asked that the bill be reconsidered. As he is a conscientious member of the house I think he should be given an opportunity properly to present the facts before the committee.


Hugh Guthrie: Question.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. I should like to have a ruling as to whether or not it is in order for this house to send back to a committee a bill which has already been considered by the committee and killed.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Mr. Speaker has so ruled.


William Irvine: Not yet.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is the house ready for
the question?


Alan Webster Neill: No; a point of order has
been raised, and I suggest that it be decided.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: As to the right to recommit, there can be no doubt. If the house chooses to recommit this bill, it may do so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Alan Webster Neill: No, it is not carried. I have listened with care to the debate on this bill, and at the outset may I say that I have no personal feelings in the matter whatever. I never heard of the bill until to-night.
May I advise the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) it has been stated here tonight that Mr. Finlayson, the superintendent of insurance and a man of great ability, said that under the bill it would be possible to collect 17 per cent. I gathered from hon. members who were part of the committee that Mr. Finlayson went a long way rather than to approve of it.
I suggest that if bills are to be considered with relation to the character or reputation of their sponsors rather than on the merits of such bills, we would be instituting a new doctrine in the house. We have heard a great deal about Mr. So-and-So who sponsored the bill now in question and who was not before the committee to present his baby, so to speak. However the bill was discussed on its merits by a number of hon. members in the committee, and the suggestion is not made
that the bill was not so discussed. If such discussion took place what difference does it make whether one hon. member introduced it or another? The inference was left that the bill had not received a fair hearing. Listening however to members of the committee who stated what took place it seems to me that the hearing was fair. One hon. member has said that a company similar to the one now in question is operating under the Loan Companies Act, and under the inspection of the superintendent of insurance.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the exemptions asked in the bill. In order to carry out what I think I might call its nefarious objectives it has been found necessary to seek authority from the house to exempt the company from the provisions of a number of acts. I am always suspicious of a bill, even it be a railway bill, which comes before the house and is not satisfied with the ordinary provisions of the standard railway act which has been formulated after a great deal of care and experience. On some occasions we find special exemptions asked for. The same suspicion arises in the present instance when we find on the pages of a short bill permission sought for a number of exemptions. Under section 5 of the bill we find the following:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Interest Act-
That is No. 1.
[DOT]-or in the Money Lenders Act-
That is No. 2.
*-or in paragraph (c) of section 63 of the Loan Companies Act-[DOT]
That is No. 3-the company shall have power to do so and so. Then in section 8 we find the following:
The Loan Companies Act, chapter 28 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, excepting therefrom-
And then follows a number of exceptions, ending with the words:
-shall apply to the company.
This is what is excepted: subsection 1 of section 61; paragraph (c) of subsection 2 of section 61; subsection 3 of section 62; section 64-the whole section-sections 65, 66, 67, 82 and 88. AVith those trifling exceptions the Loan Companies Act shall apply.
I have not the time nor have I found the necessity to learn to what all these sections refer. From the number of them however one would suggest that they would cover a fairly wide field. We find the company now in question coming forward and before they are in a position legitimately to operate they

Loan and Finance Corporation
ask exemption from these various acts: The Interest Act, the Money Lenders Act and the Loan Companies Act, Then we find them taking power, as other hon. members have pointed out, to impose what is very often called a "loan charge" for preliminary investigations. The section is very obscurely worded, and it is not clear to me whether there are two charges indicated or only one. The company takes power to charge:
-in addition to interest as aforesaid, for all expenses which have been necessarily and in good faith incurred by the company in making or renewing a loan authorized by the next preceding subparagraph (i), including all expenses for inquiry and investigation into the character and circumstances of the borrower, his endorsers, co-makers or sureties, for taxes,-
For taxes.
-correspondence and- professional advice,-
Then there is a comma and the sub-paragraph concludes:
and for all necessary documents and papers, two per centum upon the principal sum loaned,
It is not clear to me whether that two per centum is to cover the whole of that paragraph, or whether there is authority to charge for all expenses incurred as specific down to and including "for professional advice," and then two per centum in addition "for all necessary documents and papers." I think it will be found that two separate charges are authorized for all expenses for inquiry and investigations into the character and circumstances of the borrower, his endorsers, comakers or sureties

and in this connection you might run up a considerable bill.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: Mr. Finlayson appeared before the committee and strongly supported the bill.	He said he had gone over it
thoroughly. It was understood in the committee that the two per centum covered charges for investigating endorsers. This company lends only to endorsers.


Alan Webster Neill: Who made that statement?


Sidney Cecil Robinson: It was made before the committee. I may say further that Mr. Fin-layson stated that he had thoroughly gone over the bill and had found it similar to bills authorizing other companies to loan moneys to parties to whom the banks will not advance loans. It is on endorsements, not chattel mortgages, that the company lends money. The two per cent covers those charges.


Alan Webster Neill: Do I understand the hon.
member to say that Mr. Finlayson advised the committee that this section was similar to that in other bills incorporating loan companies of this nature?


Sidney Cecil Robinson: All companies doing
similar business.


William Irvine: There is only one other
company in Canada organized in that way.


Alan Webster Neill: I think the hon. gentleman
inquired of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) how he arrived at the statement of seventeen per cent, and was referred by him to Mr. Finlayson. We gelt a fair idea of how it can be worked out if we look at sub-paragraph one with, respect to the seven per cent per annum charge:
-and may on all loans deduct the interest in advance.
Supposing the loan was $2,000 for five years; the interest for one year would be $140; multiply that by five and you have $700,-to be deducted from the $2,000 loan. The wretched man who is going to get the $2,000 is given only $1,300 in cash, and this company gets the use of the $700 for the five years. Then it is prescribed that the loan is to be paid back, if the company choose, in weekly or monthly instalments. Under the next succeeding sub-paragraph I suppose the company can begin at each succeeding period, whether weekly or monthly, and have these investigations all over again. I will accept my hon. friend's statement that the second sub-paragraph authorizes a charge of only two per centum. Add this to the $700 interest at seven per cent, and the unhappy borrower is still further behind and gets only $1,260; then he is liable to be charged the same expenses again and again in every case of renewal. And the promoters of the company did not miss anything,-the next subsection provides that in case the company has omitted anything it can charge:
-an additional sum equal to the legal and other actual expenses disbursed by the company in connection with such loan, but not exceeding the sum of $10.
Add this to the other deductions to which I have referred, and the unfortunate borrower finds his loan of $2,000 reduced by $750.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I do not think it is fair to figure on a five year basis, because they are all short term loans.


Alan Webster Neill: There is nothing in the bill
confining loans to short periods, and I should judge from the character of the company as disclosed by these provisions that it would not care whether the loan were short or long -if it get the unhappy borrower within its

Loan and Finance Corporation
power he never would be free of debt again. Then this provision is inserted.
-but no charge for expenses of any kind shall be made or collected unless the loan has been actually made.
Then I find that the company takes power to borrow money upon its own credit; but that I suppose is more or less the company's own concern. But the company seems to think there might be something shady about the transaction because I find this provision:
Any officer or. director of the company who does, causes or permits to be done, anything contrary to the provisions of this section shall be liable for each offence to a penalty of not less than twenty dollars and not more than five thousand dollars.
And the other night an hon. member wanted to penalize a farmer not less than $1,000 if he was caught with one per cent more water _ in his butter than the regulations allow! But in this case the wrongdoer is subject to a penalty of not less than $20-in each instance,
I suppose. One bon. member suggested that it was the duty of this committee if it did mot like the terms of the bill, to make such amendments as would protect the public. The only way I can see to protect the public in a case like this is to reject the bill in its entirety. I do not want to take up the time of the house further-


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


Alan Webster Neill: I could very easily talk the bill out, but I think this house is entitled to vote on it, and I propose that it do so now.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


Alfred Speakman: No, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. MEMBER:: Talk it out.


Alfred Speakman: No, I have no desire to talk the bill out, and I shall state any observations as rapidly as possible. It does seem to me that two points should be considered with reference to this bill. First, is it of the class which should pass this house at a time when from every part of the country comes the cry of suffering humanity weighed down under a load of debt on which the usual interest charges cannot be paid? By this bill it is proposed to empower another company to charge a still higher rate of interest. I was not a member of the committee, but I have studied the bill with some care, and as far as I can see there is no limitation on the charges of one kind and another that may be made by the company once the borrower has fallen into its clutches. My hon. friend behind me suggests that this might well be
termed a "Shylock" bill-but that the old gentleman is looking for his pound of flesh without giving any undertaking not to shed a drop of blood.
Another point to be considered is this: The bill once having been killed in the select committee, shall it be again referred to that committee? I think we should have finality in these matters. There are only two reasons for a bill being returned to the committee for reconsideration: first, that the bill was not given a fair hearing; no one has suggested that this is so. The other reason is that new evidence may have been forthcoming in the meantime that might change the opinion of the committee; no indication has been given as to that. If the bill has had a hearing before a fair percentage of the committee, is it any more likely at this stage of the session that there will be a full attendance or that the committee will accord the bill a more favourable hearing? In brief, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill because of the provisions of the bill itself; I think they are wrong and that they are inopportune. The fact that at another time we gave similar powers to another company is no reason why, in this year of grace, we shoud repeat that error. I am opposed to this bill being returned to the committee, because as far as I can gather the bill has received fair consideration and no new evidence has been brought forward to warrant a re-bearing. The fact that the hon. member who to-day is sponsoring the bill, in the absence of the original sponsor, has not heard the evidence and would desire to hear what is to be said about it is a good argument from his point of view, but that is no reason why it should go back at this time. I hope the house will kill this bill, as it should be killed.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: I
just wish to put myself on record as being opposed not only to this particular bill but also to the principle upon which it is based At a time when the majority of the people are criticizing our banks for the rate of interest they are permitted to charge it seems to me it would be a most reactionary thing for this house to pass a bill permitting another company to charge such exorbitant rates of interest. Therefore I am opposed to the principle upon which the bill is based.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. MEMBER:: That settles it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to hear one hon. member suggest that this settles it; if I could possibly settle the bill in this way

Loan and Finance Corporation
I would do so. Although I am a member of the banking and commerce committee unfortunately I was not present at the session of the committee when this bill was under consideration, and for my information I must depend upon what has been said to-night and upon the bill itself. It is at this stage that we determine the principle of the bill, and those who have asked that the bill be re-committed have given us no very good reason why that should be done except that the sponsor himself has in some way taken upon himself the obligation to get this before the committee, and he as a lawyer is interested in seeing that his clients are fully satisfied.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: So he is interested in having the bill brought before the committee. For some reason or other he was not present when it came up previously.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. I do not think
the hon. member should refer to the sponsor of the bill as acting for a client. He is here as a member of parliament, and there is no reason to make such an insinuation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quite ready
to withdraw that remark if it is unparliamentary. I think those were almost the words of the sponsor of the bill yesterday.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is not parliamentary
to say that a member of this house who is a lawyer should have attended to the affairs of his clients. That is an insinuation that he is here as a paid agent, and that insinuation should be withdrawn.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quite willing to withdraw any insinuation of the kind. As a matter of fact I did not intend to insinuate anything. The sponsor of the bill is very keenly interested in having the matter properly presented, and it is true that in this case the sponsor of the bill happens to be a lawyer. I have no doubt he has some professional pride in seeing that the bill is properly presented to the house. For some reason or other he was unable to be present 'before the committee, but there has been no suggestion that the committee did not give it fair consideration. If there was any suggestion of that kind I would quite gladly agree to its going back, but there has been nothing of that kind said. At this time we are trying to determine the principle of the bill, and I think sufficient has been adduced already in this discussion to-night to show that the 
principle of this bill is absolutely wrong There are one or two points I should like to emphasize, though most of them have been touched upon already.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: My hon. friend has said he was not at the meeting. I may say that from the discussion to-night one would think the banking and commerce committee were unanimous in turning down the preamble of the bill, but the vote was seven to eight.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: My recollection is that eight were against it and seven were for the bill. I am sure of that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quite ignorant on that point, but with regard to the principle of the bill, in section 5 (b) we have the following statement:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Interest Act, or in the Money Lenders Act or in paragraph (c) of section sixty-three of the Loan Companies Act. . . .
It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that these various acts which are general in character have been placed upon the statute books to safe-guard borrowers; I think that may be taken for granted. I do not know all the terms or provisions of these acts, but I have no doubt they were fairly well considered, and they are general acts intended to safeguard the interests of borrowers. I do not think any bill ought to be introduced which in this way sets aside the provision of general acts. It is vicious legislation, because almost any company could come along and plead for a special exemption. If there is something m the Interest Act, in the Money Lenders Act or in the Loan Companies Aot which is unjust to the lenders or if there is something that should be revised, let us bring in amendments to those acts. Then we will not need to bring in these exceptions. If those acts are fair to lenders and yet safeguard borrowers, I think we should not permit them to be set aside.
Further, there is the other point which has been dealt with to-night and which 1 think has not been answered. I can hardly conceive of this house passing legislation which would permit a possible 17 per cent to be charged; it would seem to me outrageous that anything of the kind should be done. I quite admit that the interest may be only 7 per cent, 10 per cent or 12 per cent, but I cannot see that we are justified in allowing anything to go through so loosely drawn that it would permit anything of this character. Even to one who is a layman and not an

Supply-Post Office
expert in draftsmanship it is apparent that this is a most extraordinary bill, permitting exceptions of almost every conceivable character. So, as we are dealing here with the principle of the bill, I think we should decide that no bill shall be permitted to pass which will contravene what would seem to be the fundamental principles of justice.


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



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Post Office-outside service, $36,339,975.
Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister if he would explain why the item covering stationery and printing shows an amount for 1931-32 of $490,000 as compared with $865,623.18 for 1930-31.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: I thank the hon. member
for calling my attention to this matter. The main estimates for 1930-31 called for $490,000 for this item, and this amount was voted during the regime of the former government. However, it was not sufficient to cover the requirements for the year and pay accounts due to the printing bureau which had been accumulating since 1927-28. The present administration decided that these outstanding accounts should be paid, and provided for an amount of $375,623.18 to be included in the supplementary estimates.
The situation to which the hon. member has called attention is one which is likely to arise following any change of government. When main estimates are passed by one administration and further supplementary estimates passed by an incoming administration, it is impossible to avoid this apparent discrepancy in the figures. In order to make a proper comparison it is necessary to show in the figures for the previous year both the main and supplementary estimates which have been passed. I am informed that this has been the practice heretofore. If it were not followed hon. members would find it necessary to have before them the details of the supplementary estimates in order to make a comparison between one year and another. This is not a reflection upon the administration of the former Postmaster General, but is simply the application of a well-defined and long standing rule.


Peter John Veniot: An entirely wrong impression is given by showing in the 1930-31 column the amount of $865,623.18, this being an intimation that the former government had voted that amount. The amount voted by the late administration was $490,000, and if the incoming government found it necessary to straighten out accounts due to the printing department, they should have shown that they were voting $865,623.18 this year instead of $490,000, and then given an explanation of the increase of $375,000. As the two columns now appear an attempt is being made to show that this government is practising economy in that they have reduced one item by $375,000. I do not say that has been done intentionally, but it is a falsification of the records of the former and present government.
The minister says that a precedent has been established for this practice, but I do not know where he gets his information. It has never been the case that an incoming government, having to meet a deficit of an outgoing government, has shown an amount as having been voted by the outgoing government when in fact a part of the amount had been voted by themselves. It is only for that reason that I am pointing this out tonight, that the Post Office Department, under the present government, has not had any decrease; it is not entitled to a decrease of $375,000. What the minister should have had in the estimates was $490,000 plus $375,000, and then showed that the increase he was obliged to make was because of an outstanding account that had not been settled by the former government.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I want to bring to the
minister's attention something that has been referred to me and also I am sure has been referred to him hundreds of times by reason of the many changes in the mail services owing to the cutting off of trains. I have under my hand a communication from the town of Tillsonburg, in the county of Oxford, drawing to my attention the very great handicap under which the industries of that thrifty little town are labouring at the present time. A letter sent to the minister under date of July 14, 1931, explains the position in which many of these towns and villages find themselves, especially those off the main railways that have not at present the mail service
Sup-ply-Post Office

which they enjoyed for many years past-. This is the letter to which I refer:
The Postmaster General,
Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
We are writing you in connection with the change in the postal service in the town of Tillsonburg which came into effect the first of July. Before that date, the mail was delivered here before nine o'clock in the morning, and since then it is ten-thirty, and occasionally if there is any delay such as to-day, it is twelve o'clock noon, and as the last outgoing mail is at two-thirty p.m. you will realize that we have not time to attend to the day's business and it it has _ to stand over for twenty-four hours, which is an intolerable situation for business establishments like ours, and there are a dozen others in this town in the same position.
Vigorous protests have been entered to the district superintendent in London, but without any results so far, and therefore would ask you to kindly investigate this matter and see what can be done to right this situation, which is doing us a great deal of damage, as we feel we are entitled to better service.
I would be very glad to hear from you.
Yours very truly,
The Tillsonburg Shoe Company, Limited.
I am sure the minister is conscious of the great handicap under which these industries are labouring. I should like an assurance from him that he will do something and do it soon in order that these towns and villages off the main railroads may receive some consideration.
I should like to bring to his attention another matter which has been referred to me. Many of these mails are carried on mixed trains, part of the train consisting of freight cars, and while they have a schedule on which they are supposed to run, it is very difficult, indeed almost impossible, to run according to schedule, this depending upon the amount of freight they have to lift at the various stations. One can imagine the difficulty with which the postmasters along the route are faced. Some of them tell me they have to wait for these trains an hour, two hours, and so on. Very often it is the wife of the postmaster who has to wait out in those cold stations for the mails to be delivered. I am sure the minister wants to see all of these towns and villages free from this handicap and given the same advantages as industries enjoy in the larger centres which are better served by railways, and that he will do his utmost to see that as soon as at all possible something is done to give these people a fair deal.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: I thank the hon. gentleman
for his representations and I can assure him that I shall continue to give my most serious consideration to the question.
[Mr. Cayley.l


Mr. BRADETTE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, 1 have a request to make to the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve). I am aware that in the section of the country which I have the privilege of representing, it is difficult for the department to always give entire satisfaction, owing to its vastness and scattered population, I am alluding to the post office of Ryland, a parish which is situated somewhat to the west of the town of Hearst. I think that the department has had this question under consideration for almost two years, but owing to the local difficulties, I think it proper to again draw the attention of the house to this matter. I must say, by the way, that in my section of the country as well as in many other extensive districts, whether under the Conservative or Liberal rule, the Post Office Department has had to make heavy outlays to provide a postal system.
Owing to the small population of Ryland, it would be only fair that the present post office should be removed to the village of Ryland itself. At present, only eight or ten families benefit by the postal service; the others who form the majority of the parish of Ryland must travel at least l\ miles or to get their mail at the town of Hearst which is nearly 6 miles away. As I have just mentioned, the Post Office Department was aware of this fact last year and this year, and, I think, that the question is being considered. I would suggest, if the department fears that this change would be unfair to the present postmaster, who is one of the pioneers of this section of the country and who has been postmaster for a number of years, I would suggest to the Postmaster General, on behalf of the worthy population of Ryland, that he put up two post offices, the present one to remain where it is and another to be located in the village itself. I think the thing could be easily done. I know that this will entail a further expenditure and that might create a precedent, however, I make this suggestion on behalf of the worthy pioneers of new Ontario, who are making sacrifices to develop that part of the province.
I have another request to make on behalf of this parish. I wonder if it would be possible for the Post Office Department to again provide mail service three times a week, as in the past. If I am not mistaken, these worthy people receive mail only twice a week. May I point out that there are two trains, No. 1 and No. 2, two National Railway trains which pass there daily. It would therefore be an easy task for the Post Office Department to provide again tri-weekly mail service to accommodate the parish of Ryland.

Supply-Post Office


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: Let me assure the hon. member that the question which he has just brought up with reference to Ryland, is receiving the department's attention, and that we shall further consider and study the matter, especially after the fair comments made by my hon. friend. We are not only considering the request, but also the means at our disposal to settle this matter.
As to the last part of his request, the hon. member will admit that this is rather within the scope of the railways and that it would be proper to refer the matter to the railway officials. I can assure the hon. member that we shall continue to consider this question from the viewpoint of serving the best interests of this territory, and at the same time giving justice to the people of Ryland.


Mr. FERLAND (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to again draw the attention of the hon. Postmaster General to the question of a home distribution of mail for the city of Joliette. At the outset of the session I wrote to the hon. Postmaster General on this subject and in his answer dated March 21, 1931, he stated, among other things:
The question of giving a home distribution of mail to the people of Joliette was considered by the Postmaster General some time ago, but owing to the economic situation of the country, it was thought proper to put off taking any decision on the matter until conditions showed improvement.
The economic situation of the country, is perhaps a reason which can be invoked as regards many requests, however, I must point out that last year the late government had an item in the estimates voted to provide for such a service at Joliette, and if I am not mistaken, an order in council had been passed-


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: On what date?


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I have not the date, it must have been in June.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: After the 1930 session?


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Yes, after the session, however, the question had been considered and decided during the session and, at the time, near the end of the session, the Civil 'Service Commission, on the advice of the Post Office Department had candidates who wished to become letter-carriers at Joliette, undergo the necessary test, following this the commission prepared a list of those who were eligible. Furthermore, the Post Office Department forwarded to the post office at Joliette, all the paraphernalia required to
start this service, namely, letter-carriers' uniforms, mail-pouches, etc'., it was therefore a service which had practically been established by the preceding administration.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: If the money was voted at the last session, why the order in council?


Charles-Édouard Ferland: The order in council was to fix the necessary amount. In last year's estimates, the details were not given to the house. However, I knew that my request had been granted by the then Postmaster General and that the amount had been included in the summary estimates of $16,500,000.
It was a service which we thought necessary and timely, and was granted under the late administration. I cannot believe that th present government had ever conceived the idea of taking away from the town of Joliette a service which had been granted by a preceding administration. I would rather believe that there has been some mistake with respect to this request.
The request is justified by the returns of the post office, at Joliette. The population is gradually increasing, although slowly; it has now reached eleven thousand and some odd hundred people and the post office has also a revenue which is gradually and uninterruptedly increasing year by year; at present it is more than $20,000. The returns of the Joliette Post Office are as large and even larger than those of certain other towns of the province, whose population is less, yet the latter have their home distribution.
Under these circumstances, I again humbly place my request before the hon. Postmaster General. May I say to him that I have full confidence in his spirit of fairness, and that if he so desires, he can satisfy the wishes of the people of the county which I have the honour of representing.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: I wish to
thank the hon. member for Joliette of the trust he places in me and I may say to him, as it is often said in letters that I receive myself: "my letter speaks for itself." As to the money voted for this new service, if I be not mistaken, there was no definite amount mentioned in the estimates, at least I have not been able to find it in last year's estimates.
An amount was, perhaps included in the estimates as a whole, if it were voted, however, it does not appear anywhere, and I think, that is the reason that an order in council was passed in June to determine the amount which was to be granted for such a service.
Supply-Post Office

Now, we are studying the financial situation and the means at our disposal. If it be possible to complete the organization of this service, we shall do so with the greatest of pleasure.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, may I correct the statement just made by the hon. Postmaster General. The amount was voted last year for this service at Joliette, it was included in the general item-


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: Would you
kindly let me see it?


Peter John Veniot: I cannot
do so, but the order in council mentions it, and this order in council passed in June authorized the establishment of this service in Joliette. That order in council would have never been passed, if it had not been shown to the Treasury Board that the amount had been provided in the estimates submitted to the house.	.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: That may be, but there is nothing to show this:


Peter John Veniot: You will
not find these details in the estimates, but they were mentioned in the house when the estimates were submitted and explanations were then given. The estimates of the Post Office Department were voted by the house, the order in council was brought down recommended by myself when I was Postmaster General, and passed upon by the Treasury Board. If this had not been done the Civil Service Commission would have had no authority to advertise in the newspapers for candidates to fill the position of letter-carriers.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Coming back to the matter I spoke of before, I was wondering if the Postmaster General has considered the use of motor cars for delivering the mail to places off the main line where the mail service has been disrupted and the people at present are greatly inconvenienced. It is highly essential that these thrifty little towns and villages, which now find themselves with a very poor mail service, should be given better facilities.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: In oases where the train mail service is abolished, we consider the possibility of delivering the mail by car or bus or other means.


Mr. HURTUBISE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Postmaster General a question, but, previous to doing 'so, I wish to give some explanation. Under

the Liberal regime plans and specifications had been prepared and even tenders asked for in connection with an aerial postal service between Montreal, Ottawa, Pembroke, Sudbury, North Bay and Sault Ste. Marie. The point which I wish to elucidate is this: Do the estimates of the Postmaster General provide for the completion, in part or as a whole, of this service which was planned under the preceding administration?


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: Not for the
present.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: I am
asking the Postmaster General this question, because in my section of the country, naturally, all towns like Sudbury and North Bay, are preparing and endeavouring to find landing fields, and if as the minister has just said, nothing will be done for a year to come they will discontinue these preparations.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: I think it
would be better for them to act cautiously.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I am very sorry I could not follow the remarks of my hon. friend from Nipissing, as I am unable to understand the French language. I do not know whether or not the hon. member was quarrelling with the Postmaster General, but I must say his language sounded very well. The French language is euphonic and beautiful whether hon. members are quarrelling or not-I should like to know what it is like when they are making love.
Has the Postmaster General received any letters or petitions from the village of Ranfurly with respect to closing post office lobbies in that village? If the minister has received such letters or petitions I should like to know what his answer was.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: The hon. member is right; we have had correspondence in that connection but I am sorry it is not now before me. I may state however we have considered the matter.


Michael Luchkovich: Some time ago
on the orders of the day I brought this matter to the attention of the Postmaster General, and asked, him whether there was a general ruling to apply to all of Canada or whether the ruling would apply only to the village of Ranfurly. In reply the Postmaster General said that the ruling was not confined to Ranfurly but was general throughout Canada. There were certain exceptions however in the province of Quebec in connection with which he made the following statement:

Supply-Post Office
Exceptions are made in some instances in the province of Quebec where some post offices are kept open to permit patrons to get their mail after driving to the village to church.
I sent this answer to the people in Ran-furly and vicinity but they do not seem to be very well satisfied.


Peter John Veniot: Is it a public building?


Michael Luchkovich: I think there is a store attached to the building wherein the post office is located. The people around Ranfurly are not satisfied with the statement of the Postmaster 'General.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: I shall be pleased to reconsider the question and shall try to satisfy the hon. member.


Michael Luchkovich: Will the Postmaster General tell that to the petitioners from Ranfurly?


Mr. ERNST:: The minister has told it 'to Hansard, and that is just as good.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: I shall reconsider the matter.


Mr. GIROUARD (Translation):: I wish
to put a question to the hon. Postmaster General so as to obtain some information. In order that I may be clearly understood may I draw his attention to one case. A person is appointed postmaster in a village of Quebec. The department locates the post office in a store belonging to another person. An election takes place, and the proprietor of the store puts in his store election handbills and placards. Would the Postmaster General be so obliging as to inform me whether the fact of placing election handbills and placards in his store may be considered as political interference on the part of the postmaster?


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: That depends
on the location of the post office.


Wilfrid Girouard: The post office is
located in the store.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: Is it entirely
separated?


Wilfrid Girouard: Partly.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: What portion
is separated?


Wilfrid Girouard: The front part and sides are separated by partitions. Evidently, it is the same counter in the rear which is used for goods and post office purposes, and in the present case it must be admitted that in the post office proper there are no placards or handbills.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: According to
the limited experience I have had, it happens in certain cases, as I have found out, after obtaining the necessary information from those who have charge of such inquiries, and even from our own officials, that the portion reserved for postal purposes in the store is very limited, and all that takes place in the store practically takes place in the post office, because the latter itself forms part of the store and the separation, so to speak, is not adequate. The post office is here and the store there. The hon. member will admit that the postmaster who has a little office in the corner of the room hardly or not entirely separated from the store, and who places hand-bills and advertisements-


Peter John Veniot: The postmaster is not the proprietor of the store.


Wilfrid Girouard: It is a case where the postmaster is not the proprietor of the store.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: Is the place rented ?


Wilfrid Girouard: Yes, the
place is rented for the post office.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: The place is
rented for the post office and in the store politics is carried on?


Wilfrid Girouard: The case is as follows, if the Postmaster General will allow me-


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: I know of such cases, however one must act cautiously, especially when one has to listen to reports which reach you-they are often contradicted.


Wilfrid Girouard: I am glad to hear the hon. Postmaster General say that one must act cautiously; however, those who are sent by the Post Office Department to inquire into such cases do not act as cautiously as the hon. Postmaster General himself. I allude to the case at Ste-Clothilde-de-Horton.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: Would the
hon. member have any objection to naming the locality to which he alludes.


Wilfrid Girouard: I have just mentioned the place: Ste-Clothilde-de-Hor-ton. The postmaster had his post office in a store owned by a Mr. Rousseau.
A general election was announced and the proprietor placed hand-bills and placards in his store. He evidently was entitled to do so; he had no permission to ask from the postmaster. An inquiry was held and the Com-

Supply-Post Office
missioner decided that the fact of having hand-bills advertising the Liberal party in the store, where the post office was located, was sufficient evidence of political interference on the part of the postmaster. Consequently, the hon. Postmaster General signed the order in council dismissing this postmaster.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: What was the conclusion arrived at in the report?


Wilfrid Girouard: I shall
read it:
From the evidence heard, I conclude that the postmaster is a strong Liberal partisan who does not conceal his views and even delights in airing them in public; that the fear of losing his position as postmaster prevented him from compromising himself publicly either by his acts or other ways-
I wish to specially draw the attention to these lines.
*-the fact itself of having handbills advertising the Liberal party in the store where the post office is located, and of allowing his two assistants to carry on political propaganda, driving voters to the polls are sufficient evidence to prove political partisanship.
I was anxious to elucidate the first point.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: Who signed
this?


Wilfrid Girouard: It is signed by J. Alfred Powell, of St-Ferdinand d'Halifax. I was anxious to elucidate the first point, namely, whether a postmaster should be punished for the actions of the owner of a store in which the department has rented space sufficient for the post office. The hon. Postmaster General has just stated that in such cases it is well to act cautiously. However, it is perhaps somewhat late to make this statement seeing that the ex-postmaster has been dismissed.
The other question which I want to ask is the following: A postmaster employs assistants who are paid by himself and not by the Post Office Department. If, on the voting day, one of the assistants, without the knowledge of the postmaster, drives voters to the polls, does that constitute, on the part of the postmaster, an act of political partisanship?


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: The employee of a postmaster does not concern the Post Office Department.


Wilfrid Girouard: I am entirely satisfied with the answer just given by the Postmaster General. I therefore conclude that the postmaster of Ste-Clothide-de-Horton was illegally and unjustly dismissed, and I wish to protest against this dismissal. The

only evidence brought to bear against him was the fact that his employees had driven voters to the polls. He was unjustly dismissed and another person was appointed in his place.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: These are not
the facts. I understand that the hon. member put forth two cases: the first, that of Ste-Clothilde-de Horton, and another which he has not designated.


Wilfrid Girouard: It is the
same case.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: Are they not
two different cases?


Wilfrid Girouard: The commissioner gives these two reasons for the dismissal.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: This postmaster was not dismissed simply because one of his assistants meddled in politics. In the first case the hon. member spoke of the location of the post office and hand-bills placed in the store. These are two different questions.
As regards the inquiring commissioner, 1 absolutely follow the rule laid down by the leaders of the two parties, in 1923: when a commissioner is appointed he takes the oath and carries out an inquiry, the Postmaster General acts on the recommendation of the commissioner's report; he is not there to discuss the commissioner's recommendation nor to attack it, because the inquiry is carried on under oath and it does not behoove the minister to say: "Your recommendations are not just."


Wilfrid Girouard: I follow
perfectly the reasons just given by the Postmaster General and I certainly give them their due weight. However, the Post Office Department must bear the responsibility of dismissals which take place. If there are dismissals, sir, the Postmaster General must also take his share of responsibility. I simply wish to state that an injustice was committed in my county, and I respectfully request the hon. Postmaster General to rectify it.
I especially want to draw the attention of the Postmaster General to a letter which he wrote on August 21, 1930, to Mr. Agesilas Kirouac, the Conservative candidate in Artha-baska. At the last election, I always read with interest the speeches made by the hon. Postmaster General, seeing that they always contained statements of principles with which, most of the time, I agreed. If the hon. Postmaster General will allow me, I shall read to

Supply-Post Office
him a letter which he personally wrote on August 21, 1930, to the Conservative candidate of Arthabaska, the letter reads as follows:
Mr. Agesilas Kirouac,
Warwick, P.Q.
Dear Sir,-
I have received your letter dated the 19th inst., recommending Mr. Alfred Laforest for the position of postmaster at St-Clothilde-de-Horton.
In answer, I am sorry to state that for the present nothing can be done in this respect. I must first make myself acquainted with all the branches of my department.
Up to now no fault can be found.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: What is the
date of this letter?


Wilfrid Girouard: August 21, 1930. The hon. Postmaster General had just been appointed, and I readily understand that he was not yet familiar with all the details of his department. However, I wish to draw his attention to the following lines:
I shall then arrange with my colleagues and be as obliging as possible to our friends, while at the same time ensuring proper administration.
Would the hon. Postmaster General be kind enough to inform me when was held this meeting of ministers to decide what had to be done to oblige the friends, who were the members of the cabinet present, and finally, what decision was taken following this meeting.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: I wonder
whether the hon. member is joking when he asks me this series of questions. I have sufficient parliamentary experience to know that it is not customary to answer questions of this nature. The ministers met each time that it was found necessary to discuss questions which were submitted to them in the public interests. We are not called upon to give an account of the number of times ministers meet. I think, moreover, that this question was lately settled in this house, and that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) gave his views in this sense. I am ready to give all the information possible, however, I cannot remember all the dates when the ministers met to discuss public questions.


Wilfrid Girouard: The hon.
Postmaster General will admit that my question is as 'serious a one as what he wrote to the Conservative candidate in Arthabaska. The hon. minister had just been placed in office and I am certain that to-day he would not write the same letter which he wrote last year.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: Are there any other paragraphs?


Wilfrid Girouard: It is the
third paragraph.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: Is that the worst?


Wilfrid Girouard: Yes, it is the worst.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: It is all right.


Wilfrid Girouard: I doubt whether the Postmaster General should rejoice so much over this letter. He expresses the views that to obtain a civil service position in his department, the necessary qualification is to beflong to the same party as he does. No other meaning can be attached to his statement-


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: Will you read it?


Wilfrid Girouard: -which I shall read a second time.
I shall then arrange with my colleagues. . . .
One must bear in mind that the Postmaster General was writing to the Conservative candidate of Arthabaska who had recommended to him the appointment of Mr. Alfred Laforest who was later appointed.
I shall then arrange with my colleagues and be as obliging as possible to our friends while at the same time ensuring proper administration.
If the hon. Postmaster General says that this statement holds good and he is ready to approve of it to-day, I have nothing else to add. After having read the statement he made, when he was appointed Postmaster General, I felt certain that he would be fair to all ratepayers, whether they were Liberals or Conservatives; but if he states to-day that he approves of what he wrote last, year, I am forced, I regret, to conclude that he makes a distinction between those who side with his politics and those who belong to the Liberal party. It is all that I have to say.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: Mr. Chairman, I would not endorse the statement I made in that letter if the interpretation of the hon. member was a correct one. I much prefer what is said in my letter than the interpretation given to it by the hon. member. When a friend writes to me and asks a favour, I think I have the right to answer him and consult with my colleagues as regards questions of this nature, in order to play fair with our friends without interfering with the public

Supply-Post Office

interest. And if such interests clash, that of the country must have precedence. That is the policy which I have followed in my department from the very first, and I might point out many instances which have occurred in the county of the hon. member. I could name a number of members on the opposition benches who are aware of what I have done to be fair towards the employees of my department.


Wilfrid Girouard: That is
what I wish to know.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: That is what
you wish to know and that is what I do.


Peter John Veniot: The hon.
Postmaster General has just informed my hon. friend the member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard) that he followed the practice adopted by the previous government as regards dismissals after inquiry.
Mr. iSAUVE (Translation): Pardon me, this is not exactly what I stated. I followed the rule adopted.by the Prime Minister in office in 1923; the then leader of the opposition held the same views and the same rule had been followed by the previous administration. There is quite a difference with what the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) wants me to say.


Peter John Veniot: According to the rule followed. And the hon. Postmaster General added: "As the former administration accepted the conclusions of the commissioners, he followed the same rule." Allow me, sir, to say to him that the former administration did not follow the practice which he has just referred to this evening.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: (Translation): I know it.


Peter John Veniot: The former
administration, it is true, after a report charging an official with political interference was received, ordered an inquiry according to the rule adopted in 1923 by the house. However, after the inquiry was held and the commissioner's report was submitted to the department, the recommendation of the commissioner was not adhered to without having first examined the evidence given at the inquiry, because it may so happen that the commissioner's conclusions are wrong and not in keeping with the evidence given, I took the trouble as Postmaster General to follow every inquiry and in a number of cases I would not accept the recommendation of the commissioner because his conclusions were not in keeping with the facts. I thought that I was as good a judge as he in weighing the evidence given. I notice that in the inquiries which are held to-day, the commissioners do

not submit the evidence given at the inquiry and that in drawing their conclusions they say: We base our judgment on such and such evidence; however, if they quoted the evidence in full one would perhaps discover that their conclusions are not always in keeping with the evidence.
I shall cite one case in particular, that of the postmaster of Lameque, in the county of Gloucester. The commissioner in charge of the inquiry in his conclusions states that the postmaster admitted having been present at a political meeting and he specifies which one it was. Now, it so happened that this meeting was not a political one but a public reception given by all the parties of the parish including both Conservatives and Liberals. It is true, that the postmaster came to this reception given in honour of your humble servant; however, it was not a political affair. When I forwarded-I should like the Postmaster General to listen to this-when I forwarded the report of the commissioner to the postmaster of Lameque, he sent me an affidavit stating that the conclusions of the commissioner in charge of the inquiry were not correct, were not in keeping with the evidence given. You have on file in the department the affidavit of the postmaster of Lameque, a man who never took any part in politics; however, the commissioner drew his conclusions from the fact that this postmaster had admitted being present at that political meeting-when in no sense could it be called a political meeting. I understand that up to the present the Postmaster General has not taken any definite stand on this question and I request him, before accepting the recommendations of the commissioner in charge of the inquiry to examine them carefully. That is why almost every time that complaints were made to me as regards inquiries which were held when I was in office, I went very carefully over the evidence given; I also ask the Postmaster General to take the necessary time to examine the evidence, at least in part, and to make sure that the recommendations of the commissioner in charge are just.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: My hon. friend
the former Postmaster General will admit that heretofore we have taken the necessary time to consider the question.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, you certainly had time to consider this 'question of Lameque.


Mr. BEAUBIEN (Translation):: If a member of parliament writes to the Postmaster General and states that, to his personal

ouppiy-rosi ujjice
knowledge, a postmaster took an active part in an election, the Postmaster General, as a rule, dismisses this postmaster?


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: In certain
cases we grant an inquiry. There are post offices which come under the Civil Service Commission.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: If a member of parliament signs a letter charging a postmaster with political partisanship, the rule is to dismiss this postmaster?


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: I did not quite understand the question.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Are there cases where a member of parliament has written to the Postmaster General charging a postmaster of participating in an election, and where the Postmaster General has dismissed this postmaster?


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: (Translation): Dismissed him or asked for his resignation?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Yes, dismissed.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: All depends on circumstances. If the hon. member will quote a case, it would be easier for me to refer to it and give an exact answer.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I simply wish to obtain some information. There are also instances where postmasters have been dismissed because the local member had put in charges against them of political partisanship. In a number of counties, postmasters lost their positions because the local member put in charges against them of having taken an active part in an election.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: Oh, yes, there were a number of questions with reference to this matter and I think information on the subject was supplied to the house.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I should like to ask the Postmaster General a further question: if a member from this side of the house wrote a letter to him making similar charges would the Postmaster General also consider them.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: If the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) was in his seat, he might perhaps answer for me. I play a fair game. If a Liberal member makes a complaint against a postmaster and takes the responsibility of his action, he will receive the same answer as the one I give to members on the government side.
22110-249*


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I ask this question for my own information.


Mr. OSCAR BOULANGER (Translation):: The hon. Postmaster General seems to be well disposed. I shall therefore avail myself of such an opportunity. He stated a moment [DOT] ago that his desire was to be fair in all circumstances. I wish to ask him to make amends for what seems to me an injustice committed at St-Lazare, in the county of Bellechasse. The village of St-Lazare, like many of our Quebec villages, is built on both sides of the highway and stretches out lengthwise about a mile. In the centre of the village there is quite a steep hill. For many years the question of where to locate the post office has been debated. It seems that it cannot be located in the centre of the village since the centre is quite a steep hill, the result is that it is located sometimes at one end and at sometimes at the other end. When it is located at the western end, those living in the eastern part complain that it is too far and vice versa. When I was elected as member of Bellechasse, the post office was in the eastern part of the village, close to the church. I was asked to make a change; those living in the western part contended that their end was the business part of the village and they wanted to have the post office there. So as to please everybody, I finally suggested to the Post Office Department to establish two post offices, one at each end of the village, thus endeavouring to get over the difficulty. I was not however successful in my request. After the last election-I must first point out that the postmistress of St-Lazare, until lately, was a Mrs. Leroux-immediately after the elections my opponent in last year's election made a complaint to the Postmaster General, charging Mrs. Leroux with political partizanship. Unfortunately for him he was unable to find any evidence whatsoever in support of his charge. Madame Leroux is an excellent housewife, she minds her own business and does not meddle in politics. Seeing that he could not have her dismissed for political interference, nor obtain an inquiry to that effect, he had recourse to the ever-ready reason that the post office was not in the centre of the village and that it should be placed there. He requested that a person by the name of Adelard Belanger be appointed postmaster to replace Mrs. Leroux. It so happens, however, that Adelard Belanger himself resides quite to the west of the village proper, in the extreme opposite direction to the locality where Mrs. Leroux had the post office. I have letters here which I will not
Supply-Post Office

take up the time of the house in reading, and in which my opponent states to the Postmaster General that it was a question of almost national importance to remove the post office and in the interest of the Conservative party. However, to sum up, the party's interest is that of Adelard Belanger and the , interest of Adelard Belanger is to take away the post office from a mother who is devoted to her family and to have himself appointed postmaster. There lies the whole question. I have a copy of the Post Office Department's file in this respect before me and I see that all the officials of the Post Office Department from the Deputy Minister down, including the superintendent of the Quebec postal division and inspectors, one after the other wrote to that gentleman, who asked for the dismissal of the postmistress at St. Lazare, that if anything was done, it would be better to settle the question definitely, once for all; because to take the post office from one end to place it at the other, was no solution to the question. The two ways out of this dilemma are either to follow the advice of the officials of the Post Office Department and place it in the centre of the village or provide two post offices, as I suggested a long time ago. Notwithstanding the advice of his officials or the views of the inspector who visited the place and recommended the setting up of two post offices, or at least one central one, the Postmaster General allowed himself to be influenced by the argument of "national interest" invoked by Mr. Belanger. I do not wish to lay any blame on the Postmaster General who is one of my friends, and with whom I generally get along very well, however, he will allow me to say to him that in this case, he perhaps was too kind-hearted; he should have followed the first decision of his department and adopted one of the two means suggested by the inspector who visited the place. I wish to point out that it is not a site, a particular locality or a special residence that is appointed postmaster in a village, but that it is a person. It is not the house of Mrs. Leroux that was appointed postmistress, at St. Lazare; it is Mrs. Leroux herself and she should remain in that post when the site of the post office is changed. I submit that previous to taking away this post from Mrs. Leroux, she should have been given the chance-it is the least what the Postmaster General could have done-to find a more appropriate or central locality. That is not what was done. Mrs. Leroux was simply (Mr. Boulanger.]
illegally and unjustly dismissed. The position was taken away from a mother with dependents against whom nothing wrong could be found, either from an administrative or political viewpoint. The site of the post office was used as a pretext to dismiss Mrs. Leroux. Before acting thus she should at least have been given the chance-seeing that she was the one who had been appointed postmistress-to choose a more central locality which would be more appropriate to the needs of the village. To my mind an injustice has been done, and as the hon. Postmaster General is in an excellent mood this evening and seems disposed to do all he can to help everybody, I beg of him to make amends for the injustice done at St. Lazare. It is yet time; this kind Mr. Belanger, who replaced Mr. Leroux has not yet been appointed definitely. Therefore, if the Postmaster General will but grant my request, it is not too late and I trust he may do so. I have confidence in him and I hope he will take my remarks in good part.
There is another subject which I would have liked to broach this evening; it is the question of the rural mail at Honfleur. I spoke about it privately to the hon. Postmaster General, and I think that we shall be able to agree on this point. Another reason why I shall not touch upon this subject this evening is that the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) is as much interested as I am in this matter, seeing that we divide this parish. The hon. member for Dorchester seems to have at heart this rural mail route, at Honfleur, judging by the interesting letters he has written and which I find on file. As he is not in the house this evening I shall put off the discussion of it to later on, unless the hon. Postmaster General meanwhile comes to an understanding satisfactory to both the hon. member for Dorchester and myself.
In closing my remarks, may I again earnestly request the hon. Postmaster General to administer justice to our friends of St-Lazare, and I trust he will bear in mind the suggestion I made of providing two post offices, one at each end of the village. I also trust that Mrs. Leroux will be again placed in charge of one of these post offices.


Mr.   S AUVE@Translation: I wish to thank the hon. member for Bellechase (Mr. Boulanger) for his sympathetic and pleasant remarks, and I wish to assure him that I shall again consider the case of St-Lazare in an endeavour to be fair to everybody. As to the Honfleur matter, as the hon. member

Supply-Post Office
stated, I am ready to do my utmost to settle this question to the satisfaction of the large majority of those interested in Honfleur.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I thank you, sir.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Mr. Chairman, on the
question of the dismissal of postmasters and the general changes in the postal service I wish to direct the attention of the committee to a case which I think deserves the very close consideration of the Postmaster General. Last night while replying to an hon. member who brought up the matter of general dismissals during my time as Postmaster General, the hon. member for Victoria-Car-leton (Mr. Smith) interjected a remark, and my retort brought back a complete denial on his part. I wish now to refer to the postmastership of Lakeville, in the county of Carleton, New Brunswick, and in doing so I shall give the history of this post office for as far back as six or seven years at least.
In 1926, when I assumed the office of Postmaster General, a Mr. W. F. Anderson was in charge of the post office at Lakeville. Mr. Anderson was charged, by affidavit, witu political partisanship; an investigation took place, following which he was found guilty of the charge, and on February 21, 1928, an order in council was passed dismissing him. The Civil Service Commission advertised the vacancy and Mr. H. M. Gee was appointed in place of Anderson. Before that appointment was made, in all advertisements it was stated that the applicant must state where he would locate the post office. The applicants did so, and Mr. Gee placed the post office where he said in his application it would be located.
I am informed that Mr. Gee resigned sometime. in May or June, 1930, and the Civil Service Commission, after advertising the vacancy, appointed Mr. S. G. Barter postmaster of Lakeville. In his application Mr. Barter stated that the site would be the same as it had been under the previous postmaster, and Barter was appointed and continued the post office at that point. At the time he asked the Post Office Department, through the superintendent at St. John, New Brunswick, whether he could change the site and the answer was that he could not do so except with the consent of the department. He continued to administer that office in peace and quiet until August.
I have in my hand a certified copy of sessional paper No. 226, containing the correspondence which passed between the present member for Victoria-Carleton and the Post Office Department, together with correspondence between officials of the department and
Mr. Barter, and I wish to place this correspondence on Hansard. Before doing so let me say that Mr. Barter is a returned soldier and the father of six children. Mr. Barter fought overseas for over three years, together with four of his brothers, and he is the only one of those five who has received any consideration from any government or any political party. This is the man who was set aside in order that the post office might be given to a civilian, if the Civil Service Commission would do so. When I was Postmaster General I was accused of not treating returned soldiers as they should have been treated; there was one case in particular, the Simcoe case, into which I will not undertake to go to-night but to which I just refer in passing. If ever a man received a thrashing on the floor of the house; if ever a man was given a calling down, so to speak, I was that man in connection with the Simcoe case, but in that case it could not 'be said that I had discriminated against returned soldiers, because the man who did get the appointment instead of Whittaker was himself a returned man, who in point of qualification was ahead of Whittaker on the list, although under the special sections of the act Whittaker occupied first position because of extreme disability. Here is a case where a man who has done his duty at the front, together with his four brothers, and who has a family of six children, is thrown on the streets. No matter how hard I may have been considered in my treatment of returned soldiers there was never such a case as this brought to my attention.
Now I am going to read the correspondence and let the committee judge. Last night I said that my hon. friend had recommended the dismissal of this man, and the hon. gentleman denied that statement. I am going to read the correspondence. I have here a letter dated August 29, 1930, and sent from East Florence, New Brunswick, to Hon. Arthur Sauve, Postmaster General:
Dear Mr. Minister:
I beg to recommend that the post office at Lakeville, Carleton county, N.B., be removed from its present place to Hilda Wilson's store.
Some three years ago, in order to satisfy the political spleen of a few Liberals in that district, this post office was moved from Mr. W. F. Anderson's place on the main street to a side street running dowm to the station, and to a very inconvenient place so far as the public are concerned. _ It was purely a political move, and the public interests have suffered ever since in that vicinity.
I therefore recommend that it be moved to Hilda Wilson's store, which is conveniently located and will serve the public well. Miss Wilson will make a very competent post-
Supply-Post Office

mistress-her father is dead-her mother is a very aged woman, and she is in a measure, supporting the family.
Thanking you for your prompt attention to this matter, I remain,
Yours very truly,
B. F. Smith.
That is followed by a letter from the Postmaster General to Mr. Smith under date of September 4, 1930:
B. F. Smith, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Smith:
I have had the case of Lakeville, Carleton county, N.B., about which you wrote on the 29th August, examined.
I find that Mr. W. F. Anderson, who was formerly postmaster at that point, was dismissed by order in council, P.C. 287, of the 21st February, 1928, as guilty of political partisanship. The charges against Mr. Anderson were investigated by a commissioner appointed for the purpose.
I note, however, from your communication, on the dismissal of Mr. Anderson, the office was located on a side street at a point which is very inconvenient so far as the public are concerned, and that the public interest has suffered ever since.	.
The department will have an official report prepared by the district superintendent of postal services, St. John, on the question of the site of the office, on receipt of which your representations on behalf of Miss Hilda Wilson will be given full consideration. I may mention, however, that a permanent appointment in the event of a change will rest with the Civil Service Commission, as the revenue exceeds $400 a year and, therefore, no guarantee can be given that Miss Wilson will be the person selected by the commission for this postmastership.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur Sauve.
The next is a letter from Mr. Underwood to the district superintendent of postal service at St. John, dated September 4, and reading as follows:
The Postmaster General has received representations to the effect that on the dismissal [DOT]of Mr. W. F. Anderson, a former postmaster at Lakeville, N.B., the office was located on a side street running down to the station, which caused great inconvenience to the public. It has been recommended to the Postmaster General that the office be moved to Miss Hilda Wilson's store which is conveniently located and would serve the public well.
Miss Wilson is also stated to be a very competent person.	...
Will District Superintendent please furnish the department with a report on the question of the site of the Lakeville office.
E. J. Underwood.
The next is a letter from the hon. member for Yictoria-Carleton to the Postmaster General, dated September 10, 1930. This letter was written during the special session, and reads as follows:
[Mr. Venict.l
With further reference to my letter of August 29 and your reply of September 4, the recommendation that I made concerning the post office should be carried out. There is no other person there so well qualified and so conveniently located, so far as public service is concerned, to handle this matter as the one I have mentioned, namely, Miss Hilda Wilson.
If that is not a recommendation for a dismissal of a postmaster, I want to know what it is. The letter continues.
I, therefore trust that without undue delay this matter will be given consideration.
Yours very truly,
B. F. Smith.
The next letter dated September 18, 1930, is from the minister to the hon. member, and there is attached a plan of the location. It reads:
I am in receipt of your further letter of the 10th September, asking again that a change be made in the postmastership at Lakeville, N.B.
As you were informed in my previous letter, an official report has been asked for on the question of the site of the office, and, as soon as this report is received, your representations in favour of a change will be dealt with.
The district superintendent of postal service is being asked to make his report on the question as soon as possible.
The next is a letter from Mr. Peck, superintendent of postal service for the St. John district, to the chief superintendent, postal service, Ottawa. It is dated September 16, 1930, and reads as follows:
In reply to the departmental memo, post office, Lakeville, of September 4, requesting that a report be submitted on the question of the present site of the Lakeville post office on the side street where it has been located since the dismissal of Mr. W. F. Anderson, former postmaster, and also stating that it had been recommended to the Postmaster General that the office be moved to a more convenient location at Miss Hilda Wilson's store, the chief superintendent is advised that inspector Allen visited the locality on the 10th instant and reports that the present site of the post office is about 300 yards from the mam highway on a side street leading from the station. It is thus removed from the business and residential part of the community and causes inconvenience.
Miss Hilda Wilson, who is a most competent person, has a store conveniently located in the centre of the village on the main highway and the public could be served much better by the location offered by her. The part of the store that would be used and fitted up for the post office would be commodious and well suited for post office business and the building presents a good appearance.
Enclosed herewith will be found a small sketch showing the locations in question.
The next is a memorandum dated Ottawa, September 30, 1930, which reads:
Memo, for the General Superintendent. Re Lakeville, N.B.

Supply-Post Office
Please allow the question of of this office to stand for the
changing the site present.
L. J. Gaboury, Deputy Postmaster General.
'I he next letter is from the hon. member, dated East Florenceville, N.B., February 24, 1931. It is addressed to Mr. P. T. Coolican' Assistant Deputy Postmaster General. The first part of the letter refers to other matters, but the remainder reads as follows:
I do not believe in making dismissals. I have only asked, I think, for this one-
The hon. member said he did not recommend a dismissal and stated that I could not prove that he had. In this letter he states that he asked only for this one. The letter continues.
-but I have made certain representations in connection with changes notably, the one at Lakeville, New Brunswick, where an injustice was done to the community under the Liberal administration by removing the post office to an inconvenient place for the sake of meeting the wishes of their friends.
It was not made to meet the wishes of our friends, because the appointment was made under civil service regulations, and the site was described in the application. The letter continues:
I asked to have this office moved back to where it would be convenient for the public. My information is, that the superintendent at fct. John was asked to make a report upon it and while in St. John recently, I gathered that has report recommended the change which I had made, however, the .matter stands and nothing has been done.
I am too busy with business matters to spend my time in writing a number of letters about these matters and when I make a recommendation I think I know the ground that I am working upon. Until some action has been taken by your department to carry out recommendations already made along this line, I shall not be in a position to waste further time in trying to give advice.
Yours truly,
B. F. Smith.
The next is a letter from Mr. Coolican to the hon. member at East Florenceville. It is dated February 27, 1931, and reads:
J duly received your communication of the 24th instant, respecting Benton and Lakeville post offices.
I have noted your remarks and I may say that if you will call at my office as soon as you arrive in Ottawa, I shall be pleased to go into these questions further with you.
If the hon. member was in the same mood when he called on Mr. Coolican as he was when he wrote his previous letter, I pity Mr. Coolican. The next is a memorandum signed by Mr. Gaboury to the general superintendent. It is dated March 31, 1931. and reads:
Lakeville, New Brunswick.
The Postmaster General has authorized the removal of the office to the main road where it was located some years ago.
Please place office in temporary charge Miss i 'Vllson, pending a permanent appointment by the commission.
What authority had the Postmaster General or even the governor in council to dismiss Mr. Barter and place the office in charge of this young lady ? Under the regulations of the Civil Service Act a dismissal can be made in two or perhaps three ways. First, if the postmaster in the administration of his office is not giving satisfaction and the district superintendent so reports, then the minister, under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, has authority to act. Second, if the postmaster is guilty of political partisanship and a charge is made against him under an affidavit by some reliable person, the minister may order an investigation, and if it results in proving the political charges against the postmaster, the latter may be dismissed by ol der in council. Third, if the postmaster is guilty or suspected of being guilty of political partisanship and the sitting member for the constituency gives a certificate that the man has been guilty of political partisanship, then he may be dismissed by order in council. There is no other way under the sun of dismissing a postmaster.


Finlay MacDonald: Can
he not be dismissed for the good of the service?


Peter John Veniot: Not under the Civil Service Commission.


Finlay MacDonald: Did
the hon. member not do so?
Mr. VEhilOT: I did not. The hon. member cannot point to a Civil Service Commission case where I dismissed a postmaster without first, if the charge was one of maladministration, an investigation by the departmental officials; second, if the charge was one of political partisanship, without an investigation; or, third, if the charge was political partisanship, without the recommendation of the sitting member that he had personal knowledge of the matter.


Finlay MacDonald: With
all due deference to my hon. friend-


Peter John Veniot: I do not care what deference my hon. friend may have, he cannot point to a case.


Finlay MacDonald: The
hon. member had some twenty-seven dismissals in the county of Victoria-Carletoa
Supply-Post Office

which were on the recommendation of Michael Dwyer, who was not the sitting member.


Peter John Veniot: Those are dismissals of
postmasters where the revenue is under $400 per annum, who therefore do not come under the Civil Service Commission.


Finlay MacDonald: But
the hon. member dismissed them just the same.


Peter John Veniot: I am directed by the Postmaster General to acknowledge receipt of your telegram of the 18th instant respecting the change in the postmastership at Lakeville.
As the postmaster was notified a few days ago, the change at that point was authorized in order to place the office in a more central location.
It may be added, however, that the permanent appointment rests with the Civil Service Commission and that the vacancy will, therefore, have to be advertised publicly in Lakeville in the near future and the case referred to the Civil Service Commission.
Yours very truly,
L. J. Gaboury,
Deputy Postmaster General.
I go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, there are quite a few letters yet, but this is nothing compared with over 150 pages of Hansard in 1929 that were taken up by the present Prime Minister reading into the record the files of my department. If he thought fit at that time, owing to the administration of the Post Office Department, to take up the time of the house and fill 160 pages of Hansard, surely I am entitled to take up a little time to put this case on record.


Mr. QUINN:: That was nice cool weather.


Peter John Veniot: And that had reference to
only one case, and it took him over five hours to put it on record.


Felix Patrick Quinn: He had a good case.
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: It was a good case, but
it did him no good, and it did me no harm.
Here is a copy of a letter to the Postmaster General from Mr. Barter, in which he says: Letter received re dismissal as postmaster. No notice of the wish of the department to change site of post office was ever received. This is only an excuse. Had bought post office and notified superintendent at St. John that soon as I obtained a proper site I would ask his approval. Could not move office without permission. Miss Wilson, to whom the office is to be given, is the daughter of one of our late leading merchants, and she has a large country village store.
Had I received order to move post office I would have done so, but the very people who were complaining would not give or sell me land to put the building on. I most eagerly ask for a hearing before the postmastershdp is taken from me.
Miss Wilson has only to maintain a widowed mother, and she runs the country store in Lakeville. Relying upon Hilda Wilson I find that the estate is given a credit of about 810,000. If it is necessary to throw out of office a returned soldier with a family of six or seven children to help a young lady keep her widowed mother, who owns a large estate which is rated at 810,000, then I think it is time that some change should be made in the method of dealing with these matters.
I have a letter here from H. B. Peck, which I will pass over.


Mr. SPENCE:: We shall not miss anything.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps you will find before I get through that I have not missed anything.


George Douglass Stanley: Tell us something about
how the man who was dismissed was appointed.


Peter John Veniot: He was appointed by the
Civil Service Commission in the month of June, 1930, after examination.


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-iCarleton):: It was
before that.


Peter John Veniot: Then the record must be
wrong, for it shows that Barter was appointed in June, 1930. I did not even know that Barter was appointed, because from June 3, 1930, until after the federal elections were over I did not visit Ottawa. So far as that was concerned I did not know what was going on because this was a matter of departmental administration which could be carried on without my knowledge.
Mr, SMITH (Victoria-Carleton): The office was transferred before.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend is not stating the facts. In 1928 Gee was appointed. Gee had a crippled son whom he had sworn in 
to carry on the office work, but the crippled son could not carry on the full work of the office and Mr. Barter was engaged as a second assistant by Gee to come at different periods to do the work of the office in conjunction with Mr. Gee's son. When Mr. Gee retired, owing to the fact that his son could no longer look after anything he resigned and a vacancy was advertised. Barter applied for the position and under Civil Service qualifications he got the appointment. That is the record of the transaction, and the documents show that my statements are in accordance with the facts. My hon. friends opposite need not try to speak contrary to the record.
Now then, there are a number of other letters in the file. Mr. MeBurney again protests, and we have a letter signed by Mr. Peck relating to the change. Then we have the particulars to be furnished upon appointments of postmasters and revenue officers in connection with which a blank form is supplied. I am endeavouring to point out the whole record. Then follows a letter from H. B. Peck, of St. John, in which he says:
With reference to departmental memorandum, 38/77, of the 2nd instant, advising of the dismissal of S. G. Barter, postmaster at the above address, and instructing that the office be placed in the temporary charge of Miss Hilda Wilson, the chief superintendent is informed that the office was duly transferred to the charge of the incoming acting postmistress on the 22nd instant.
I do not want to state that the information given by Mr. Peck is not correct; technically it is correct. Mr. Peck went there to make a transfer, and it was understood the transfer would take place. However when Mr. Barter undertook to hand over the position to Miss Wilson she could not accept it because she had not her store prepared to accept the transfer of the office, and she asked Mr. Barter to continue for another week. Mr. Barter was foolish enough to do so. Had I been in his place I would Shave thrown the stuff out on the street; that is what I would have done. Miss Wilson would not take charge of it; she was appointed to take charge of it, but when the time came she could not take over the work.
That is all I have to say in connection with this particular case, and as it is-


William Gordon Ernst: Eleven o'clock.


Peter John Veniot: -about eleven o'clodk. I shall not continue further to-night. If hon. members wish I shall continue right up to the minute, but I should prefer to go on at a later time. I have more cases than the present one in connection with which I intend to make some statements-hon. members need not make any mistake about that. I have

Railways and Shipping Report
taken too much from my hon. friends opposite to let things slip. They have condemned me for acts of which they themselves are guilty. They attempted to crucify me for things they are now doing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Peter John Veniot: Some of the older members in the house who hear my voice will remember their actions during the session of 1929. I am not blaming the Postmaster General in matters of this kind. He is a new man, unacquainted with the intricacies of his office. I know that I found it difficult to learn the ropes in that department. However, I had had the experience of administering another department which stood me in good stead when I came to the larger department; my friend however did not have that experience. I am not blaming him, but I blame his colleagues who sat in council with him when these matters were considered-the same gentlemen who sat day in and day out on this side of the house and refused to allow my estimates to go through, criticizing me about matters far less important than the one we have just considered. His colleagues must have known that a dismissal of a civil servant brought about in the manner I have described was illegal, and they should have drawn the fact to the attention of their colleague who had recently taken office and did not know the ins and outs of the Civil Service Act.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, July 20, 1931.