1933-05-16

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: Before the orders of the day are called, Mr. Speaker, I wish to enter my protest against a report of the meeting of the redistribution committee held on Saturday forenoon, appearing in the newspaper Le Devoir, of Montreal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The proceedings of the committee referred to are not before the House of Commons, and the hon. member is not in order in referring to them.


Samuel Gobeil: The article I wish to refer
to is a personal attack on myself. It appears under the title:
Mr. Gobeil, as a rural member, wants a larger number of urban seats.
I am not going to read the article, which is a tissue of lies. It is quite in line with the attitude taken by the representative of this particular newspaper, because it has continually, since the first meeting of the committee on redistribution, made false reports, or at any rate, reports that have not been quite correct.
I cannot protest too strongly against the insinuation conveyed by the title of the article in question and the whole article itself. Let me say to the representative of Le Devoir of Montreal that he is not only a dirty individual, but a dirty, crooked public liar.



REPAYMENT OF LOAN TO BANKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). On Thursday last I asked the hon. gentleman a question with regard to an amount of 840,000,000 which the government owed the banks, and which I understand was repaid last December. I should like to ask in what funds that loan was paid, whether in Canadian or United States funds, and how much money it took in Canadian funds to discharge that obligation.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: I would not attempt to answer that question at the moment. I shall make immediate inquiries and advise my hon. friend as speedily as possible.



STRAITS OF BELLE ISLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay):: I should like to ask the Minister of
Marine (Mr. Duranleau) if he has been made aware of an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette yesterday to the effect that the straits of Belle Isle were jammed with ice and, if so, whether it would not be advisable to have the government ice-breakers relieve that condition in order that navigation may be speeded up.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: The report mentioned by my
hon. friend has not reached me yet. It may be that some information has been received in the department and, if so, no doubt the matter will be attended to.



AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Pierre-François Casgrain: I should like to ask the Minister of
Unemployment Relief

Labour (Mr. Gordon) whether any action will be taken by the government as a result of the report of the agriculture committee in connection with the milk situation.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: The report will be reviewed, and of course if action is necessary it will be taken.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour concerning the agreement which has just been concluded between British Columbia and the Dominion government in connection with unemployment relief projects. Is it the intention of the Dominion government to take over the unemployment relief camps and road projects and itself conduct these operations?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The terms of the agreement between the Dominion government and the province of British Columbia set out the agreement at length and cover the point referred to by the hon. gentleman. It has been tabled, of course.


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri):: Is it a fact that there is an understanding just now between the city of Montreal and the department, with respect to relief matters, that a proportionate amount will be granted to landlords in Montreal to compensate them for losses sustained?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If I heard the hon. gentleman correctly, the question concerns any agreement between the Dominion government and the landlords of Montreal. No agreement has been entered into in that regard that I am aware of. A question of that kind would not come from the city of Montreal to the Dominion government. Any matter arising in Montreal or any other city or municipality with reference to relief would come through the provincial government to the Dominion government.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   S@: It is no doubt within
the knowledge of the house that the new minister from the United States to Canada,

the Honourable Warren D. Robbins, is at present in Ottawa. Mr. Robbins is going to present his letters of credence to His Excellency the Governor General this morning at eleven-thirty and therefore the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is prevented from being in the house at the moment. I am going to suggest, if it is agreeable to the house, that we revert to orders of the day at three o'clock, when the Prime Minister will be here and will make a statement regarding the business of the house.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Under the circumstances mentioned by my right hon. friend we can all appreciate the reason for the Prime Minister's absence at the moment. I thank him for what he proposes. I think that will be quite satisfactory.



TOBACCO INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: I am at
this moment in receipt of a telegram intimating that there has been an entire misinterpretation by the press and the country of the report with regard to the tobacco inquiry. May I ask the Minister of Labour whether the press is justified in saying that a tobacco combine does not exist and that the special inquiry exonerates the buyers? I wish to ask further whether the buyers are or are not in a combine, whether this report has been tabled and, if not, when we may expect it.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The position of the tobacco growers and their relationship to the purchasers was investigated by the registrar under the Combines Investigation Act, with a view to determining whether or not there existed a combine as interpreted by the act. The inquiry is through, and the registrar has reported to me that no combine exists as interpreted under the provisions of the statute. Under those circumstances the report of the registrar would not be tabled, nor has it been the practice in the past to table such a report. I do not think I can add anything further in connection with the matter. The registrar has reported that there is no combine within the meaning of the act.


Eccles James Gott: I asked also whether the report had been tabled or would be tabled.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I said that the report had not been and would not be tabled.

Sinn-Japanese Dispute-Mr. Cahan



SINO-JAPANESE DISPUTE-SPEECH OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE AT SPECIAL SESSION OF LEAGUE OF NATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the Speaker leave the chair for ithe house to go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
To provide for expenses of representation at the Disarmament conference (revote), $5,000.
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: -continues the report-
-the great importance of Manchuria in the economic development of Japan. Nor do we consider unreasonable her demand for the establishment of a stable government which would be capable of maintaining the order necessary for the economic development of the country. There is no question-
-declares the report-
-of returning to the conditions before September, 1931. A satisfactory regime for the future might be evolved out of the present one without any violent change. . . .
It is impossible not to realize that, at the heart of the problem for Japan, lies her anxiety concerning the political development of modern China, and the future to which it is tending.
And as to China, the report declares that all her " claims should be subordinated to this one dominating need for the effective internal reconstruction of the state."
Nevertheless, so long as the existing chaotic conditions prevail in China, it is indeed difficult to find a solution of China's difficulties with other nations by applying the terms of the League Covenant, the Washington Treaty and the Kellogg Peace Pact, which are applicable to thoroughly organized and responsible national governments rather than to a

Sino-Japanese Dispute-Mr. Cahan
politically disorganized Asiatic state, some of whose leaders are evidently actuated by a belief that, under the protection of the international agreements, to which their country is a party, they may persist in hostile and provocative acts against foreigners without fear of retaliation.
Article 10 of the League of Nations has been the subject of considerable discussion in this country. That article reads as follows:
The members of the league undertake to respect and preserve, as against external aggression, the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the league. In ease of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression, the council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
It is well known that at the conference at Paris, which framed the treaty of Versailles, Sir Robert Borden, then Prime Minister of Canada and senior Canadian delegate to that conference, took strong exception to the terms of this article 10.
Subsequently at the fourth assembly of the league, which was held at Geneva in September, 1923, the 'Canadian delegation sought to repeal article 10, or to amend it so as to provide that "no member shall be under the obligation to engage in any act of war without the consent of its parliament, legislative or other representative body."
The committee which considered the Canadian amendment reported in favour of the following interpretative resolution:
The assembly, desirous of defining the scope of the obligations contained in article 10 of the covenant so far as regards the points raised by the delegation of Canada, adopts the following resolution:

"It is in conformity with the spirit of article 10 that in the event of the council considering it to be its duty to recommend the application of military measures in consequetnice of an aggression or danger or threat of aggression, the council shall be bound to take account, more particularly, of the geographical situation and of the special conditions of each state.
" It is for the constitutional authorities of each member to decide, in reference' to the obligation of preserving the independence and the integrity of the territory of members, in what degree the member is bound to assure the execution of this obligation by employment of its military forces.
"The recommendations made by the council shall be regarded as being of the highest importance and shall be taken into consideration by all the members of the league with the desire to execute their engagements in good faith."
This resolution failed to obtain the unanimous approval of the fourth assembly; twenty-nine states voting therefor, Persia voting "No" and thirteen states abstaining from voting. Therefore this resolution has no binding effect.
I deemed it expedient at the special assembly in December last to refer to Canada's now historic point of view, inasmuch as it was then evident that there were delegates from some of the recently organized states of Europe, who foresee that coming events may place their own state boundaries in jeopardy, and who were disposed to press for an arbitrary condemnation of Japan and the premature enforcement, in their interests, of the sanctions prescribed by the provisions of article 16.
I would like to suggest that one occupying the position I did, representing Canada and standing before that assembly of representatives from all parts of the world, must necessarily feel a great responsibility indeed, in view of the fact that to attain the ultimate end sought by many of the delegates might have involved placing upon Canada the responsibility of again sending her military forces into the far east for the preservation of peace in Manchuria. And knowing as I did, the historic development of opinion in Canada with regard to article 10, I conceived it my bounden duty to state to that assembly what I believed to be the prevailing public opinion in Canada which has been accepted and endorsed by each successive government in our country, in order that there might be no misapprehension as to the position which I as a delegate of Canada was then taking.
Article 16 would involve:
The severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant breaking state, and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant breaking state and the nationals of any other state, whether a member of the league or not.
I think that I truly interpreted the opinion of this government and of this parliament, in suggesting that the time had not then arrived for the adoption of such extreme measures. I believe that the views of the governments of the British commonwealth of nations were expressed in an editorial of The Times, of London, on January 24 last:
And there must be very few among the responsible ministers who have been watching, waiting, and deliberating upon events in Manchuria who can have much doubt that a policy of active intervention would almost certainly have produced far more catastrophic results than the passing of three or four Manchurian provinces under the direction of Japan. League action could only be effective if, on the facts of the dispute, as found impartially by its own agents, one disputant or another were adjudged to be wholly in the wrong, and if the volume of condemnatory opinion were strong enough in a sufficient number of countries to make the governments of those countries ready to sacrifice human
^064	COMMONS
Sino-Japanese Dispute-Mr. Cahan
lives, material, trade, and money in taking action against tlie "aggressor." Threats of action by the league in any other circumstances would be no more than a bluff. The requisite [DOT]conditions for action have certainly not existed in the case of the Sino-Japanese dispute.
The league therefore has very properly confined itself in this case to a policy of conciliation; and, in view of the temporary refusal of the two parties to the dispute to be reconciled, all that it can do now is to draw up the lines of a settlement which in its opinion would be at once feasible and just. . . .
It is at any rate certain that it is no part of the duty of the states in the league, whether collectively or individually, to pass moral judgment upon one or other of its members. Their business is to devise a solution which is likely to be practicable in the near or distant future, and which is in consonance with the principles of the league.
Informed and dispassionate public opinion in the neighbouring republic finds expression in an editorial of the New York Times, of February 22nd last, from which I quote:
No fair-minded person can deny that Japan has rights in Manchuria and a good case to argue. In the statement of it made on Tuesday by the Japanese delegation at Geneva, there is a great deal of force. One strong consideration in favour of the Japanese contention has all along been admitted. This is that there has been no well-organized and stable and continuing Chinese government with which a foreign nation can make agreements. When the covenant of the League of Nations speaks of a country made the victim of aggressive action, it manifestly intends a cohesive and recognized government able to maintain law and order within its own boundaries and to speak for the wishes of its subjects and citizens. This has not been the ease with China since the overthrow of the monarchy at Peking. Other nations, including the United States, have been embarrassed and baffled by this lack of a central Chinese authority, but it is doubtless true that Japan, in her more intimate relations, has felt the awkwardness of the Chinese situation more keenly. In fairness, let it be admitted that Japan has had real complaints and grievances in Manchuria.
The New York Times continues as follows: The league has been considerate. In this whole matter of the dispute between China and Japan it has been most cautious and considerate -many have thought too much so. Even now it will not be precipitate in pronouncing judgment. It is willing to give Japan still more time to find a way to accept some plan of conciliation and peaceful adjustment. What the Japanese people should understand, what the Japanese government should perceive, is that those who through the years have been most friendly to [DOT]Japan are to-day the ones who most strongly desire that she make, if need be, some minor sacrifices of prestige in order to win back the cordial^ reception of her as one full worthy of being included in the sisterhood of modern and peace-loving nations.
The address which I made on the Sino-Japanese question on December 8, 1932, be-rMr. Cahan.]
fore the special assembly of the league, has been criticized on several occasions in Canada by those who had evidently not carefully studied the Lytton report. Notwithstanding their criticisms, I have reason to believe that that address was widely approved by eminent delegates from several of the leading states there assembled, that its delivery did not, in any measure, detract from the reputation which Canada had previously acquired at the league assemblies, but that, in part at least, it influenced the league's decision to increase the number of its committee of nineteen, and to give to Canada, as a state adjacent to the Pacific ocean, permanent representation on that committee. Now after having read over the verbatim report of that address, I have no desire to amend or modify the views which I then expressed, which I believe to be consistent with the report of the Lytton commission and in accord with predominate political opinion throughout the British commonwealth.
The assembly of the league, at which I attended, after discussion of the Lytton report, adopted, on December 9th, 1932, the following resolution, in favour of which I recorded the vote of Canada:
The assembly, having received the report of the commission of inquiry set up under the resolution adopted on December 10, 1931, by the council, together with the observations of the parties and the minutes of the council meetings held from November 21 to 28, 1932, in view of the discussions which took place at its meetings from December 6 to 9, 1932, requests the special committee appointed under its resolution of March 11, 1932:
(1)	To study the report of the commission of inquiry, the observations of the parties and the opinions and suggestions expressed in the assembly in whatever form they were submitted;
(2)	To draw up proposals with a view to the settlement of the dispute brought before it under the council resolution dated February 19, 1932;
(3)	To submit these proposals to the assembly at the earliest possible moment.
On December 15, 1932, this special committee of nineteen drew up a resolution proposing that representatives of the governments of the United States of America and of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics should be invited to participate in the work of this committee, on the following terms;
In order to avoid misunderstanding and to make it plain that what is contemplated at the present stage with the cooperation of two countries not members of the league is solely the negotiation of a settlement by conciliation, the special committee suggests that it should be regarded for this purpose as a new committee, responsible for conducting negotiations, and

Sino-Japanese Dispute-Mr. Cahan
should be authorized in this capacity to invite the governments of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to take part in its meetings.
This resolution contained the following closing paragraph:
In this connection the committee of nineteen considers that in the special circumstances which characterize the dispute a mere return to the conditions previous to September, 1931, would not suffice to insure a durable settlement and that the maintenance and recognition of the present regime in Manchuria could not be regarded as a solution.
On January 18, 1933, the government of Japan made an objection, stipulating that the committee to be1 appointed for the settlement of the dispute should include only members of the league.
The committee of nineteen further reported as follows:
On February 8 (1933) the Japanese representative submitted to the committee further amendments to the text prepared on December 15. On February 9 the committee, after considering these amendments, deemed it desirable to ask for further information in regard thereto, in particular whether the Japanese government accepted as one of the bases for the contemplated conciliation principle 7 in chapter IX of the report of the commission of inquiry regarding the establishment in Manchuria of a large measure of autonomy consisting with the sovereignty and administrative integrity of China. This question was submitted to the Japanese delegation in a letter of the same date.
The Japanese government replied on February 14 that it was convinced that the maintenance and recognition of the independence of Manehukuo were the only guarantee of peace in the far east and that the whole question would eventually be solved between Japan and China on that basis.
The committee of nineteen replied that the Japanese proposal of February 8 did not, in its opinion, form an acceptable basis for conciliation, and thereupon proceeded to draw up its report to the assembly.
In paragraph 4 of this report the committee of nineteen briefly reviewed the political and economic development of Manchuria during the preceding quarter of a century. This report says:
4	On the other hand, Japan had
acquired or claimed in Manchuria rights the effect of which was to restrict the exercise of sovereignty by China in a manner and to a degree quite exceptional. Japan governed the leased territory of Kwantung, exercising therein what amounted in practice to full sovereignty. Through the medium of the South Manchuria Railway, she administered the railway zones, including several towns and important parts of populous cities, such as Mukden and Changchun. In these areas, she had control of the police, taxes, education, and public utilities. She main-53719-320
tained armed forces in certain parts of the country: the army of Kwantung in the leased territory; railway guards in the railway zones; consular police in the various districts. Such a state of affairs might perhaps have continued without leading to complications and incessant disputes if it had been freely desired or accepted by both parties and if it had been the expression and manifestation of a well-understood policy of close economic and political cooperation. But, in the absence of such conditions, it was bound to lead to mutual misunderstandings and conflicts. The interconnection of respective rights, the uncertainty at times of the legal situation, the increasing opposition between the conception held by the Japanese of their special position in Manchuria, and the claims of Chinese nationalism were a further source of numerous incidents and disputes.
5.	Before September 18, 1931, each of the two parties had legitimate grievances against the other in Manchuria, Japan taking advantage of rights open to question and the Chinese authorities putting obstacles in the way of the exercise of rights which could not be contested. During the period immediately preceding the events of September 18th, various efforts were made to settle the questions outstanding between the two parties by the normal method of diplomatic negotiations and pacific means, and these means had not been exhausted. Nevertheless, the tension between Chinese and Japanese in Manchuria increased, and a movement of opinion in Japan advocated the settlement of all outstanding questions-if necessary, by force.
6. The present period of transition and national reconstruction in China, despite the efforts of the central government and the considerable progress already achieved, necessarily involves political disturbances, social disorder, and disruptive tendencies inseparable from a state of transition. It calls for the employment of a policy of international cooperation. One of the methods of that policy would be that the League of Nations would continue to afford China the technical assistance in modernizing her institutions which her government might request with a view to enabling the Chinese people to reorganize and consolidate the Chinese state.
The full application of the policy of international cooperation initiated at the Washington conference, the principles of which are still valid, has been delayed, chiefly by the violence of the anti-foreign propaganda carried on in China from time to time. In two respects- the use of the economic boycott and antiforeign teaching in schools-this propaganda has been pushed to such lengths that it has contributed to creating the atmosphere in which the present dispute broke out.
7.	The use of the boycott by the Chinese previous to the events of September 18, 1931, to express their indignation at certain incidents or to support certain claims could not fail to make a situation which was already tense still more tense.
The use of the boycott by China, subsequent to the events of September 18, 1931, falls under the category of reprisals.
The resolution of the assembly on February 24, 1933. also contains findings that the



Sino-Japanese Dispute-Mr. Cahan
sovereignty over Manchuria belongs to China, that the presence of Japanese troops outside the zone of the South Manchurian railway and their operations outside this zone are incompatible with the legal principles which should govern the settlement of the dispute, that these troops should be evacuated, and that the first object of further negotiations should be to organize this evacuation and to determine the methods, stages and time limits thereof.
The assembly also recommends the establishment in Manchuria, within a reasonable period, of an organization under the sovereignty of and compatible with the administrative integrity of China, which should provide a wide measure of autonomy, in harmony with local conditions, and which should take account of the multilateral treaties in force, the particular rights and interests of Japan, and the rights of third states; and that "the determination of the respective powers of and relations between the Chinese Central government and the local authorities should be made the subject of a declaration by the Chinese government having the force of an international undertaking." They also recommended that the Lytton report be followed by the organization of an international force which would preserve peace and good order in Manchuria as the Japanese troops should be retired. Briefly the position of Japan, taken not only before the assembly but at committee meetings and in private conversations, was that they had rights in Manchuria which were conceded by all the nations and even by the Chinese.


Mr. HEAPS:: May I ask what their rights were?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not going into that question, but. if my hon. friend will study the Lytton report he will find those rights enumerated in page after page, and to some of them I have referred. At least there is this much to their claim, that they won back Manchuria from Russia after China had failed to protect it and ceded it; under existing treaties they had the right to maintain railways through Manchuria; they had the right to maintain military forces there for the protection of those railways and the rights incidental thereto. They were in control, as the report said, of cities and towns; they had their own police, their own schools and their own educational system; and they occupied in Manchuria, by right of treaty, a position such as no other sovereign country enjoys in any other country in the world. And with regard to the profMr. Cahan.]
tection of these rights it was conceded by the Lytton report that they were entitled to give that protection, although the report found that they had exceeded their right in using their armed forces as they had done for that alleged end and purpose.
The issue that at once arose was this. Should the league assembly confine itself to making reasonable efforts towards effecting conciliation and the cooperation of these two countries, Japan and China, in Manchuria, under the nominal sovereignty of China? That was the supreme question we had in view at the time I delivered that address. There were representatives of other parties at the assembly who were insistent that the league should proceed to sanction more extreme (measures. Such measures had to be considered, but they might have meant ultimately involving Canada in a war in the far east for the protection of certain ill-defined interests, and it was certainly my duty, as a representative of Canada, to avoid saying or doing anything which would seem to imply that the government and the parliament of Canada were prepared to take such extreme action under the then existing circumstances. Further than that, the Lytton report suggested the formation of an international army of police for the maintenance of peace and good order in Manchuria, and the question at once arose as to who were to supply and maintain the troops, necessary to attain that end. Japan, through its representatives, daily in the corridors stated that it was prepared to withdraw its troops, but not for the purpose of admitting the bandit chieftains of China to come in and pillage and lay in waste tihat country again. That was their contention. But they took the view that if an international force could be organized and they could be relieved of the responsibility of maintaining peace in Manchuria they were quite willing to withdraw. I ask hon. members to put the question to themselves as it was put to me. How many thousands of troops, ten, twenty or twenty-five thousand, would Canada be prepared to put into the far east as part of a joint international force? I had to tell them in private, not in public, that I did not believe that under the then existing conditions the parliament of Canada would appropriate a single dollar toward maintaining a single company of troops in the far east for that purpose. And that was exactly the same position taken in private by the governments of England and France and by other governments of the chief European states. They were unwilling to sacrifice thousands of lives and to expend again millions of money for the sake

Sino-Japanese Dispute-Mr. Mackenzie King
of preserving, through an international organization of their military forces, continued peace in Manchuria.
I am not defending Japan. I think she went to the very extreme and committed acts that are indefensible, and I said so in that discussion. But I do say that I do not believe that any representative of tlhe government and parliament of Canada who has thoroughly studded the - situation can find very much to criticize in the statement which I then made. The hour is getting late, Mr. Chairman, and I have taken a much longer time than I anticipated, though I could in more detail have presented the case with regard to the maintenance of peace by an international armed force. I thank the committee for its courtesy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is wholly
appropriate that the hon. the Secretary of State, if he and the government deemed it necessary and desirable, should make a statement to this house of the position taken by himself at the League of Nations in Geneva last year. I question very much however the propriety of that statement being made at this particular time and without any notice having been given the house in advance of the government's intention to introduce this subject at this session.
We have now reached what looks as if it might be the last day of the session and we are discussing the last but one of the items which appears in the final supplementary estimates. The question which my hon. friend has raised is of all controversial questions the largest in the world at the moment, and I submit that the government are not justified in having permitted this subject to be brought on without at least having given the house some advance notice of its intention to introduce it at this session.
I think it would be most unfortunate were the remarks made by the hon. the Secretary of State now to become the subject of comment and debate in this house. The parliament at Westminster has carefully avoided a discussion of the Sino-Japanese situation; the parliaments of most of the countries of Europe as well as the congress of the United States have done the same. I do not see that we in Canada would be acting wisely were we to depart from what has been, I think, a very wise restraint on the part of other deliberative assemblies, and to begin now a discussion of the Sino-Japanese situation. I prefer not either to approve or to disapprove of anything which the hon. the Secretary of State has said this morning, but to let his statement speak for itself as the statement which he made at Geneva did. The time may
53719-320J
come when the whole question can be discussed without danger of the remarks of anyone being interpreted by the nations that are at the moment in conflict as the taking of sides one way or the other with respect to the great questions which are at issue. It would be impossible, without going into the merits of the whole Sino-Japanese dispute, to comment on what my hon. friend has said and I do not think when these countries have been at war for the period they have, during all of which period we have kept out of the controversy, that we in Canada would be justified in choosing the dying moments of the session to raise a discussion on the questions at issue. I wish to be consistent with the view I have expressed by refraining from saying anything more at the moment. In my opinion this question might well have been made, if it was to be discussed at all, the subject of one of the most important debates of *the session; but seeing that it has not been discussed up to the present time I think that we might well reserve until a subsequent session, at which time we trust the Sino-Japanese war will have concluded, such further discussion as we may wish to have on the statement of the Secretary of State at Geneva and on his statement to parliament this morning. I have profound respect for my hon. friend's integrity and ability, as he knows, as well as for his years and for himself, but I question very much the soundness of his judgment in bringing up this question at all and more particularly at this time of the session.


Mr. IRVINE:: In connection with the
remarks of the Secretary of State I wish to say pretty much what the leader of the opposition has said. I think the subject which the minister has brought before the house to-day is of very great importance not only to Canada but to the world, and if it was the intention of the government to have it discussed some notice should have been given the house in order that members who are interested in the international situation might have had an opportunity of preparing their material so as to discuss the subject as it ought to be discussed.
I could not always tell when the minister was quoting and when he was speaking for himself, but to me the whole trend of his discourse seemed to be towards the futility of the League of Nations, the futility of the signatories to all the peace pacts and the virtual declaration that the only hope of protection which any nation has, is in its own individual military powers. If, as the minister so emphatically declared, Canada is not

Sino-Japanese Dispute-Mr. Irvine
prepared to put one dollar or one man behind the League of Nations, then I do not think we ought to spend one dollar to send delegates over there to make speeches which we cannot back up and which we have no intention of backing up.
During the historical summary of the eastern situation by the minister I could not help noticing that great emphasis was placed upon the internal weakness of China and upon certain rights which Japan had to the occupation of Manchuria. In this case I think the League of Nations by its inaction has declared to the world as clearly as any declaration could be made in words that the whole idea of the league is impossible and that the institution is impotent. If it had been otherwise, surely the weakness of China to which the minister has referred should have been the chief cause for the League of Nations taking action. But it is stated that China is too weak for us to assist, that her internal troubles are too great and therefore we will let Japan go in with a disciplined force and do what she wants to do.
I am not going to argue this matter because I agree with the minister when he suggests that there should be no pronouncement of opinion on this affair without an adequate knowledge of all the facts. Under the cir-cmmstances it would be impossible for any member to become possessed of all the facts necessary to enable him to make a pronouncement. However, I do make this pronouncement:	either the League of Nations
means something or it means nothing. If it means anything at all, it should endeavour to make effective the steps provided for in its own articles. I venture to suggest that when the minister made the speech to which he referred he did not represent the general opinion of the people of Canada. They had at that time some faith in the League of Nations, they believed that Japan was invading China and that it was the duty of the League of Nations to stop that sort of invasion. Instead of doing that the League of Nations did nothing and left the whole situation to time and time was the very thing that Japan required. The invasion is continuing at the present moment. I suggest that there are only two possible courses for Canada to take. The League of Nations should be considered as an instrument of serious use and it should be used as a means of maintaining world peace; we should urge the enforcement of the provisions of the covenant against Japan and we should withdraw our official representatives from Japan
tltr. Irvine.]
as a protest against the invasion of China. We should either do that or throw up our hands as far as the League of Nations is concerned and have nothing more to do with it.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Mr. Chairman, I
simply want to say that I agree entirely with the views of the leader of the opposition that it would be undesirable to discuss this far eastern question under present conditions. We would have certainly given notice if we had had an idea that there would be a debate upon the subject, but the government considered that the Secretaiy of State should make his statement so that it would be on record, not for discussion at the present time but for the information of hon. members.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The only exception I take is to the subject being brought up at all at this time. I would .much rather have seen the statement of the Secretary of State appear in his autobiography which I hope he will give to the world some day and which I feel sure will be extremely valuable to those who have the privilege of reading it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I shall never publish an autobiography as I do not expect ever to have leisure sufficient to write one. But in my case, as with Japan, there was a great deal of provocation. Statements have been made on the public platforms in various parts of this country and in the press to the effect that there was only one side to the Sino-Japanese controversy. It was alleged that the position which I had taken had discredited Canada before the world. I trust I will not be considered egotistical when I say that my address before the assembly was listened to most intently. It was made after consultation with the other dominion members from time to time as they gathered together. The British delegation told me that they approved of what I had said, and some of the most eminent men in the assembly came to me afterwards to congratulate me upon having expressed the views I did, and others considered that it was the duty of Canada to call attention to certain facts because of our situation on the Pacific and our friendly relations with both China and Japan. I did not intend to provoke a controversy but I think it was due to me that I should be permitted to point out to this parliament the grounds underlying the expression of views which I made there. To-day is the first opportunity I have had of doing this.

Supply-Marine-Chicoutimi Harbour


Mr. EULER:: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of continuing this discussion but I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State. He stated that one of the reasons why Japan had certain rights in Manchuria was because China had ceded that province to Russia and that Japan had wrested it from Russia. I should like to know when the government of China ceded complete sovereignty Over the province of Manchuria to any country. I should like to know whether she did [DOT]that or just simply granted certain railway and trading rights.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did I say "ceded"?


William Daum Euler: Yes, you used the word "ceded".


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Perhaps that was not the correct word for me to use. As a matter of fact, China did acquiesce in the acquisition of Mandhuria by Russia.


William Daum Euler: Complete sovereignty?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Russia took charge just the same as she is taking charge at the present time of northern Mongolia.


William Daum Euler: Did China consent?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: She began to treat with respect to it. I do not know that Germany has ever consented to Alsace Lorraine being taken over by France but she has acquiesced. I am not emphasizing the position taken by Japan. But what I do say is this: Japan took Manchuria back from Russia. Japan then restored Manchuria to China in consideration of certain rights in and to Manchuria being retained by Japan, so that, so far as China is concerned, she has, one might use the word, ceded or granted to Japan certain rights which Japan now claims.


William Daum Euler: My point is simply this:
When the word "ceded" is used, I thought the cession of a country meant handing over complete sovereignty, and I understood China had never done that to any other nation with regard to Manchuria.	.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Was the statement made by the minister to the house this morning the official viewpoint of the government in regard to the dispute between China and Japan?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not pretending to make an official statement for the government with regard to the controversy between China and Japan; the time has not come for this government to make an official statement with regard to that, and the leader of the opposition has very properly taken that view. But
the time had come for the Secretary of State, who had represented Canada at the League of Nations and whose statements have been misrepresented throughout the length and breadth of this country, to show, by quotations from official documents that those who misrepresented those statements and who from time to time exaggerated them, have never thoroughly appreciated the purport of the report of the Lytton commission on which my statements were based.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Loan to the Chicoutimi harbour commissioners for the construction of harbour improvements and facilities, additional to the amount authorized by the Chicoutimi Harbour Loan Act, 1931, and to be subject to the provisions of the said act, $332,100.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last night the Minister of Marine made a statement which I do not think he should have made. He left the impression that this item was inserted because of some verbal agreement that had been made by the former Liberal administration. I just want to make it quite clear that this item is for a-
Loan to the Chicoutimi harbour commissioners for the construction of harbour improvements and facilities, additional to the amount authorized by the Chicoutimi Harbour Loan Act, 1931, and to be subject to the provisions of the said act.
The present administration of which my hon. friend is a member, came into office in the summer of 1930. The Chicoutimi Harbour Loan Act was passed in 1931 and what is now being asked for is something in addition to the legislation which parliament enacted at that time. I do not think the minister should have even mentioned the former Liberal administration in connection with the item.


Alfred Duranleau: I was understood yesterday as
saying that this item was to cover works performed under verbal contract. That ivas not what I meant. I mentioned those facts only to show the difficulties we had to meet when the new commission took office.
I desire to explain this morning exactly the situation. The verbal agreement about which the contractor spoke to me when I was in Chicoutimi was in regard to an approach that he was building for the new bridge that the provincial authorities were supposed to build later on across the Saguenay river a few hundred feet above the pier in course of construction. The contractor contended then that.

Supply-Marine-Chicoutimi Harbour
he had a verbal promise from the former harbour commissioners that this approach was to be paid by them to the extent of $70,000. This morning I asked for information concerning the matter and I was told that the claim of the contractor was denied by the former commissioners and also denied by the present ones and was never paid. I am informed that the contractor is now endeavouring to obtain compensation from the provincial authorities. That is the situation in regard to the verbal contract about which he spoke to me, but it is over two years ago now and I spoke last night only from memory, so there is in this item nothing in connection with work done under a verbal agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do I understand the minister now to withdraw the statement he made last night which certainly would be understood as a reflection upon the previous administration and which he should not have made in the house?


Alfred Duranleau: I have just given the exact information which, I think, is satisfactory to my right hon. friend; that is, that the claim of the contracts for $10,000 for work under supposed verbal agreement was denied by both commissions, past and present and never paid.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then the statement the minister made last night is withdrawn,


Edward James Young: That does not explain the item. Last night the minister gave us an explanation of the item. Now he says that that is not the explanation. Perhaps there is another one.


Alfred Duranleau: This is to cover the amount due by the commission to the Bank of Montreal for money borrowed by the commissioners to liquidate outstanding liabilities. As a matter of fact, there were moneys overexpended before September, 1930, the date when the new commission came into office, *to complete the works which had been undertaken by the former administration, and additional commitments after that were necessary to complete the work. When the present commission took office, there was an amount outstanding at the bank and it was carried by the new commission. Later on they paid the bank, borrowing from another bank, and this is an oustanding liability, but it was to complete works undertaken under the contract entered into in 1927 by the former commission for the construction of that pier.


Mr. GARDINER:: What was the amount outstanding owing to the bank under the old contract?


Alfred Duranleau: At the present time?


Robert Gardiner: No, at the time the new commission took office.


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot give the exact amount, but it was between $225,000 and $300,000.


Robert Gardiner: Was there any authority
for the expenditure of that money by the old commission?


Alfred Duranleau: The contract was authorized, but the expenditure was over the estimate mentioned in the contract. There were certain works done by the former commission under the direction of the engineers to protect the works. A bulkhead was constructed and tie rods were fixed to solidify the works. That was done under the direction of the firm of A. D. Swan, the supervising engineers. Everything has been done under the direction of the engineers.


Robert Gardiner: I understand that harbour commissions must come to the government and then to parliament for the necessary funds to make their improvements. From the statement which the minister has made, it appears that the former commission overspent the amount of money which was authorized by parliament for the improvements at Chicoutimi harbour. Is that not the situation?


Alfred Duranleau: I can say that at the time the new commission came into office in September, 1930, there was a certain amount over-expended by the former commission.


Robert Gardiner: I just take this opportunity of drawing to the attention of the committee the report made by Sir Alexander Gibb with regard to our different ports and harbours. Ever since I have been a member of the house, I have always supported any move which would make our ports more efficient in handling our imports and exports. When conditions were better than they are at the present time, Canada's trade yras growing very rapidly. In order to facilitate the exchange of our goods for the goods of other countries it was absolutely essential that we should have the best facilities that we could provide for the time being. I have even gone so far as to say that our facilities should be a little ahead of our requirements in view of our expanding trade. No doubt at the

Supply-Mmine-Chicoutimi Harbour
present time the facilities are more than ample, in view of the decline in the volume of business, to take care of our exports and imports.
I have watched the development of our harbours very closely since I have been a member of the house, and I am quite satisfied of this fact, that we need some central authority which will take into consideration our port requirements from a truly national aspect rather than considering them merely as local requirements. I am afraid that there has been too much local pressure brought to bear upon governments-I do not refer to any particular government-to provide facilities in ports which were not of any real value to the country. I am not, as I have already said, one of those who would skimp our ports of the facilities they should have, but I do think that between now and next session the government should take seriously into consideration the elimination of the harbour commissions that we now have and the placing of this work under one central authority who will look at the question in a national instead of merely in a local way.


Mr. CARDIN:: In this item this amount is described as a loan to the Chicoutimi harbour commission. I would ask the minister why he is following that procedure? In the past the practice has always been to supply the money which is necessary for the harbour commissions, for port development, by means of legislation instead of through an estimate. In the past when a harbour commission required a certain amount of money for the development of a harbour, parliament was asked to vote the money through a special bill which provided for the payment of interest on the loan which was being made. But there is no provision here as to the interest which the Chicoutimi harbour commission may be called upon to pay to the government. Do I understand that the government will expect the Chicoutimi harbour commission to pay interest on this advance of money when it is in a position to do so, as harbour commissioners have always been bound to pay interest on moneys advanced to them by special legislation. This has always been the practice in the past. Why this change in procedure?


Alfred Duranleau: The demand was made a little late in the session, and we thought it would be shorter to bring down an estimate. I do not think it will make any difference, so far as the paying of interest is concerned, whether the loan is made through an estimate or by legislation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no indication here at all that they are bound to pay interest on the loan.


Alfred Duranleau: They are supposed to pay interest on all moneys loaned if they can afford to pay it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: But they are not supposed to pay interest that is not required of them, and there is no provision for the payment of interest in this item.


Mr. STEVENS:: You cannot get blood out of a stone.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I know that many of these 'harbour developments were made at a time when business was better and prospects were brighter, and undoubtedly many of the developments in the different harbours could not be justified if you looked at them simply in regard to the volume of business to-day.


Mr. MANION:: Such as the Montreal
harbour bridge.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend is always
referring to that. Yet he has in his own department the Welland canal, which has never paid a cent to Canada, and which was supposed to cost, when the first estimate was brought before the house, $50,000,000.


Robert James Manion: How about the National
Transcontinental ?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yet the Welland canal
which was first estimated to cost $50,000,000 has cost this country to-day $125,000,000, and nobody says a word, but my hon. friend is constantly referring to the Montreal harbour bridge. There are ten or fifteen undertakings under the government which have cost much more than the amount which was first estimated, yet my hon. friend objects every time to the bridge in the port of Montreal. Everybody was in favour of the building of that bridge. The Conservative party was as strong for it at that time as the Liberal party. Nobody on the opposition side had the courage at that time to stand up and say that they were opposed to the building of that bridge -nobody. During the last parliament when we brought forward the proposal for the building of the Caughnawaga bridge, the opposition of that day opposed the building of that bridge and any contribution from the federal government for that purpose, on the ground that it was going to be a toll bridge. The opposition of that time argued that the bridge should be a free bridge, and if we had proposed that it should be a free bridge the opposition of that day would have en-
5072	COMMONS
Supply-Marine-Chicoutimi Harbour
dorsed the -building of t'he Caughnawaga bridge. In the county of Chateauguay-Huntingdon the Conservatives went around saying, "The Liberals want to give you a toll bridge, but we are going to give you a free bridge." And now the Conservatives are denying the justification for the building of the Montreal bridge. It is true that we are not getting all the revenue at the present time that we expected from the Montreal bridge, but the revenues are increasing from year to year, and we hope that when the business of the country is once more reestablished we shall have very reasonable returns from that bridge, returns which will take care of all the expenditures. It is true that the bridge -has cost more than was originally estimated, but as I said, the Welland canal is in a much worse position in that respect than the Montreal bridge. There are many other undertakings of the government which have cost two or three times the amount estimated by the engineers, and that experience is not confined to government business alone. Any man who has had experience in construction knows that it is almost impossible to point to any work, even a construction costing only a few thousand dollars, that does not cost in the end more than was first esti-, mated by the engineers or architects.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The parliament buildings, for example.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is a common experience because there are alwaj^s certain changes and new developments. The Montreal harbour bridge has cost a larger amount of money than was at first estimated because changes were made in the plans since the estimate was first presented to parliament. The steel, for instance, has been increased in strength and many changes were made in the concrete work. It can be very easily explained how the first estimate was seriously increased by these changes. The increase can be justified certainly just as well as my hon. friend can justify the increase in the cost of construction of the Welland canal over the first estimate.


Robert James Manion: I should like to point out that the opposition of that day did not oppose the Montreal harbour bridge because they thought it was going to be built at a reasonable price, instead of costing $19,000,000. The opposition of that day expected, and the government implied, that the bridge would cost eight or nine million dollars, but the government of that day that built the

bridge spent $19,000,000 on a property that should have been built for eight or nine million dollars. That is what happened in that case.
In regard to the Welland canal, my hon. friend's government while it was in power spent probably more money on the Welland canal than this government has spent. His government were in power from 1921 to 1930, and they carried on the building of the Welland canal. My hon. friend implied that it was our fault that the Welland canal cost a great deal more than the first estimate. My hon. friend can go back to his own party. He will perhaps remember the estimate that Sir Wilfrid Laurier gave of $13,000,000 for the building of the Transcontinental, a road which cost $178,000,000. My hon. friend, and this will come closer to home, can probably go back to the Quebec, Montreal and Southern railway purchase, which he forced upon the Canadian National Railways against the wishes of Sir Henry Thornton. Sir Henry Thornton said that it was not worth $5,000,000, and the hon. gentleman practically forced him to pay $6,000,000 for a road that has never yet paid its way in one day of its operation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am very glad indeed to
discuss the Quebec, Montreal and Southern railway. Since I -have been in -this house I have on many occasions noticed the expenditure of money for the building of railways which were mot as important as the Quebec, Montreal and Southern1 railway. This railway runs through one of the oldest sections of the province of Quebec, a section which has been established since the very first days of Canada, and that section of the province of Quebec has been the worst- served of all Canada so far as railway facilities are concerned. That section of Canada has been retarded in its development for twenty or thirty years, during which time its people have had to stand conditions so far as the lack of railway transportation is concerned that no other section in the whole of -this country could have sustained. I have voted, and hon. members opposite have voted, for the construction of branch lines where no people were established. We did that with a view to having people established there, or to having possession of a certain piece of territory in order to prevent one railway or another taking advantage of it. There were not many people established, but the purchase was for the purpose of future development. In the section in which the Quebec, Montreal and Southern railway was built there is a large farming population

Supply-Marine-Chicoutimi Harbour
and small industrial centres which for twenty-five or thirty years had been deprived of reasonable or fair railway communication. The small town of Sorel has been kept behind for a period of twenty-five or thirty years; it has not developed, along with other small towns, because of lack of necessary railway facilities. We had no regular train service. Freight rates were prohibitive, and it would cost more to transport merchandise from Montreal to Sorel than from Montreal to Quebec. That was the position in which we were placed at the time.
However no matter what was said by the Minister of Railways and Canals, the government need not be. afraid or ashamed because the Quebec, Montreal and Southern has been acquired. It is the best acquisition the Canadian National Railways ever made.


Robert James Manion: It has never paid its way.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is a paying proposition.


Robert James Manion: It is not a paying proposition.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The minister cannot indicate a single branch line which has been acquired by the Canadian National Railways and is capable of giving a better showing than is the Quebec, Montreal and Southern railway. It was a good buy. It is not a load which has been placed upon the shoulders of the Canadian National. I am not afraid to put all the cards on the table, and when the cards are on the table I am ready to fight. I admit that certain officials of the Canadian National Railways were not strongly in favour of the acquisition of the line. They were not familiar with it. They did not know the circumstances under which that railroad had been operating, and they are always opposed to something new or something which had not originated in their minds. There is no man among all human beings who has a more one-track mind than has the railway man. He can see only one way. Everything coming from someone else he opposes or is ready to put aside.
Look at the returns of the Quebec, Montreal and Southern, and compare them with the returns obtained from other lines, and you will be forced to the conclusion, if you are reasonable and fair, that it was a good buy. It is the most promising line that the Canadian National Railways ever acquired. It was the intention of officials of the Canadian National to dispense with certain of their lines running from Montreal to Quebec and passing through St. Hyacinthe so that because of the absence
of grade, the lines of the Quebec, Montreal and Southern could be used. The road is level, because it is at the level of the St. Lawrence river. When business was good the Canadian National was contemplating moving all their freight traffic and even their best passenger trains along the Quebec, Montreal and Southern roads. That was the decision and proposal of officials of the Canadian National Railways. I repeat the line in question is not a burden, and even if it had been I humbly submit that the province of Quebec has less mileage per head of population than any other province in the dominion. The province of Quebec, which has not been used as well as other provinces in Canada, was entitled to something. It is unfair for the Minister of Railways and Canals to start an agitation on that point. Our claim was justified. The operation has justified the buying of the Quebec, Montreal and Southern.
Going back to the other argument concerning the Montreal bridge, offered by the Minister of Railways and Canals, may I say that-everything he has said is a justification for my argument. I refer the minister to an answer to a question asked in the house to the effect that the first estimate on the construction of the Montreal bridge was $12,000,000. That was the estimate of the engineers made at a time when the plans were not completed. Detailed plans had not been prepared, and to a large extent the minister could not do otherwise than resort to a certain amount of guessing when he was .asked to give the price for the building of the Montreal bridge. If the estimate made by the engineers was $12,000,000, there is nothing so extraordinary in the fact that the bridge cost $19,000,000, especially in view of the changes which were made in the material used, and in view of other circumstances including interest which was charged to the Montreal harbour commissioners on the cost of the land acquired for the bridge and the construction itself. In the $19,000,000 is included $2,000,000 interest. So, if we take everything into consideration there is nothing so extraordinary in the cost of the Montreal bridge. The discrepancy is far below that which existed between the estimated and the real cost of the Welland canal.


Robert James Manion: I have two minutes to speak before one o'clock. The hon. member stated repeatedly that the Quebec, Montreal and Southern was an advantage to the Canadian National Railways. The information I get from officials of the Canadian National is that the Quebec, Montreal and Southern
5074	COMMONS
Supply-Marine-Chicoutimi Harbour
has never paid its operating expenses,-and I believe my information is probably a little more correct than is that of the hon. member.


Mr. POWER:: They tell you what you ask them.


Robert James Manion: No, they do not. If they told me only what I asked them they would be very poor officials.


Charles Gavan Power: When they do not tell you what you ask them, you get angry about it. That happened in committee.


Robert James Manion: Because one of the officials told a falsehood, I objected.


Charles Gavan Power: If he told a falsehood, fire him; that is the answer to that.


Robert James Manion: He told a falsehood in reply to one of the hon. member's questions; that is why he remembers it so well. The hon. member (Mr. Cardin) who just took his seat implied that I was objecting to the Quebec, Montreal and Southern and to the Montreal bridge because they were in the province of Quebec. I deny that, absolutely. There is no man in this house who is or always has been more friendly towards expenditures, or towards the friendly treatment of the province of Quebec, than I am, and I have been that way all my life. I think this is not a very broad attitude to take when, upon a matter touching the province of Quebec, the suggestion is made that we are attacking the French-Canadian population. I do not think that attitude is worthy of any hon. member on either side of the house. Hon. members on this side of the house definitely-


Mr. BOUCHARD:: You are the only one who mentioned it.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member pointed out that because it was in Quebec I would have nothing to do with it. I submit that the statements which I made were correct, and had nothing to do with the portion of Canada in which the money was spent. I do not think it is fair to bring in a question of race in connection with a matter which we are discussing.


Charles Gavan Power: It was not brought in.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the house was good enough to grant permission to revert to the orders of the day when we resumed at three o'clock, since I was inadvertently

that is a good word-detained by reason of the arrival of the United States minister.
This afternoon we propose to proceed with order No. 24, with the house in committee on Bill No. 99, if the item of business under consideration is disposed of. We propose to proceed also with Bill No. 100, which stands in my name, and with Bill No. 106. It was thought that possibly the difficulties to which attention has been directed in connection with the latter bill would be modified if not overcome by adding as a new paragraph a provision that this act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by the governor in council. That is the proposal we shall make with respect to that measure.
There still remains the redistribution bill, and I have asked the committee to report the bill to the house at the earliest possible moment. I am told that it might not be possible to report it until the morning, but I suppose that when it is reported it will take some time for consideration, though just how long I am not in a position to say. I regret that with respect to some of the provinces an agreement has not been reached, but that very often happens. I was on a committee twenty years ago, and the matter was finally disposed of only in the last two or three days. The present chairman of the select committee was on the redistribution committee ten years ago, and it will be recalled that the measure was not proceeded with as intended on the first occasion but was taken up at the following session.
Having regard to the fact that this is 1933, however, I think there is great anxiety on the part of the house that the bill should be enacted, and if we are unable to do so by consent I suppose the only other way is to invoke the aid of what is sometimes called the brute majority, but which constitutes the means by which under democratic institutions we carry on government, the history of which is very interesting but to refer to which would serve no good purpose. I believe an agreement has been arrived at with regard to most

Business of the House
of the provinces; I understand that the particular differences are very few but that unfortunately when an effort is made to overcome them new ones take their places. That being so it is quite obvious that the only proper thing is to report the bill to the house, and that will be done at the earliest possible moment.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING {Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, with reference to the remarks of the Prime Minister I might touch first on what he has proposed with respect to Bill No. 106, to amend the Canada Shipping Act. I understood the Prime Minister to say that he would propose that the measure should not come into force until so directed by the governor in council. I do not see that this alters in any particular the principle of the measure, which is one to which we at least on this side of the house cannot agree, and which we shall oppose on the second reading of the bill. I say that at once; the principle of the bill is not one which we can accept, and the proposed amendment would not help the situation at all.
With regard to the redistribution measure,
I cannot agree with the Prime Minister when he says that previous redistributions have not been effected by consent, that is, if we confine the statement to the last three redistribution acts. In 1892, I think it was, there was a redistribution which resulted in a long drawn out battle in the House of Commons. At that time Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was leading the opposition, put forward the suggestion that there should be a joint committee of the house appointed to prepare the schedules to be attached to the bill to be presented to hon. members for their approval. In that year the government of the day itself prepared the bill without reference to the opposition, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier's view was that if a joint committee could be formed its members might be expected to rise above matters of party difference and do what would be generally recognized as fair and just to all concerned. After Sir Wilfrid came into office in 1896, and was confronted in 1902 with the first redistribution thereafter, he had redistribution carried out in that way. A joint committee was appointed from both sides of the house, and that committee arranged the constituencies as a result of agreement after some discussion and brought in a report which was unanimously accepted. To the bill was attached a schedule containing the redistribution map, and that bill was carried in the
commons without disagreement of any appreciable extent.
A few days ago I was speaking with Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden with regard to redistribution in his day. Sir Robert made it rather a boast to me at the time-and I think he quite rightly spoke with a degree of pride -that when he was in office which would be in 1912, a committee of the house had been appointed which joint committee came to an agreement, so that there was no controversy. With respect to the last redistribution, which was carried out in 1923 when the late Liberal government was in office, I recall the circumstances quite vividly because I had the responsibility in the matter that to-day rests with my right hon. friend. It did take the joint committee some little time to come to a final agreement but an agreement generally approved was reached. I believe that at the end there was one constituency with respect to which there remained some controversy. As I recall the circumstance it was not a matter that affected the boundaries of the constituency; it was I believe some other feature which at the moment I cannot recall.
I do remember, however, that the measure was brought into the house with the understanding on the part of the committee not that the particular difference whatever it was would be decided on the floor of the house but rather that the parties would declare their respective positions which I believe had reference to the returning officer to be appointed and that the bill should go through without any controversy, which it did. That was the last redistribution, and I have referred to the only other occasion on which we have had redistributions since we adopted the practice of having the redistribution map prepared by a joint committee of the house.
I do think it would be most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, if at this time, after having been successful for the last thirty years with this method of effecting the necessary redistribution of constituencies, it should be found that the present ministry was not able to effect what three previous ministries effected in regard to a redistribution which would be regarded as fair and just by all parties concerned. I know there are some differences, but there may also be older and wiser heads in the house than those perhaps which have had thus far to do with the present redistribution, and I would submit that even yet, advantage might be taken of that added experience which in political life comes with years, to see if it is not possible to bring into this house before we prorogue a measure that

Business of the House
will commend itself with unanimity to hon. members and to the country. Having regard to the conditions which exist not only in our own country but throughout the world as well I cannot think of anything that would be more unfortunate than to have the popular belief in parliamentary institutions further shaken or undermined in any way. I would urge that very strongly upon the ministry as a reason why above all others, we at this time, should seek by our action 'here, irrespective of the parties to which we may belong, to let the general public see that with regard to the basis on which our whole 'Parliamentary institutions rests we are prepared to do the thing which will be regarded by the public at large, as fair, just and honourable. I believe the Prime Minister himself can bring his influence to bear in this matter. I cannot but think he wants to be fair, and he has a way of getting his own way when he wants it. I should say this was a time for him to exert that influence in the interests of fairness and justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With the character of the observations which the right hon. gentleman has been pleased to make to this house I am in aooord but-and it is the "bub" that is the difficulty-it is not quite fair to expect that every concession must be made by the majority and the right hon. gentleman will be the first to agree with that. What he said about our institutions is so true that I shall not do more than say that I wholly agree with him, but it must not be forgotten by this chamber, for instance, that when redistribution took place ten years ago the Conservative party now in power had no member from Saskatchewan.
Now, I put it to the fair judgment of public opinion whether or not when, for instance, there was an earnest effort by a member of the committee from Saskatchewan to rearrange one seat in particular about which there has been so much talk by a very highly respected but very old member of this house, who took the attitude, "No! My map or nothing"-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. VALLANCE:: That is not right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is practically what it meant.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, there you have an initial difference. My advice to-day is, and I have inquired carefully, that certainly the map which our friends from Saskatchewan insist upon is practically their map or nothing. My right hon. friend opposite knows from long experience-and he has had a longer fMr. Mackenzie King.]
experience of the responsibilities of the bead of a government than I have had-that there is a point always reached where you cannot expect men who belong to the majority to be told that they must subordinate entirely their views to the will of a sometimes arrogant and almost insolent minority. That is the fair way to put it. I am not putting it disrespectfully; I think I am putting it fairly when I say that.
The committee is called for half past three this afternoon, and if there is a real disposition to overcome these difficulties it will then become apparent. If the older members of the 'house can assist in arriving at an amicable disposition of a highly contentious question, I shall be very glad; indeed, I shall ask the leader of the opposition whether he has any suggestion to make as to a member or two on his side who will cooperate with the older members on this side to enable such a. disposition to be arrived at.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I say at the threshold of the discussion that a frank recognition of the fact that there are Conservative members from Quebec and Saskatchewan is essential to the reaching of a conclusion.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Surely,


Richard Bedford Bennett: That must be done; if it is not done, then the fault will rest not with the^ government but with those who assert their right to rule regardless of the rights of majorities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister has referred to the provinces of Quebec and Saskatchewan as they were at the time of the last redistribution, and has said that the Conservative party was not represented on the committee that dealt with that redistribution. I submit that there could be no greater evidence of the fairness of the redistribution as effected in 1923 than the fact that to-day there are large numbers of representatives both from Saskatchewan and from Quebec sitting in the seats of hon. gentlemen opposite, whereas under the previous redistribution made when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office, there was in one parliament at least, only one Conservative member, I think, from the province of Quebec and none from the province of Saskatchewan. The question is not whether there were representatives from these provinces on the committee at the time, but whether the representatives generally were able to effect a redistribution which was regarded by all as.

Supply-Finance-M iscellaneous
fair, and I submit that unless the members of the Conservative party on the redistribution committee representing other provinces had regarded the redistribution in that light, as regards both Saskatchewan and Quebec, the bill would not have received the unanimous consent it did.
I wish to take very strong exception to one phrase used by the Prime Minister. I believe that on reconsideration he will probably wish to withdraw it. He said if the matter were not settled by consent that no recourse would be left other than that of deciding the matter by brute majority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I said, what has been sometimes described as the brute majority.


Ernest Lapointe: Aptly described.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, we here are the minority and hon. gentlemen opposite are the majority. We do not ask for any privileges but for fair play and justice-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -but we do
ask for the exercise of those qualities rather than brute force in the settlement of all questions which affect the rights of the people. After all, it is not merely our individual constituencies that are at stake but the representation of the people of Canada in their House of Commons. A more sacred duty does not exist than that which is imposed upon this house at the present time to see that that representation is made as fair and just as it can possibly be made, and if such is possible, that it be arrived at through agreement and fair play as the result of common consent.
I shall be very happy to join with the Prime Minister in naming two or three exministers of the crown from this side to meet with some of his colleagues, if he is agreeable to having that course adopted, and to allowing these gentlemen to see whether they cannot help to work out a joint agreement. I think it ought to be possible to attain such a result for I still believe that a desire for fair play and justice is what is uppermost in the minds of the majority here, irrespective of the parties to which they belong.



CONSCRIPTION IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: The right hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) has directed my attention to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for West Middlesex <Mr. Elliott), based on a report in a paper
of an address supposed to have been given by the district officer commanding No. 3 military district, upon which article the hon member based the question whether this government is favourable to conscription in the militia. Let me say very definitely that conscription in the milita is not the policy of Canada nor is it the policy of this government. The department as at present administered is simply carrying out the well known policy of the country which is not conscription.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
To provide for payment to Miss Edith Tillie, of the balance of her subscription to the national service loan, $630.44.


Mr. NEILL:: What are the details of this vote?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is to reimburse Miss Tillie of Edmonton, Alberta, who subscribed for a 81,000 Dominion of Canada four per cent bond, issue of 1932. The subscription was misappropriated by W. Ross Alger of the W. Ross Alger Corporation, Limited, with whom Miss Tillie was transacting this business. He was arrested and imprisoned. The amount of the cheque misappropriated was S936.70 with interest to May 1, 1933, at four per cent, of 821.35, making $958.05. They recovered from Mr. Alger before his arrest $280 and secured from the management committee his ^hare of the commission of S17.61 and they have secured through Mr. Alger since the sum of $30. The Department of Justice has been consulted and has expressed the opinion that Miss Tillie has a legal claim against the government, and it is proposed to pay her this difference which she lost in this manner.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Federal District Commission

to provide for maintenance and improvement of properties under the control of the Federal District Commission, $55,000.
Mr. MARCIL:: What new work is to be
undertaken?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This amount is in addition to the regular appropriation. It will be recalled that the commission has recently taken over the work of attending to the Rideau Hall grounds. The details are as follows:
Maintenance	  $10,000
Filling	 2,000
New fence	 22,800
Improvements		12,000
Research building:
Maintenance of grounds	 5,200
Planting	 3,000
Supply-Miscellaneous


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If they construct any more fences, please have them put up a fence different from that at Government House.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to Reverend Doctor D. B. Marsh.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: What is the reason for this vote?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Dr. Marsh is an elderly
clergyman who has devoted himself to science, more particularly as it is applied to astronomy. He headed the Hamilton contingent which was able to secure a record of the recent eclipse, I understand the most perfect record of all those obtained. His work is recognized and I hold in my hand a copy of the Illustrated London News which indicates the value of the scientific work performed by that expedition. He did this work gratuitously and is now entirely without funds. It was felt that as this work had brought a certain amount of eminence to Canada it should be recognized in this manner Which is comparable to other recognitions which have been made from time to time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to join with the Minister of Finance in saying that I think this recognition is eminently worthy in every way. If there is any fault to be found with the vote, it is that it is much too small.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for payment from the consolidated revenue fund to Indian trust funds of amount of defalcations of A. H. Lomas, former Indian agent, Cowichan, British Columbia. $15,770.
Pierre-François Casgrain: What is this for?


Mr. MURPHY:: I think it was in 1929
that this Indian agent was brought up in court for retaining moneys for his own use that belonged to the Indians. Certain timber lands had been surrendered to certain companies in British Columbia and this agent reported that timber was not being cut when as a matter of fact cutting was taking place. The^dues paid by the companies to this agent were diverted to his own use instead of being sent to the department. He was apprehended, convicted and sentenced to a prison term. Certain moneys were recovered from the bond company and from amounts owing to him by the department but the amount in the estimates, $15,770, was not recoverable. This amount is being asked for to replenish the Indian trust funds.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(Mr. Rhodes.]
To provide for payments in connection with additional movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council-further amount required, $750,000.
Mr. RALSTON:: Could the Minister of Mines advise if any orders in council have been passed since March 30, the date upon which this matter was dealt with under the main item? I should like to know if any additional orders in council have been passed to provide for subventions, particularly on coal from the maritime provinces?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: My recollection is that there have been no new orders in council passed. As the hon. member knows, the moneys required for the payment of subventions under the various orders in council have to be voted yearly and the orders in council that run out have to be renewed. There is possibly one with regard to the extension on railway coal which may have been passed subsequent to that date, but my recollection is that it was passed prior to that date. No others have been passed.


James Layton Ralston: In view of the way in which this vote is worded, I should like to know whether it is intended to pass any further orders in council to provide for increased subventions? I am referring to increases in the rate per ton on coal moving from the maritime provinces, that is, either water borne, railed or water borne from Sydney to Montreal to be forwarded inland by rail or via the St. Lawrence.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This matter of assistance has been the subject of conferences on a number of occasions between the producers, representatives of the miners and representatives of the government. The orders in council presently obtaining were the result of those conferences. It was stated that the assistance now given would permit coal from Nova Scotia to reach those points westerly which it was deemed by all those concerned would be the farthest point west that could be justified so far as help from the government is concerned. Therefore, it is not now in the contemplation of the government that further assistance by way of increased subventions will be given to the coal industry in Nova Scotia. I feel confident and I am sure the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, with his intimate knowledge of the situation, will agree that if there is any considerable increase in the consumption of coal, the assistance now given will, I believe, take care of the matter perhaps as well as can be done, at least from the standpoint of direct assistance from the government.

Supply-Miscellaneous


James Layton Ralston: My point is that it seems that only by way of assistance of this kind or some other kind to which I am going to refer in a moment, increased sale or consumption of maritime coal can be effected. I think my hon. friend is putting the cart before the horse when he suggests that if there is increased consumption, the assistance now given will take care of it. On the other hand, it seems that the assistance is needed in order to produce increased consumption or sale.
In that connection may I ask the minister whether there is in contemplation-and perhaps I am entitled to ask the intention of the government in this regard in view of the fact that this is a definite appropriation in connection with coal-any provision respecting the imposition of import licences with regard to United States coal? That has frequently heen talked about in the press; rumours have come to us that it has been discussed by the authorities-I presume by the minister-and I want to ask whether that policy is being seriously considered by the government or whether there is any likelihood of such a system being put into force with respect to coal?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: During the course of the
discussions that took place between me and those interested in the coal industry of Nova Scotia, the question of invoking import licences was gone into at great length. It presents some most difficult problems. My view is that a measure of that kind is not capable of being worked out. I do not think the government would be justified and I do not think the industry would be well served if, having regard to its implications and also the difficulty of administration, such action were taken.


Mr. SPENCER:: Could the minister give
the committee the amount of money granted by the government to the different provinces last year in connection with this vote?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No moneys were given
to the provinces with respect to this vote.


Henry Elvins Spencer: To the producers of
coal?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That information was
given at length when the main estimates were under review; it is on Hansard. I have not the figures before me at the moment.


Alan Webster Neill: Am I correct in assuming
that this appropriation will complete the provision of enough money to take care of all the subventions now in existence to the end
of the present fiscal year, and further, that it will not be necessary to pass any orders in council extending any existing ones? The whole thing is complete now for the duration of this fiscal year; is that correct?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Some of the orders in
council providing for subventions expired about the end of the last fiscal year. They were renewed. My recollection is that some, probably one or two orders in council, do not expire until some time in the month of June, but they will be renewed in order that the money parliament has already voted and the present appropriation, if parliament votes it, will be available to take care of expenses under all the orders in council.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for payment, as an honorarium, to His Honour Judge Edmund R. Wylie, for services as royal commissioner in connection with the Estevan mining dispute, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Judges Act, $1,000.
Edward James Young: In connection with the Estevan strike, there is an incident to which I Should like to direct the attention of the governor,ont. It appears that a woman, a weaver by trade, living in England, was visiting relatives in the Estevan district that summer. On the day of the strike she went into Estevan to consult a doctor. While the rioting was in progress, she was sitting in the doctor's office. It appears that the policemen lost their heads and in firing, as they thought, over the heads of the strikers, they fired through the walls of the building in which the doctor's office was, one of the bullets striking this women in the arm. She was taken to the hospital where she remained for a considerable time. Her friends tried to get compensation for her from the provincial government, but they refused even so much as to pay her hospital bill, claiming that the mounted police were a federal body. Her friends wrote to me and I wrote to the Minister of Justice who replied that the federal authorities had no jurisdiction in the matter, because, although the mounted police were a federal body, they were at the time acting under the instructions of the provincial government. I ,do not think it is the intention of the people of Canada that their governments should resort to passing the buck in that manner. That is conduct befitting men like Messrs. Dodson and Fogg, but we expect something different from the federal government, and I would ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance whether he would not take the matter into consideration.
Supply-M iscellaneous


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am frank to say that the details of this matter have been presented to me for the first time in what has just been said by the hon. member for Weybum. But I believe there is involved in all these matters a principle that has to be settled, and I think members of the house as well as the public generally consider governments Should disregard principles because of the hardships of a particular -case. The old saying "Hard cases make bad law" is never better exemplified than when pressure is exerted upon a government to pay claims which are not valid, legal claims against it.
The question of the responsibility of the mounted police in a case of the character indicated by the hon. gentleman is not so easily disposed of as by a mere statement of the facts. The province of Saskatchewan pays to the federal government an annual sum, for Which this government supplies police force to that province. Saskatchewan has some executive responsibility with respect to the matter, and if the Minister of Justice has advised that at the moment in question the police force was acting under the direction of the provincial authorities, obviously the federal authority is not responsible. The question is one of fact. But I can only say this, that now that the matter has been brought to the attention of the government in the manner in which it has, I shall ask for the papers for the purpose of endeavouring to ascertain just whether any question of fact is at issue. But if one were to establish the precedent of responsibility, I can hardly see where the whole thing would end. I do not think I need remind the hon. gentleman that matters such as this are constantly arising and sometimes governments are charged with having hard hearts because they do not yield to pressure in any particular case. But if they did, then within a short time a hundred cases would arise of claims that would be asserted to be quite as substantial as the one that was acknowledged. This is one of the difficulties connected with the continuity of government and the maintenance of a proper relationship between responsibility and finance. If the financial responsibility is to be entirely disregarded, it follows that payments are made whenever a hard case is created. But if on the other hand a principle is to be adhered to, the payments are made very infrequently and usually in response to an appropriation submitted as an estimate to parliament or a judgment recovered in the exchequer court against the crown. Broadly, the rule has been, I think by most governments recently, especially having regard for 
the fact that in England it has been decided that the crown can be sued without its being necessary in certain instances to file a petition of right and receive the fiat of the sovereign, that permission to sue has been granted wherever there appears to be, shall I say, the semblance of a valid claim against the crown. I can only repeat that I will myself try to read the file and ascertain whether or not it is a case in which there is any responsibility, and if there is a doubtful case, without endeavouring to involve persons of little property in litigation, we may be able in some way to refer the matter to the decision of a judge for the purpose of having it disposed of. I cannot really state the case better perhaps than by directing attention to what has recently happened. The privy council this week gave judgment in connection with the old Yonge street corner in the city of Toronto. During a short interval when I was Minister of Justice I referred the matter to the exchequer court. Subsequently the judgment of the exchequer court and of the supreme court of Canada went to the privy council and the judgment of the supreme court of Canada was reversed by the privy council last week. There was involved a question of great principle which touched the relations of the crown with the subject. When the incurring of liability is at issue, the question of responsibility for negligence in connection with giving an order to fire is one that has engaged the attention of courts and of parliaments for a long time, the last concrete case heard in England being, as will be recalled, the case at Amritsar in India, where the order to fire was given, improperly it is claimed, resulting in a substantial number of people being killed. The hon. gentleman has anticipated what might be decided when he says that the police lost their heads, and that When the order to fire over the heads of the people was given they fired through the wall. If the wall shot through was higher than the people standing by, obviously the police fired over their heads but not high enough to escape going through the wall.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for expenses of representation at the world economic conference, $15,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This item is to provide for representation at the world economic conference. I imagine if the Prime Minister is in a position to make a statement at the moment that the public would be interested in knowing something of the extent of Canada's representation at the world economic conference, and also something of

Supply-World Economic Conference
the personnel. I understand that there may be reasons why the Prime Minister cannot give full information but peihaps he will give uls as much as he can.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed that it is a very modest sum that is being appropriated for this purpose. It is a much lesser sum than was appropriated for the disarmament conference. My own personal views with respect to the world economic conference are that the position of ten millions of people on the northern half of this continent with respect to trade matters is of very considerable importance, and the voice of this country will have considerable influence by reason of the fact that our trading position is that of fifth or sixth among the nations of the world. It is therefore essential that we Should have such representation as will enable it to be clearly understood at the conference what our position is. But when you deal with what you might call the purely monetary and financial side of it I need hardly say to any member of this committee that the position of this dominion is not nearly so important because our relative wealth is not very great. That is best illustrated by the position to which I directed attention same time ago, that the half-yearly payment of gold made by Great Britain in December last really amounted to several million dollars more than the entire gold reserves of this country. The fact is that the representation of this country in my judgment will have to be determined in the light of the order in which the problems will be discussed, and I am not in a position to make any statement as to either the personnel or the extent to which this country will be represented because we are in much the same position as are other countries in that regard. The settlement of the order of business will have mudh to do with the representation that may be necessary.
My own personal view, I say to this committee frankly, is that I should be placed in a position where I could advise Ottawa as to what representation would be required to enable particular business to be dealt with. Once more I am giving my own personal view when I say that no good purpose is served by asking busy ministers to sit around London weeks at a time without being able to have their minds directed to the consideration of the problem with which they wish to deal. I dhall endeavour to ascertain the order of business and how it will be taken up, and then by communicating with those who I think are best able to deal with it I shall endeavour to see that adequate representation is afforded to this dominion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On this item
I might 'as well ask the Prime Minister for information on one other point. The Prime Minister indicated that the government intended to appoint a royal commission to deal with monetary matters. I do not see any item in the estimates for the purposes of that commission. and I was wondering whether the matter had been overlooked or whether the government had in mind other means of making the necessary provision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank the right hon.
gentleman for directing attention to the matter. It was not thought that any sum that we might think reasonable to put in the estimates would be more than a guess at the moment. We propose to set up the commission, and there are means whereby we can provide for unforeseen contingencies of that character, as the right hon. gentleman knows, and as was done I think in. connection with the radio commission. That is in our mind, but it is just possible that the necessity for the payment of any substantial sum of money may not arise until after parliament will again be in session. That is the reason it is not in the estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the Prime Minister say when the commission will be appointed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact our present view is that the commission Should consist of five members. That seems to be a rather large commission, but it is not so having regard to the necessity of obtaining the services of experienced men outside of this country, possibly to the number of two, together with three Canadians who might represent the practical operations of our banking act, the legislative position-shall I say? -of the country and-shall I say?-the great mass of the public who use credits and who are the customers of banks and are interested in the practical application of theories to the expansion of credits-that would be the third of the three Canadians. That is, practical banking experience; broad general knowledge of the operations of our credit system as relating to banking and currency and what is sometimes euphemistically referred to as the consumer; that is the user of credits and the applicant for credit. We feel that three Canadians should be appointed together with two whom we have not determined upon Who should live outside of this country in order that, if possible, a detached view might be obtained in matters of this kind.



Ways and Means-Supply Bill


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister has not answered the question I directed to him as to the time at which the commission would be appointed. In that connection, may I ask a question which I had intended to ask later, namely whether or not the Prime Minister contemplates the possibility of a fall session. I ask that question now because it relates in part to the possibility of having this commission sit in the interval, and alstf because hon. members would be glad to know at as early a date as possible if anything in the nature of a fall session is contemplated?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have considered the
question with my colleagues. We do not feel that we are in a position to make any statement about it, in view of the conference to which attention has just been directed, and to the results which might be obtained therefrom. Legislation might be required, in a given contingency, at as early a date as the late fall of this year. On the other hand that might not be so. Therefore I cannot make any statement that would enlighten the committee, because I have not yet been enlightened myself. I diffuse no light, as I have not yet received it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What does the right hon. gentleman say about the commission?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had hoped that we
would appoint the commission between now, and say, the middle of June. It might be that with respect to discussions as to the personnel of it, in one particular, it would be later than that when they could get to work. Some hon. members of the house know that the vacations in England do not begin until July 31, and it might be that we could secure the services of some eminent authority in that country who would not be unwilling to come to find a change in this country, and the work could be carried on during the months of August and September. That is as far as I can inform the right hon. gentleman at the present time, but the commission will be appointed, we 'hope, within-well, I was hoping by the middle of June.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British and foreign news service, $15,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like an explanation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The contract with Reuters expires this year. For a long period of years the contract has been for $32,000. We have thought it desirable to continue the services for another year and we are asking for $15,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are Reuters
agreeable?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, before you leave the chair I should like to know if the Minister of Finance can tell us the total of the estimates for the year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: At page 4 of the estimates the right hon. gentleman will find that the total amount was $358,656,488.11. The sup-plementaries totalled, $2,087,964.56.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did we not
have one other supplementary? I refer to the vote for the railways and steamships.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not that figure before me.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergee in the chair.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1934, the sum of $174,127,778.15 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 109, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1934.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. RHODES moved the third reading of the bill.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before this bill
is read the third time, Mr. Speaker, let me say that a moment ago I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) if he could give me the total amount of appropriations made by the house this session. If it should be possible to have that information we should be glad to get it.

Criminal Code-Welfare of Children


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think perhaps it would be better for me to give those figures to the right hon. gentleman in the morning and I will tell him why I think so. A portion of this bill is for five-sixths while the supplementaries are in full, and I think I could give the figures more accurately to-morrow if that would be satisfactory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to delay matters, but I was going to point out to my hon. friend that in view of the size of this year's deficit and the probable deficit next year that I believe, the country must feel that the total estimates for this year show very little in the way of reduction over those for the previous year. Having regard to the amount of additional taxation the government has found it necessary to impose I think the public expected from the administration something more in the way of economy. I do not wish to make a formal motion but I do think the matter is sufficiently important to bring to the attention of the administration in the hope that when they are paying out sums under the estimates that have been appropriated they will see if it is not possible yet to effect some economies which it may be possible to make in the expenditure of these public moneys.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course I am debarred
from replying to my right hon. friend now, but at the earliest possible opportunity I shall take occasion to do so. Perhaps in just a word I might say that there have been very substantial reductions in controllable expenditures and that any increase or any lack of shrinkage in the total volume is due entirely to expenditures over which we have no control.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house disagrees with their amendment to Bill No. 71, an act to amend the criminal code, for the following reason: Because the deletion of subsection 3 o-f section 3 of the bill makes the said section ineffective.
And that the clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
change made by the Senate?


Maurice Dupré: The Senate did not concur
in the amendment contained in section 3, which deals with offences against morality and especially the corruption of children. Subsection 3 deals with an irrebuttable presumption; it was carried in this house and deleted in the Senate. I have reason to believe that at present pourparlers are going on with some senators, especially the leader of the Senate and Hon. Mr. Dandurand, as well as with some representatives of societies for the welfare of children, and that very likely some compromise will be arrived at and a new clause enacted which I hope will meet with the approval of this house.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE Mont-magny): I have had a certain amount of experience in criminal affairs, and I must say that in deleting this subsection I think the Senate showed more common sense than was shown by this house and conformed to the traditions of British justice as we understand it. Under the bill passed rather hurriedly in this house a man going into his own home while under the influence of liquor, even though it may be without the knowledge of his children, or permitting adultery even without the knowledge of his children, is liable to commitment on being found guilty of this offence. More than that, the onus is on the accused; he is not presumed to be innocent but must prove himself not guilty before the court.
I believe the bill should remain as it has been amended by the Senate; otherwise it will be an absolutely puritanical blue law. In my humble opinion, therefore, I think we should concur in the amendment made by the Senate and I would press the acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Dupre) to do so. I think we should remain faithful to the principle that an accused man is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty, and I do not think we should put on our statute book laws which are not capable of being applied or which, if they are applied, may lead to absolute tyranny.
Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker. Under this bill a man who is in his own house under the influence of liquor, if there are children, is presumed to be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to commitment whether or not they know of his condition, and he must prove himself innocent instead of the crown being compelled to prove him guilty. After my experience with criminal law, which unfortunately has extended over almost thirty years, I think this house should accept the amendment made by the Senate and thank that chamber for having made it.
50S4	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Welfare of Children


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has misstated the case.
The Childrens Aid Societies of Canada have been endeavouring to prevent the corrupting of children's minds in their early days by reason of improper home surroundings. The new subsection 2 of subsection 215 read as follows:
Every person who, in the home of a child, participates in adultery, or in sexual immorality, or indulges in habitual drunkenness or any other form of vice, thereby endangering the morals of such child or rendering the home of such child an unfit place for such child to be in shall be guilty of an offence and liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year, or to both fine and imprisonment.
I need not say that this subsection in its entirety is not new; it existed before. The words added are, "Participates in adultery or indulges in habitual drunkenness." Drunkenness itself was an offence so far as that section was concerned, but the words now proposed are as I have just quoted. These provisions are intended to render it less easy for the child to have improper conceptions of things early in life. Subsection 3, which the Senate deletes, read:
It shall be an irrebuttable presumption, in any prosecution under subsection two of this section, that the child was in danger of being or becoming immoral, its morals injuriously affected and its home rendered an unfit place for it to be in, upon proof that the person accused did in fact, in the home of such child, participate in adultery, in sexual immorality, in habitual drunkenness, or in any other form of vice.
All that is new. Now, the irrebuttable presumption was not that of guilt at all. If the hon. gentleman had taken the trouble to read the subsection he would have observed that that is not what the irrebuttable presumption relates to. The irrebuttable presumption in any prosecution would be that the child was in danger of being or becoming immoral by reason of such surroundings as are described. That is, as the law stood previously, to prove drunkenness was not sufficient; it was necessary to prove something else. Now we say that it is an irrebuttable presumption under this subsection that the child was in danger of being or becoming immoral or of having its morals injuriously affected if the home conditions were as I have indicated. The Senate struck out that subsection. There is a medium course that has been suggested and I believe the Senate will probably accept it. The minister is therefore moving that the statute be sent back to the Senate for that purpose.

I may say that the Childrens Aid Societies of the country have been most active in connection with this matter, and this morning I received a telegram from a representative of the Childrens Aid Society, pointing out that if this subsection were deleted the legislation sought would be destroyed. While it may be puritanical to say that it is an irrebuttable presumption that the child is in danger of having its morals corrupted by reason of improper surroundings, that has nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence. The guilt or innocence of the accused must be settled by proving in the first place, let us say, habitual drunkenness. That must be proven as a fact, but if you prove drunkenness there is an irrebuttable presumption that such a condition in the home is injurious to the morals of the child. I believe the Senate will now appreciate the fact that it was not an endeavour to determine the guilt and have innocence proven, but rather to determine the conditions that do exist; and having proven that there exist conditions which are detrimental to the interests of the child, that is a matter of irrebuttable presumption which is nothing more or less than what has been in the criminal code for centuries and will continue to be there. In other words, as a matter of law, certain inferences flow from the establishment of certain facts, and the proof of the facts rests with those who assert them, the onus probandi being on those who represent the prosecution; and when they prove the facts, then that is an irrebuttable presumption that the child is in surroundings which are inimical to its moral wellbeing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 99, to amend The Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932-Mr. Bennett-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: May I say to the committee at onoe that since we were last in session I have had the Civil Service Commission and Mr. Gladstone Murray endeavour to draft an amendment which would meet the situation in every detail, that is, to preserve the rights of the commission on the one hand and on the other to ensure efficiency. I am bound to say that I find to-day that they have not been able to arrive at any form of words which they consider adequate, so I propose,

Radio Broadcasting Act
with the consent of the committee, to add the following words in order to remove all possible doubts as to there being an infringement of the rights of the commission, in view of what was said the other day:
Provided that the contracts of service of such persons shall expire on the 31st day of March, 1934.
This is a temporary provision to ascertain how the act works out and it will only las>.t until 1934; on March 31, the end of this fiscal year, all persons employed under that section will have to be re-employed unless the law is amended under the civil service statute. They will have no position under this statute. What I said the other day has perhaps been extended a bit by some of our friends. When I said I proposed to set up the committee it was not to go over the whole radio question again-I regard that as settled-but rather for the purpose of ascertaining how the working of the statute which is now accepted as law could be improved upon in the light of the experience thus gained. This subsection, with the amendment I propose, would enable to be made only such appointments as will terminate on March 31, 1934, so that the creation of vested rights and interests, I humbly submit, could not arise.
In connection with appointments to the public service, my observation is that there should be a longer period of probation if possible, because I do not regard any system as infallible. It would be unfair to determine who were the best public servants, but I think a period of probation is very desirable, and all such persons, in the light of the experience that had been acquired, would be able to apply for positions and be dealt with in the manner thought best.
In section 14 I propose to add, in view of the criticism made the other evening, a few words which I think will be helpful. The new section 14 would read:
(1)	The commission may expend for the purposes of this act the moneys appropriated by parliament for such purposes, together with such sums of money as may _ be received by the commission from any business carried on by it under this act.	_
(2)	The moneys appropriated by parliament for such purposes shall not exceed the estimated revenue from receiving licences, private commercial broadcasting licences and amateur broadcasting licences:
Provided that if at the end of the fiscal year there is a balance of appropriated moneys unexpended, or if the revenue from the sources mentioned in this subsection exceeds the amount appropriated, parliament may appropriate any such balance and excess in addition to any appropriation provided hereunder.
(3) The commission shall present to the Minister of Finance an annual estimate of the expenditure proposed to be made by it during the fiscal year and the Minister of Finance shall from time to time pay into a chartered bank to the credit of the commission the moneys appropriated by parliament for the purposes of the commission.
From whait I have been able to ascertain I think it is (highly desirable that there should be a budget prepared by the commission to be submitted to the Minister of Finance in order that the payments made out of appropriations might bear a proper relation to the appropriations made by parliament and the moneys collected from: licence fees. I regard this as being purely a temporary effort to bridge existing difficulties in the operation of the commission. I was somewhat astonished at the exent of the condemnation of the commission to which I listened the other evening and I only hope that the committee will accept this as an effort temporarily to meet a situation between now and the end of the fiscal year. My present intention is to ask the same committee, providing the members are all living, which Bat before, to deal with this matter and investigate, not the principle because that was settled by the last report which was embodied in this legislation, but the operation of that legislation in the light of the facts as disclosed by the experience of the commission since it has been in office.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the first portion of my right hon. friend's remarks, that he purposes limiting this measure to March, 1934, I would point out that that does not meet our objection, an objection which I think is shared by the public at large, to having all officers, clerks and employees of the radio commission appointed by the commission itself and given such salaries as the commission itself may determine. So far as technical officers, professional employees, artists and the like are concerned, I think it is perfectly reasonable of the government to ask that the commission be given latitude and that they Should not be restricted in the selections which they make or possibly in the salaries and payments to these persons.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would direct the attention of the 'hon. member to the fact that [DOT]clause one has been allowed to stand and we are now on clause two,
'Mr. BENNETT: I thought that all clauses were open to discussion.
50S6
Radio Broadcasting Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister discussed these matters and I thought I would have the same latitude in, replying.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the purpose was to discuss all clauses.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard to ordinary employees and clerks and the like, I cannot see any reason why those who come into the radio service should not be appointed in the same manner as those who come into the service of any other commission appointed by the government or even those who come into the public service generally. The Prime Minister has said that it is desirable to have a period of probation but he knows that there is a period of probation with civil service appointments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Six months.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Something like six months. During this period those who are not satisfactory may be rejected. I suggest that this section be amended by striking out the words "and other officers, clerks, and employees." The section would then read:
The commission may employ such technical and professional officers as the commission may deem necessary or desirable, and such persons shall receive such salaries or remuneration as may be fixed by the commission.
I think that would give the commission all the latitude it would need with respect to the classes that are at all likely to require special consideration. My right hon. friend knows that once a person is appointed to the public service he ought to have the right to assume that his appointment is going to remain permanent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is to remove that idea in this particular clause.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will not remove it. My right hon. friend has stressed, and I do not think it can be stressed too strongly, the necessity of public confidence in this radio commission. In this connection I intend to speak very plainly. Here is a commission which has been appointed by a Conservative government, every individual member of the commission is a Conservative appointee. It is proposed to give to these Conservative appointees the right to make all other appointments under the commission, even down to the clerks, stenographers and the like. They are to be given the right not only to appoint but to determine the salaries to be paid. That will simply serve to create a great Conservative political machine. It cannot be called by any other name. I cannot see how it can be expected that public confidence tMr. Bennett.1
will be thereby established in the radio commission. If the government wished to take means to destroy confidence in this commission as an impartial body, they could not have gone about it in a more effective way. If the commissioners had been appointed as the result of a conference between the different parties of the house, or if there were on that commission representatives of the different parties, it might be a different matter, but hon. gentlemen opposite will not deny that all the commissioners are well known members of the Conservative party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I deny that with respect to Colonel Steel.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One of them
was a former organizer of the party and I submit it is most unfair to give a body of that character the right to tnake all appointments and to control the whole radio broadr casting situation in Canada. I have seen some of the regulations already put out by the commission and they go the length of stating that the commission can suppress opinions on legislation passed by this parliament. What opportunity under such conditions is any party other than the Conservative party to have where radio broadcasting is concerned? It would be impossible to conceive of a more deliberate partisan act than that of giving to this commission the power to make all appointments. I ask the Prime Minister to consider the eliminating of these minor appointments from the control of the radio commission. He knows as well as I or any other hon. member that in ordinary administrative work there is nothing to distinguish what is to be performed under the radio broadcasting commission from that which is performed under any other commission. There is another reason why the Prime Minister, in particular, might well be disposed to give favourable consideration to this proposal. The Civil Service Commission as it is now and will be constituted is a body made up entirely of appointees of my right hon. friend and not appointees chosen jointly by both sides of the house.
Under the different measures which have been introduced by the government we are having set up in this country a number of what might be described as irresponsible bodies. They are not responsible to anybody. They are called commissions, board of trustees or something of the kind, and they are given all the powers that might be given to governments with respect to the particular field over which they operate. The Conservative government is to appoint trustees for the Canadian National Railways. These trustees

Radio Broadcasting Act
are to 'have to do with the expenditure of millions of dollars and the employment of hundreds of thousands of persons. They are to be given full control of the entire national railway service of the country. There is not a Liberal or a Cooperative Commonwealth Federation representative upon any of these bodies as they are constituted at the moment or as they are likely to be constituted. This radio broadcasting commission is being made into a sort of Conservative soviet and the same thing is happening with respect to the Civil Service Commission. What is government coming to in the country? Surely the minority is entitled to some consideration even at the hands of a majority such as that possessed by the government and its supporters. I think the government's action is most unfair and I believe it will be strongly resented by the people of this country.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, I have
only a few words to say as I do not want to delay the committee. However, I think it is my duty to support the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition. I think, by the amendments that are proposed in this bill, we are giving too wide powers to this commission. The commission has already been working for some time and I think I am expressing the opinion of many, if not the majority of the people of this country when I say that the commission has not lived up to what the people expected of it. I have no confidence in the commission and to give it the new powers that are intended to be given by this bill would make it impossible to secure the results we expected from the creation of a radio commission such as was proposed by the committee that investigated and reported on radio broadcasting. For that reason I am opposed to the bill and shall vote against it.


Mr. SPENCE:: I have lived in Toronto for forty-five years. The leader of the Liberal party has stated that this is a partisan commission. May I say to him and to the committee that I have been associated with the Conservative party during all the time I have lived in Toronto; for the last good many years I have been in the inner circle and Mr. Charlesworth was never known as a Conservative in my city.	He was associated
with an old Liberal family and married into one. He was never in the inner circle of the Conservative party and not regarded as a Conservative. Of course he might have voted Conservative at some time or another. What is the use of casting it up
all the time that this is a commission composed of Conservatives, when it is not? As a matter of fact, I was not pleased with the appointment of Mr. Charlesworth because I thought a really good Tory should have been appointed.


Mr. GRAY:: Before this bill passes I want to say just a word with respect to clause one whidh amends the Radio Broadcasting Act and takes away from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission the matter of appointments. During the debates of Wednesday and Thursday of last week, when the Minister of Marine and the Prime Minister were speaking, they certainly gave to the house and the country the impression that the reason for this change was the recommendation of Mr. Gladstone Murray, director of broadcasting, brought over from England. Certainly the impression given to the house and the country by those hon. gentlemen was that this reputable director brought into Canada at the request of the government had stated that it was necessary to make this change, and therefore the government were falling in line in introducing this legislation.


Alfred Duranleau: I desire to correct my hon. friend in that respect. I stated very dearly to the house that since the commission had been in office, they noticed that they were handicapped in the performance of their duties by the existing law and this is why we are coming before the house with these amendments. They were approved by Major Gladstone Murray.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I am speaking with respect
to this one matter in particular. I have read my hon. friend's speech and I cannot find that he mentioned this particular item and it is specifically mentioned in the interim report of Mr. Gladstone Murray. As early as November, 1932, the chairman of the radio broadcasting commission wrote to the Civil Service Commission asking for the appointment of a director of publicity and a director of programs. I am not going to take the trouble to read the correspondence, but I Shall quote a sentence or two. The chairman states:
In connection wTith the organization of the work of the radio broadcasting commission, it is becoming urgently important that the services of a director of publicity be secured as well as a director of programs. I have discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, who assures me that the question is being taken up of an amendment to the act, whereby these and other important key positions on the staff of the commission may be exempted from the provisions of the Civil Service Act.
Radio Broadcasting Act

He then goes on to recommend that Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Weir be appointed at salaries of $6,500 per annum, and I shall have a word to say on that before I sit down. Nothing came of that and the next letter of interest is one of February 22, from the secretary of the Civil Service Commission to Mr. Charlesworth in reply to a letter of the latter again referring to the appointment of Mr. Buchanan. The secretary states in this letter that if they are going to make this a permanent position, they might just as well advertise now for a director of public relations rather than give him a temporary appointment of three months as they were able to do under section 40 of the Civil Service Act. He states quite frankly that the Civil Service Commission have no intention of certifying to such appointment, unless Mr. Charlesworth can give them assurance that the act is to be amended. This was all before Mr. Murray was ever in the country and certainly before he made any report to the government.
Then comes a very significant letter from Mr. Charlesworth to Mr. Foran, secretary of the Civil Service Commission, under date of February 23, 1933, as follows:
I have yours of February 22 relative to our request for the appointment of Mr. E. C. Buchanan as director of public relations.
I beg to advise you that last evening we received personal assurance from the Prime Minister that an amendment to the Radio Broadcasting Act would be submitted before the close of the session covering this as well as other matters. In accordance with the terms of your letter, I therefore ask that the certificate be issued for Mr. Buchanan as from February 15th.
That, I submit, proves conclusively that it was not Mr. Murray's recommendation that decided the course, but that the government had decided that they would amend the act long before Mr. Murray took any interest whatever in Canadian radio broadcasting.
May I say further that the danger of giving to this commission the power of making these appointments is pointed out fully in this correspondence in which they recommend that Mr. Buchanan-and I am not going into a discussion of his qualifications as a director of public relations-shall be appointed at a salary of $6,500. I am told that as regards directors of publicity in other departments, the salary of the highest paid official is around $4,000. Therefore this government, which under section 40 of the act is allowed, in making temporary appointments, to fix the salary, and which has been generous to its appointees in the way of salaries, did not feel that he was qualified to receive that salary and [Mr. Gray.J
they fixed one of $5,800 less 10 per cent. That, along with other dangers, is one of the reasons I am opposed to giving to this commission the power of making appointments of this kind.
Before I sit down, may I refer to just one other matter and that is that we now have printed by this commission 108 rules and regulations covering the broadcasting system, and I wish to direct the attention of the committee in particular to rule No. 9, as follows:
No broadcasting station may broadcast any speech, printed matter, program or advertising matter containing abusive or defamatory statements with regard to individuals or institutions or statements or suggestions contrary to the express purpose of any existing legislation; as for example, the Patent Medicine Act or any regulations promulgated thereunder.
I would like hon. members to take the rules and regulations as printed by the commission and read them one by one. If they do I think they will all agree with me that we are on our way, but where no one knows.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Will the minister give me some information with regard to section 14 of the act? At the present time are the accounts covering the expenditure incurred by the commission paid through the regular machinery of the Department of Marine, that is through their accountant, after they are audited by the departmental auditor and approved by the deputy minister?


Mr. DUB  ANLEAU@: I understand the
accounts of the radio broadcasting commission are paid through the Finance department.


Eugène Fiset: Then they are not paid through the Department of Marine?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


Eugène Fiset: That is a rather peculiar situation. The Department of Marine receives all the money that is paid for licence fees. After that, by law it is compelled to credit that money to the receiver general, so that it forms part and parcel of the consolidated revenue fund. Then the minister is asked to vote a yearly sum of money not to exceed the revenue received from the collection of these fees. Then it becomes a departmental estimate, and I am rather surprised that the accounts submitted for expenses incurred through the radio commission are not paid through the Department of Marine. Is the minister sure that these accounts are paid on the direct approval of the Minister of Finance?

Radio Broadcasting Act


Alfred Duranleau: Under the law as it
exists at the present time the radio commission has to deal with the minister, and not with the department. It is an independent commission-


Eugène Fiset: I know that.


Alfred Duranleau: -and the moneys
collected by the Department of Marine from radio licences are deposited with the receiver general. Then when these moneys are released by a vote of the house the bills of the radio commission are paid, and that is controlled by the Finance department and the auditor general.


Eugène Fiset: The minister is
sure of that?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like to say a word
in support of the hon. member for West Lambton. I wish he had read a few paragraphs further on. It shows that the radio commission have taken power and have issued instructions that: no broadcast shall . . . issue statements or suggestions contrary to the express purpose of any existing legislation. Under that regulation it will be almost impossible for anyone to criticize over the radio at election time the actions of the government because that is legislation, but the government will be able to criticize the actions of the opposition because that is not legislation. Here is another regulation:
The commission reserves the right to prohibit the broadcasting of any matter until the continuity or record or transcription or both have been submitted to the commission for examination and have been approved by them.
I presume that the commission sits in Montreal or Toronto, and if a man out in British Columbia suddenly has occasion or the urge during election time to express his sentiments over the radio he has to have them all written out-I do not suppose it could be done by wire because it would be too expensive-and he must submit them to the radio commission, and when they approve of his statement he will be allowed to go ahead and broadcast it. There are great possibilities there of discrimination. Then here is rule 93: The licensee shall file with the commission weekly in advance copy of the daily program schedule in such form as may be specified by the commission.
It is to be filed weekly in advance, by a man perhaps three thousand miles away. That rule could be used-I do not say that it will be, but the Scripture says, Avoid the appearance of evil-to discriminate against certain associations or bodies or individuals.


Mr.   GOOTE@: What is my hon. friend
quoting from?


Alan Webster Neill: From the rules and regulations of the Canadian radio broadcasting commission issued on April 15, 1933, P.C. 535. I agree with the hon. member for West Lamb-ton, who invited the members of the house to read these rules, because the more you read them the less you will think of them. I also endorse the remarks made by the leader of the opposition in connection with the proposal to engage the employees of the radio commission for the period of only about nine months until the thirtydirst of March next. On the face of it that seems all right, but if the radio commission and the Civil Service Commission cannot in a few days formulate a paragraph that would differentiate between those officials properly coming under the radio commission, such as professional and technical employees, and the ordinary employees who should come under the Civil Service Commission, they will not be able to do it at the end of nine months, and this will be the situation. At the end of nine months what chance will there be of turning these employees out? They will have a wife and eight children by that time and will be a pathetic proposition. Then there will be this further consideration. Unless they are absolute dubs, after nine months' experience of the work, which has to be learned for the first time, when they come before the Civil Service Commission for examination they will have to compete with men who know nothing whatever about the work and the Civil Service Commission will almost invariably give the positions to the men who have had experience. It is almost their duty to do so. One has had experience, and the other not.
In conclusion, I regret very much that I am not in the position of the hon. member for Weybum, to be able to boast, as he rightly does that he voted against the radio commission. I wish I had voted against it because the way it is developing it is going to be a curse to Canada, a curse to the people, and a curse to the government, a curse in the sense of being a source of perpetual annoyance and trouble. It will be another C.N.R. on a small scale. The minister told us some weeks ago that he was not sure whether he controlled the radio commission or the radio commission controlled him. There seems to be a doubt about it just as we hear the Minister of Railways say, "I cannot answer that question. I am not responsible. It is the railway commission." I regret very much that we adopted this system. Both sides of the house claim to be in favour of public ownership and then we
Radio Broadcasting Act

shirk our responsibilities and turn them over to a commission which has apparently far more power than the government and is responsible neither to God nor man so far as I can see. You will find that its expenses will increase. It will be such a ready source of increasing its revenue that the radio commission will say to the people, "The licence fee is now only two dollars. You surely would not begrudge three dollars now you are getting such beautiful programs." We have not heard the beautiful programs yet, but I agree that the commission must be given time to get into harness. There is, however, going to be perpetual trouble, and the licence fee will be increased, with more and more dissatisfaction on the part of the public. When the public are dissatisfied now they can, or they used to be able to, switch to another program. But now that this radio commission is in force they will sit down and write to the government or to their member expressing their dissatisfaction, and every mother will want the hour of the bedtime story changed to suit little Jimmie's convenience. They will make complaints that they never would make to a private corporation. It is bound to lead to endless trouble, and to judge from the personnel of the commission we are more than asking for trouble.


Charles Gavan Power: I agree with what has been said by my hon. friend from West Lamb ton and my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni. I have before me the rules and regulations of the Canadian radio broadcasting commission, National Research Building, Ottawa, April 1, 1933, and at page 17 in part V, dealing with the control of programs, I find that paragraph 90 reads:
No broadcasting station may broadcast any speech, printed matter, program or advertising matter containing abusive dr defamatory statements with regard to individuals or institutions-
With that I have no complaint:
-or statements or suggestions contrary to the express purpose of any existing legislation; as for example, the Patent Medicine Act or any regulations promulgated thereunder.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is competent for any one of us to criticize the Patent Medicine act or the Pure Poods act or the Hoof and Mouth Disease act or the Hay and Straw act or any other act, but if we do that, forsooth, Mr. Charleswortli will prevent the station from allowing us to broadcast. I think the slightest consideration on the part of members of this committee will lead them to the conclusion that whoever drafted these regula-
tions was not gifted with sufficient discretion to understand what he was doing. Take paragraph 91, for instance:
The commission reserves the right to prohibit the broadcasting of any matter until the continuity or record or transcription or both have been submitted to the commission for examination and have been approved by them.
Could there be any more strict censorship applied anywhere in the world? No one of my hon. friends opposite could make a speech in favour of the child welfare league, the social service league, the sons of temperance, the daughters of sin, or anything of that kind, without going to the radio broadcasting commission and asking Mr. Charlesworth kindly to peruse the full transcription of the language he was about to broadcast in support of any laudable movement. And here I believe they are infringing upon the ordinary laws of the land. Paragraph 95 is as follows:
Licensees broadcasting sustaining programs originating outside Canada shall, when requested by the commission, give priority to programs originating within Canada.
To that I have no very great objection. But listen to paragraph 96:
The licensees shall, upon the request of the commission, give right-of-way to such programs as in the judgment of the commission are of national interest.
And then:
In such event-
That is, where they give the right of way at the request of the commission.
-neither the licensee nor the commission shall incur any liability for compensation or damages.
That is to say, the licensee may have a contract with certain parties. Along comes the commission and states: "We think that such and such a broadcast is in the national interest; you have to abandon your contract." I ask hon. members of the legal persuasion if we are to confer upon this commission the right to give judgment concerning contracts. It seems to me that had the commission had a little more ordinary common sense they would not 'have drawn up such rules with regard to broadcasting. In that connection perhaps I shall have to differ from many hon. members on this side of the house by stating that I do not believe Mr. Thomas Maher, against whose appointment I have not a word to say- because he was a good politician and deserved recognition by his party

had anything to do with these regulations. He would have had too much political sense to have spread this sort of thing throughout the country. I do

Radio Broadcasting Act
suggest that perhaps it is the so-called nonpartisan member of the commission, a military man with the air of a martinet, who is endeavouring to dragoon the Canadian people into obedience to a commission which should never have been set up.
Mr. GAGiNON: I do not wMi to quarrel with the hon. member for Quebec South concerning hiis criticism of the regulations which have just been put into force. As a matter of fact they have not been in operation for more than fifteen days, and so far I 'have not read a single serious criticism of them.


Edward James Young: You are hearing it now.


Mr. GAGNON:: Those regulations will be in operation. As the Prime Minister has said, a special committee will be formed to study the operation of radio broadcasting in Canada, and at that time we will be in a better position to judge whether or not the regulations are in the public interest. May I quote an article which was published in the *Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph on April 6, of this year? As the hon. member for Quebec South must know, that newspaper is no longer a Conservative paper, but is Liberal.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not discussing that matter.


Onésime Gagnon: This article has been written with respect to the radio regulations:
Stand By Radio Regulation
An attempt is being made by American broadcasting interests to persuade the Canadian Radio commission to relax its five per cent advertising rule in connection with programs, by permitting an indefinite additional percentage of indirect or veiled publicity.
The commission should stand firmly by its rule and we believe that it has the necessary backbone to do so. The public doesn't want all the ballyhoo and vapid puffery that has been imposed upon it over the air in the past and would applaud if not merely ninety-five, but the whole ODe hundred per cent of each program were cultural or recreational.
But apart from this, an inefficient intrusion upon the newspaper's special field of revenue has forced the latter to discontinue its cooperation in the popularizing of radio as a great social asset.
Inveterate listeners-in sometimes complain because the newspaper does not publish programs for their convenience. But this is rather too much to expect when it is recalled that that program is a direct competitor of the newspaper's advertising columns and also includes, in not a few instances, information "pirated" from its news columns.	_
If and when, radio abandons its economic trespassing upon the newspaper, to which it owed so much in the days of its commercial infancy and to which it has made such poor
returns, publishers will doubtless be glad to supply their readers, who are also listeners-in, with day-by-day information as to programs, special features and so forth.
Meanwhile. Canada has rightly determined to keep commercialism under full control and we venture to predict that the day will yet come when the United States will be glad to follow the Canadian example, as it has done before now, in other instances.
I shall not quote from Conservative newspapers, but shall quote expressions of praise from Liberal newspapers such as the Winnipeg Free Press and the Halifax Chronicle. In its edition of April 27, the Winnipeg Free Press contains the following


Charles Marcil: I rise to a point of order. Are we to have inflicted upon us opinions from every newspaper in Canada? Is that regular?


Pierre-François Casgrain: I believe a decision has been given concerning that point.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: An article commenting on the debate before the committee is out of order; I think the point of order is well taken.


Pierre-François Casgrain: There was a decision
of this house to that effect.


Onésime Gagnon: The articles I should like to read do not reflect upon the present legislation. However, I shall not read the articles, if it is the wish of the committee that I should not. I shall be content with saying that I have here some articles appearing in the Halifax Chronicle and the Winnipeg Free Press. I urge the hon. member for Comox-Albemi to read the Free Press of April 27, and also the St. Thomas Times-Jouroal, an independent newspaper.


Alan Webster Neill: Must I do so?


Onésime Gagnon: Then I have an article
from the Winnipeg Tribune and another from the Edmonton Journal, both of which are independent, and express approval of the commission. I beg to differ with the remarks of the hon. member for Coimox-Albemi concerning programs. He, and the whip of the Liberal party, have stated that since the commission has been functioning no good programs have been broadcast. I imay have misunderstood the hon. members, but I believe they said something to that effect.


Alan Webster Neill: I said I had not heard them yet.


Onésime Gagnon: It is unfortunate the hon. member has not heard them, because the majority of people in Canada state that for
Radio Broadcasting Act

two months wonderful programs have been broadcast throughout the dominion,. I have before me a great number of telegrams and letters which have been sent to the commission commending the programs. I do not know if upon attempting to read them I shall be called to order. At all events I might attempt to quote until objection is taken.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask a question? How does it happen that the hon. member has all these telegrams addressed to the commission? Is the hon. member the representative of the commission in the House of Commons?


Onésime Gagnon: I take an interest in the work of the commission. I may be wrong but I thought that before criticizing the commission one member at least should try to acquaint himself with their work. Therefore I asked the commission kindly to give me some of the expressions of opinion they had received with respect to their programs, because I think it essential that hon. members should give the commission a fair deal before trying to discredit it in a most unfair way, as has been the case ever since this bill has been before the house.


Charles Gavan Power: Too bad the minister did not get that information.


Charles Marcil: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Onésime Gagnon: Certainly.


Charles Marcil: If the hon. gentleman is so interested in the commission why does he not suggest to them that copies of their new regulations be sent to every member of the house so that we may be able to see what is being done.


Onésime Gagnon: I do not see any copies of those regulations in the hands of Conservative members of this house; apparently hon. gentlemen opposite have good friends on the commission. I have never read these regulations and my hon. friend from East Essex was obliged to borrow the copy of the hon. member for West Lambton. I do not think the Liberal members of this house are being treated unfairly by the commission, since they have been able to obtain copies. At all events, Mr. Chairman, I think when my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay said a moment ago that no good programs had been broadcast so far, he made an absolutely unfair, unjust and unfounded criticism of the work of the commission. I have here a letter which was written by the Wentworth- Radio Broadcasting Company, Limited, of Hamilton, Ontario.


Pierre-François Casgrain: To whom is that letter addressed?


Onésime Gagnon: It is addressed to the Canadian radio broadcasting commission, Ottawa, and if my hon. friend wishes he may have a copy.


Pierre-François Casgrain: May I ask how the hon. member came into possession of this letter?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I should rule that since this is a letter addressed to the Canadian radio commission it should be laid on the table. I understand that the hon. member is about to read a letter addressed to the radio commission; therefore it is a public document, and after the hon. member has read it he must lay it on the table.


Onésime Gagnon: I am going to read it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I understand that it is a public document of which the house had no knowledge until the hon. member referred to it. Therefore after the hon. member reads it the letter must be deposited with the clerk of the house.


Onésime Gagnon: If that is your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I shall do so with pleasure.


Charles Marcil: If any public document is to be submitted in this house it should be laid on the table by the minister in charge of the department and not by a private member.


Paul Mercier: Surely the hon. gentleman is not in order in bringing the archives of the commission into the chamber.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. gentleman has
a public document; I think he has a right to read it, but later it must be deposited with the clerk of the house.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Is that the original?


Onésime Gagnon: I have here a document; I am not sure whether it is a letter or a telegram, but it is from Moose Jaw under date of April 28, 1933. It is addressed to Mr. Hector Charlesworth and reads as follows:
Please accept our sincerest congratulations on the French program, which we had the pleasure of handling for the commission at this point last evening.


Pierre-François Casgrain: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if this procedure is regular. Here we have a minister of the crown who says he is in charge of the operations of this new commission and who is supposed to represent that commission in the house.

Radio Broadcasting Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the point of order?


Pierre-François Casgrain: I am coming to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman cannot interrupt another hon. member to make a speech; he must state his point of order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is coming to his point of order.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The hon. gentleman is reading some letters apparently addressed to the commission. I think the procedure is not in order; this hon. gentleman is not a member of the commission and he is not in charge of the affairs of the department. I would ask whether the hon. member has the right to have these documents in his possession and to read them in this house. Surely they should have been tabled or read to the house by the minister in charge.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is not for me to decide whether the hon. gentleman is rightfully in possession of these documents. He has them in his possession, but I must decide that since these are public documents, prima facie at least, they must be tabled.


Onésime Gagnon: I shall not insist because I do not want to take up too much of the time of the committee, but it seems to me the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay has taken a most amazing position. When I was reading a letter with respect to the broadcasting of a French program the hon. gentleman hastened to stop me, as though I were dealing with something contrary to the public interest. It is well known that the radio might be used in Canada in order to improve the relations existing between the two great races in this country. I may tell my hon. friend that if he is as curious as I have been with regard to the operation of the commission he can go to the chairman or the vice-chairman, who is a well known friend of his, and they will be very pleased to give him all the information available and to show him all the telegrams and letters they have received with regard to the programs broadcast so far. I have only attempted to quote some telegrams and letters in order to show that those who have stated in this house that as yet the commission have not broadcast good programs have been saying something contrary to the truth and not in the public interest.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not been discussing
the question of whether the programs have been good, bad or indifferent; I have not
listened to them, so I do not know. I do object to the power placed in the hands of this commission, or to the power assumed by them. What right have these three appointees of hon. gentlemen opposite, however good they may be, to censor every word that may be said over the radio in Canada? What right have they to ask, under any circumstances, that if we wish to address the public we must supply them with a transcription of our remarks before we may speak?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what the
regulations say. Will the hon. gentleman read them?


Charles Gavan Power: I always bow to the opinion of the right hon. Prime Minister. Paragraph 91 states:
The commission reserves the right-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. It is reserved
but they have not exercised it.


Charles Gavan Power: Surely the right hon. leader of the government is not trying to make a point there. I object to giving them the right to exercise that power, and the Prime Minister knows that is what I mean. I do not care whether or not they exercise it. I would not give the right hon. gentleman the right to do that if I had power to do so. Unfortunately he has sometimes tried to do it in the house, but there is such a thing as free speech in this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You are the last man
to talk.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not care whether I am the last or the first; I shall talk as long as I like.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think you should be
the last man to talk.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know why I should not talk; If the Prime Minister knows any reason let him get up and say so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am referring to the
personal observations made by the hon. gentleman, and I say he should be the last man to discuss them.


Charles Gavan Power: If, having said so much,
the right hon. gentleman wishes to say any more I should be glad to listen to him. There is no reason in the world why I should not stand in my place here and make whatever speeches I wish, provided they are within the the rules of this house. When I make such speeches as I am making to-day, in keeping with the principles which I support and which he himself, I am sure, would support if he were on this side, I resent very much any
Radio Broadcasting Act

implication, on the part of the right hon. gentleman to the effect that I have not the right to speak as much as any other member of this house. If he has any reason for suggesting that I have not that right I challenge him now to state it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said, it depends on
what the hon. member is talking about, his personal observations. That was what I said.


Charles Gavan Power: It depends on what I am talking about? I suppose if I am praising the government it is all right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the hon. gentleman drags into the debate personal observations and makes personal attacks, as he has often done, I say he is the last man that should do it-the very last man.


Charles Gavan Power: So that is the reason? My right hon. frignd objects to my protesting against censorship because forsooth on some occasions I have spoken in a manner displeasing to him. Well, that is one of the reasons perhaps that I do object to censorship. If every time I say something that does not please the right hon. gentleman or his friends I am to be prohibited from speaking, I have the right as a citizen of this country to protest, and I do protest and will continue to protest so long as regulations such as these are included among those issued by the commission.


Mr. MacINNIS:: When this bill was last
before the house I pointed out my objection to the amendment with respect to the removal from the Civil Service Commission of appointments to the radio broadcasting commission. By the radio broadcasting act of 1932, provision was made for appointments to the radio commission through the Civil Service Commission, but now it seems that instead of obtaining their staff through the Civil Service Commission the radio commission simply go to that body and say, "We want this particular individual with suoh and such qualifications," giving his name and designation and asking the Civil Service Commission to O.K. that particular appointment. That being refused by the Civil Service Commission, they went to the Prime Minister and suggested that he take away from the Civil Service Commission the power of making appointments. This is what I particularly object to, and certainly the amendment will not pass by my vote until that is remedied. All those employees that can be appointed by the Civil Service Commission should be selected by that commission rather than by the radio commission. I do admit

that there are certain persons, artists, who might properly be appointed by the radio commission, and such appointments should be left to them. Now the whole question of administration by the commission is under review, and the more we discuss it the more apparent it becomes that there is something radically wrong with the commission. In view of the rules and regulations that have been adopted I -think the whole question should be very seriously considered at the present time, and we Should determine just how far we will allow this tendency to go. It is just possible that the radio commission will be the first to put into effect the policy of the iron heel which we heard about last year, and we might as well have the fight now as at any other time.


Mr. MORAND:: One thing that has been discussed, something that is very serious, should be settled and that is the question whether the commission shall have the right of censorship or not. I am rather surprised that members of this house should suggest that any one, at any time or place, may say just what he pleases over the air. I do not think that such a thing is permitted anywhere; it is not permitted in the United States nor in Great Britain, and surely the House of Commons will not constitute itself a board of censors. The commission must have the right of censorship, and if after a given period their judgment should prove to have been at fault, then certainly parliament would have the right to ask for their dismissal. But, I repeat, they must be given the right of censorship, for I do not see how broadcasting could continue under a system whereby everyone could say over the air whatever he pleased, no matter how offensive. I have only this minute seen the regulations, but section 90 provides:
No broadcasting station may broadcast any speech, printed matter, program or advertising matter containing abusive or defamatory statements with regard to individuals or institutions,-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Well, how will you stop that without censorship?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Read the rest.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: [DOT]-or statements or suggestions contrary to the express purpose of any existing legislation; . . .


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is wrong.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I wonder whether my hon. friends have listened during the last two and a half or three years to the patent medicine

Radio Broadcasting Act
quackery put over the radio in contravention of the Patent Medicine Act. People have taken advantage of the fact that they are able to say over the radio what they cannot print legally, and that is why this regulation has been put in. I would point out that similar regulations appear in every broadcasting act I have read, and they are necessary if radio broadcasting is to be properly carried on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend refers to people saying over the radio things they are prohibited by law from saying. I say, make any prohibitions you like, but make them by law and have them enforced. But that is not what that says; that is what it may mean but it is not what it says. Under that section the commission has power to control the political utterances of members of this house. It does not say so but that is the effect.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
effect of it.


Charles Marcil: Would anything in these regulations prevent a member of this house from addressing his constituents? Must a member submit his speech to the commission before he delivers it? I ask that question because we have not seen the regulations. That is the unfortunate part of it, and I would ask my hon. friend, who is well versed in the matter, to answer that question plainly.
. Is any member of this house allowed to say over the radio what his political views are without first submitting his speech to the members of the commission?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Yes.


Charles Marcil: Will the hon. gentleman
read any regulation to that effect.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: My hon. friend can read
the regulations as well as I can.


Pierre-François Casgrain: We haven't got a copy.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: There is nothing in the
regulations to prevent any man from expressing his political views, but where a man abuses the privilege the commission has a right to demand a submission of his text before he delivers it. That has been done in Great Britain. Lloyd George, I know, was asked to do so, and so were others, able men and equally important. They have been asked for a copy of their speeches whenever it has been thought necessary. It is nothing new.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Does my
bon. friend suggest that a man of the standing of Lloyd George would be asked by a commission for a copy of his speech before he delivered it?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: He was asked.


Charles A. Stewart: If that is
true we do not want it in Canada-absolutely not. I think we are handing over to this commission, if that is true, a power they should not have. The idea of asking a man of Lloyd George's standing to submit his speeches to censorship before he delivers them! Or asking the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) or the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) to submit their political manuscripts, before they make their speeches. Why, it is an outrage. Surely this is a country of free speech, and if we are to have radio broadcasting then every one of us has the right to express his opinions over the air no matter how disagreeable those opinions may be to the rest of us. That is my position, and when my hon. friend says that Lloyd George has to submit the manuscript of his speeches before he delivers them, I say that it is going entirely too far. The idea of submitting the speedb.es we are going to make to the commission appointed to supervise broadcasting is to me an outrage, that is all.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, I have not had the opportunity of reading these rules and regulations and like many other hon. members I am at a disadvantage in discussing this matter. The hon. members for Quebec South and West Edmonton have referred to these rules and there seems to be some doubt in the minds of hon. members of the committee as to their meaning. They are wondering if they will not during the course of their ipolitical career make speeches to their constituents whidh will infringe the rules and regulations of this commission. Apparently they must first submit a manuscript of any speech to be delivered. It often happens in political meetings that an hon. member is asked to address an audience. He speaks on the spur of the moment and may have no notes at all and I should like to know how the commission would act in a case like that. During the discussion on the estimates for the radio commission I made some remarks and observations in connection with certain speeches which had been made over station GULP in Montreal. The Minister of Marine took me to task by Saying that I was objecting to free speech. The speeches to which I re-
Radio Broadcasting Act

ferred embodied criticisms of the administration of the city of Montreal and t'he provincial government. 1 should like to know if these regulations were in force when those speeches were delivered. I am told that the same organization is at t'he present time having similar speeches broadcast nearly every day. I am as much for free speech as is the Minister of Marine or any hon. member but if we are going to have free speech, let us have it for all. Can the minister tell me if the manuscripts of -these particular speeches were submitted to the commission for examination along the lines suggested by these rules? If these rules existed then as they exist at the present time and no action was taken, I think the commission mi$ht be accused of being derelict in its duty. I, for one, will n-ot submit to these rules and regulations als I do not consider them to be proper under the circumstances. As the Minister of Marine said the other day, I think every member of every political party has the right to express his own point of view. He should not be forced to submit to a triumvirate which insists upon scrutinizing speeches before delivery. As I said, I have a certain amount of respect for some of the members of the commission but I do not think the commission has delivered the goods. I do not think it has carried out the provisions of the report of the committee which considered this matter before the law was enacted. One of the members of the commission, who is there to-day, was -my political opponent. I do not think he would have wanted to submit all the speeches he made against me during the last campaign. If these rules and regulations had been in effect I do not see how he would have been entitled to -make the speeches he did make.
I think this commission has been given too much power. It is not in the interest of the country that such rules and regulations should be put into force. Before these rules and regulations were issued they should have been submitted to the members of this house and of the Senate so that the people of Canada could have been made aware of what they contained. This is the first occasion upon which we have had the opportunity of knowing what they contained. I should like to ask the minister if they are printed in the French language and if he can supply all hon. members with a copy both in French and English.


Paul Mercier: In order that the atmosphere may be cleared and members may have a definite understanding as to the

use that may be made of radio stations, I submit that the Minister of Marine or the Prime Minister should make a declaration to the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, these
regulations were submitted by the commission to the council and sent by the council to the Minister of Justice. The Department of Justice made certain amendments to them and sent them back as being in order. The power given to the commission is stated in the act. I was amazed at the attitude taken by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay because there is nothing in these regulations that I know of to compel a member to submit his speech to the commission before it is made. What is stated is that the right is reserved to require submission if occasion necessitates. The reservation of that right is copied largely from the English rules. It is a supervision to -be exercised in times of great stress and to deal with provocative discussions over the radio to which many people do not like to listen. All I have to say about this matter can be said in a few sentences.
Does this committee mean to indicate that it desires to destroy this commission? Is there any way in which this business of broadcasting can be carried on except through a department of government or through a commission? If it is to be carried on through a department of government, then the whole condition would change with a change in administration. It would be a political machine from the start. If it is not to be carried on through a department of government, what instrumentality shall be used for the purpose? The answer of this committee and of this statute is-a commission. Therefore, we have negatived the idea that this broadcasting business is to be carried on as a department of government and we have concluded affirmatively that it shall be carried on by a commission as an instrumentality of government. I think the committee must agree to these two propositions. Having concluded that we will set up a commission as an instrumentality of government, we must then proceed to the appointment of the commission. There has been much criticism of the appointments which were made. I confess that I know very little of the chairman's politics. I did not know him personally except for having met him two or three times at public functions. He was highly spoken of by independent persons to whom I went for assistance in this very difficult task of selecting a chairman. It was believed that his wide knowledge of Canada and his experience as a dramatic critic

Radio Broadcasting Act
would entitle him to have some idea of the tastes of Canadian people in broadcast programs and that in the preparation of programs he would have better ability than the average man would have in connection with matters of that kind. At any rate, he was selected as chairman and his appointment was hailed with much acclaim by the press of all classes of political thought. The truth is that I was surprised the other evening to hear the statement made as to his unfitness for the position.
I believed when he was appointed he had singular qualifications for that particular post and that he would be able to understand something of the Canadian viewpoint, of Canadian history. The books he has written indicate a strong, virile Canadian sentiment and I believed, as I have said, he would be able to appreciate what the Canadian people would wish to have.
The leader of the opposition speaks of three political appointees of this government.
I know nothing of the qualifications of the technical officer and I have never inquired.
I know he was highly spoken of m his profession; I believe he was awarded the Military Cross during the war, and though the information is always open to question, technical persons to whom I have applie for it have told me that Colonel Steel occupies a unique position with respect to matters of broadcasting and knowledge of the technique of electricity. I know from a source that has thus far been accurate, that on many occasions he has been offered outside this country positions in connection with the industrial field of the development of radio that would give him much greater compensation than he is now receiving, but he has a very earnest desire to continue along the line he has been pursuing in Canada in connection with the development of electrical appliances and especially in connection with radio broadcasting. I think it is rather unfair to say that in any sense he is a political appointee. He has, so far as I know, never indicated anything of his political beliefs and faith, and I certainly never have had any talks with him about his political views. He is perhaps given to expressing his opinions very tersely; perhaps, in the language of a distinguished man of another age, he does not suffer fools gladly, but that may be a misfortune. At any rate I am bound to say that very great harm is being done by suggesting that this is in any sense a political appointment.
So far as Mr. Maher is concerned I am not going over this afternoon what I stated the other day.
A commission having been appointed to which some hon. gentlemen take exception, the next thing to do is to assist it to discharge its functions. If anyone thinks you can appoint a commission to handle national broadcasting in Canada without tramping on the toes of private interests in this country, he is mistaken. Those who own private stations and those who think they should have control of the industry or business in Canada are all opposed to this commission and its pathway is made increasingly difficult by reason of that fact. Wave lengths have not in the past been treated with just that high regard to international obligations that will have to be observed in the days to come, because as we go forward in this matter, there is a more strict supervision and the international phase of the situation calls for much more careful consideration. I do not desire to repeat this, but the international side of the matter is the one that causes the acute difficulty. On the other side of the line we have 120,000,000 people with the most powerful stations except one in the world and unfortunately the impulse behind the human voice when it goes out into space to vibrate is one that may send it north or south or east or west.


Edward James Young: Fortunately.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman prefers the voices from most other countries to those of his own, but I ask him in this instance to believe me when I say that I do not think it is at all times fortunate that the voices of other countries should drown the voices from this. I mention that merely because it is that difficulty with which those gentlemen have to deal. That is purely the technical side of the matter.
There is also another side to it, that is, the question of the preparation of programs. I think the programs that have been offered to the Canadian people, in view of the fact that this is a new commission, have not been unworthy of some of our traditions. I have not been able to listen in on the radio during the last few months except, I think, on a Sunday, and I remember hearing a very admirable lecture. I was pleased to leam at the end of it, as it touched the early history of the country, it was under the auspices of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission. We have in Canada a history that lends itself to broadcasting; we have the history of the early pioneers going back four hundred years to the early settlers, the history of the government of this country, of our

Radio Broadcasting Act

commercial expansion and our growth and development constitutionally and otherwise. All these are subjects that might well foe treated by the commission and I believe they will be, but it can function only if it is not destroyed, as I said the other evening, by its friends. It has to make regulations. The making of regulations, one would think, to listen to some of the observations made here this afternoon, is a terrible thing. But every hon. member knows he cannot send a telegram using profanity or obscenity.


Edward James Young: There is no censorship
there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute states that if anyone writes such a telegram, the telegraph company will not transmit it. You cannot write any telegram you like and have it sent. So you cannot print any kind of advertisement you might like, because the newspaper will not publish anything the publication of which is not permitted by law. In addition to that you have the censorship that arises by reason of the fact that this is not the printed but the spoken word, and if the spoken word is to be sent on the air regardless of what it may be, you will have an intolerable condition in this country. Children, all kinds of people, would not desire to hear either profanity or sedition or obscenity over the radio. The right of censorship has been exercised by every radio commission I know anything about. The word "censorship" sounds offensive to the average mind because it means the paramount authority of the state is not willing there should be absolute licence on the part of each individual citizen. There can be no civilization without curtailment of individual rights and in this instance the freedom of the individual is limited by the exercise of censorship, if you call it such, by a commission. The commission drew up these regulations which, as I have said, were sent to the Department of Justice and reported back, after some amendments had been made, as being in proper form; those are the regulations to which reference has been made. The fact that prohibitory power is expressed does not of course indicate it is at all times to be used. To reserve the right to do something means that you have not departed from that right. Upon that you cannot build an argument that a speech must be examined before it is made. It is really an indication that the right is still reserved and has not been parted with to exercise the censoring power.
But I go further. There is not one of us who has not every day to make some sacrifice of his individual freedom. The by-laws of 
the city of Ottawa, the provisions of the statutes of the provinces and of the dominion, control individual liberty with respect to various matters. A statute which we had before us torday dealt with the question of habitual drunkenness in a home being an offence against good morals so far as children are concerned. In this case we have a censorship set up, not merely to exercise censorship, but to protect and ensure the success of this enterprise of ours. I use the word "ours". I do not think it is deliberate; I am sure it is not, but the attitude taken in this committee by hon. gentlemen opposite has given great succor and support to those who desire to destroy publicly-owned broadcasting in Canada, and who have taken to themselves the thought that this country regrets that it has nationalized radio. These interests have taken new force and new life because they say that this house which a year ago spoke with unanimity is now bitterly engaged in a discussion the like of which we have hardly had this session, in the character of the language used and the expressions applied to individuals who are outside the pale of the house but who are nevertheless subject to criticism. And criticism too of men who came here at the courteous request of the government to give us the benefit of their experience of the most extensive broadcasting system in the world, that of the British, because although the soviet have more powerful stations than England the British is the most important broadcasting system.
In the course of experience it was found that you could not go to the Civil Service Commission and get the kind of persons required for particular positions on an advertising basis, on a tender basis, so to speak, and the radio commission sought amendments to the statute. The amendments they first sought were far more comprehensive than the ones now before the house, and personally I said that they were too extensive and that I did not care to ask parliament to grant them. I was not so much impressed in the first instance with the necessity of the amendments with respect to the Civil Service Commission until after Mr. Murray had given us the benefit of his views.
I do not pretend that Mr. Murray's views are binding upon me in any sense, but he was a Canadian who had much experience and had made for himself a position for his services in connection with which he is being paid, a salary that to some hon. members of this house would seem to be princely; he was of the opinion from his experience that at least in the initial stages of our work, if we are to get the radio commission functioning properly, because we have to appoint provincial representatives,

Radio Broadcasting Act
and advisory committees must be set up in order to assist in carrying out in each of the nine provinces the work of the commission, it was desirable that the commission should be able to employ those servants and employees who could best do the work. I said to the radio commission, and I say to this committee frankly: It is contrary to the spirit of the Civil Service Act. But it was urged upon me that we could not deal with the matter in that way.
Once more reference has been made to the Civil Service Commission as being an organization that reflects the mind of the government. As I said to this committee the other day, we promoted to membership in that commission one of the members of the civil service, and I do not know to-day what his political faith is. I haven't any idea what Mr. Bland's politics are. In fact, I asked one of my secretaries the other day if he knew, and he said he did not, but he said he believed that if he had any views one way or the other they were probably Liberal. That was the answer given to me. But I personally know nothing of Mr. Bland's politics. I recommended that he should be promoted to the position he now holds because I believed that it was the view of the committee of this house that sat last year that he was an exceptionally well qualified man. Certainly in this house it was so stated. All that I know about him is this: Before he was appointed I sent for him and I asked him if he had any recommendations to make about the situation generally. He told me he thought money could be saved. I asked him if he was willing to accept the position on that commission and give it the benefit of his wide experience, amd he said he was, and he was promoted accordingly. That is the political side of that appointment. Doctor Roche is still there.


Charles Marcil: What about the third member?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has not yet been appointed.


Charles Marcil: Does not the Prime Minister think it is important that he should be appointed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is important that any vacancy should be filled if there is necessity for it, but there is no crying demand for it and the position is not yet filled because of an earnest endeavour to seek one who may not be charged with being a mere partisan. Doctor Roche and Mr. Bland are the first to realize that they cannot fill all these positions satisfactorily under the existing provisions of the Civil Service Act; but they believe that 53719-322^
the provisions of the act are wide enough to exempt these positions from its operations. As the law now stands it reads:
The commission may employ such technical, professional and other officers, and clerks and employees as may be necessary. Such officers, clerks and employees shall be appointed pursuant to the Civil Service Act.
That is the law as it is to-day. That is found to be unsatisfactory, unequal to the demands made upon it.
I have only one idea about this broadcasting commission, and that is to see it succeed. I know hon. gentlemen think that everyone is thinking in terms of political considerations. With respect to this matter I have not a thought in the world about politics, and I have not had. I explained the other evening the circumstances in connection with the appointment of one member of the radio commission, and I have also indicated this afternoon the position in respect to the other two members. We say that the proper method to pursue to meet the situation is to amend the statute so as to allow the radio commission to. make these appointments. I am quite willing to admit that the criticism of that proposal is a criticism that I would make if I were sitting opposite, that the appointments were being put solely in the hands of the radio commission as well as the payment of salaries and matters of that kind, and yet when the advisory tariff board came into being under the late administration, a gentleman was selected for chairman who while he was on the commission was nominated as a candidate of the party in power, and there was no question about that at all, and who had previously been a candidate and been defeated. I am not going to say that human nature in any sense is at all different on one side of the house from the other. We are more or less the same. But the government thinks, in view of the representations made and the experience which the commission has had, it should be enabled to employ such persons as it finds necessary to carry on its business. It is because I and my colleagues in the government desire to protect the Civil Service Act and the principles of it that I suggested this afternoon, after thinking it over, and after these gentlemen had discussed it among themselves, no term of engagement should extend longer than the thirty-first of March next, that they would all expire on that date, so that there will be no question about an opportunity being afforded to make a discriminating effort to determine those persons who should be appointed under the Civil Service Act as distinguished from those to be employed by the radio commission itself.
Radio Broadcasting Act

The leader of the opposition has suggested that we strike out all the words after "officers," leaving in only the technical and professional officers. But it is with respect to the other officers, the director of programs, the director of public relations, if you will, and other such positions, that the commission in. England at least, found that they had to have the freest hand in order to deal with the situation as it might arise. But in order that no one might be prejudiced I suggest this limitation of time.
My hon. friends opposite say, "This means that those people who will be employed in the meantime will have a better chance to get the position than someone else." But they would get it then under the provisions of the statute, being the best able, and if they are the best, those are the ones we want in order that the commission may succeed. I say frankly to this committee that it is my profound conviction, so far as a man can dissociate himself from political beliefs in a matter of this kind, that unless we endeavour to make a united effort to save this business as a national asset we are going to see it fail, and if it fails you may say that that will be a reflection on the government, and that is what you want to see happen. But it goes deeper than that. It is a reflection upon the people themselves, on their ability to maintain a public enterprise as a public property. That is what it really is, and that is the reason I make this suggestion. But if there is any other suggestion that this committee can make more adequately to meet this situation, and that will permit this commission to lay the foundations of the structure upon which it hopes to build success, by employing suitable instruments to that end; if there is any suggestion to make other than the one I have made concerning the limitation as to time of appointment, I shall be glad indeed to consider it and if possible to accept it. Because one thing is sure, namely, that the instrumentality we have set up to accomplish our end, namely, the commission-and after all it is the instrumentality of the government-can function only if we give it a chance to function.
I am sorry to say that in view of the protracted discussion over this matter it will be thought abroad, as it is already thought, that we rue our bargain with respect to the radio commission, that we are no longer desirous of [DOT] maintaining it as a public asset, and that we are convinced that we should hand radio over to private interests. Well, just imagine what private interests have done in connection with other enterprises in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And just imagine what they would be doing now if they had this in their hands. They would have no restrictions upon whom they would employ, no limitations imposed upon them. They would go forward with licence fees, if we gave them the licence fees, and do their task in that way. We do not get up in this House of Commons and ask, concerning the railway commission: "What induced them to close the crossing on Broad street, Regina?" or, "What was the operating cost concerning the grade separation on Yonge street?" or, "Why did they do thus and so?" We appoint them, and we leave them to do their work and perform their duties. Every time they have requisitioned us for additional assistance, whether it be for engineering-and they have increased those payments frequently-or whether it be for economies here or there, we have yielded to their views, because it is an instrumentality of government which the government itself could not operate as a department of government. The difference between departmental government and government by commission as an instrumentality of government is so clear that it need not again be defined.
We have taken other commissions-the grain commission, for instance. Look at what the grain commission is doing. It is operating through its laboratory in Winnipeg, through its agencies in Fort William, Calgary, Edmonton and Moose Jaw, and is discharging its multifarious duties. Is anybody in this house saying: "Look at the terrible regulations they have passed."


James Malcolm: They did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And properly so, too.


James Malcolm: Every weighing master was under criticism.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And properly so, too.


James Malcolm: No, not properly so, because the committee did not find it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
realizes that the regulation was beyond the powers of those who enacted it. That is the point. That did happen, and it does happen frequently, and when power is exceeded you have the inevitable criticism and you have an adjustment of the difficulties. But the grain commission is operating all through western Canada-elevators, grading, standards, and everything pertaining to grain. And the value of the grain commission's work to-day lies in the value of its standards and grades abroad, and the confidence the public have in their integrity and the manner in which they discharge their duties. With perhaps

Genter Thickener Company
some minor exceptions there have been few criticisms with respect to appointments made to the grain commission. It is true I could name one or two cases where there have been criticisms. One unfortunate gentleman was never able to sit at all-he was dying when he was appointed. But that is not a matter of importance. Let us take the railway commission: True, it has been the harbour of refuge once or twice, and still is. It is true that political considerations affected judgments now and then, but in the main we have set up an instrument which has succeeded.
I go farther: You have the harbour commissions. There you have had great failures and some successes. But so long as you have public -opinion responsive to earnest effort you have an opportunity to achieve success. But if in a spirit of carping criticism, without referring to any other fact, you have concluded that what we have to do is to find fault with a body that has not yet launched upon its work-I claim a fair attitude is not being adopted. I carry my mind back to what took place in connection with the old grain commission, and how difficult it was to get it started. I wonder if this committee realizes how great the task was and how violent the criticism was, not in this house but-


James Malcolm: It made a good commission eventually, though, and made good regulations eventually.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that the commission as a commission, whose findings with respect to grades and matters of that kind have been received throughout the world with confidence, as I said a minute ago has in the main discharged its duties well. I could give striking illustrations, if I so desired, in respect of every one of them in which I believe political considerations governed1 appointments; I could give illustrations one after the other. But there is no necessity of doing that, because we all know that in the main with respect to these matters the Canadian people are satisfied.
This question of radio is more important than all of them.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it is more important, because it touches the lives of all. The others touch the lives of some, but this is universal; it diffuses and dispenses news which comes into the homes of the poorest-because we find many poor homes in this country in which there are. small radio sets, notwithstanding the fact that they find difficulty in obtaining other things which are almost necessities. They have a desire to hear what is going on in the outside world. While grain might be sold because of its superior quality even if the grades had never been fixed or determined upon-as they were not before, and as they are not in Russia, a country selling her grain in competition with ours-and while railways might be dealt with as they were before there was a railway commission, yet here we have something which shapes, forms and moulds the character of our Canadian people. And to the extent to which a commission realizes its responsibilities, and is able to discharge the functions which by this legislation devolve upon it, it will have discharged its duties as you and I would like to have them discharged. iSo to shape and mould the whole national outlook of the Canadian people as to make them take an interest and pride in the development of their own organization, in my judgment is at least a consideration. But I am not unmindful of the fact that keeping up with the Joneses has been one of the great difficulties of the present day. And to-day one of the difficulties that we Canadians have to face arises from the fact that we have limited resources and that we think we should have something just as good as if they were unlimited.'
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 102, respecting a certain patent of Genter Thickener Company.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Extension of time for application to revive patent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The other evening I asked that this bill stand because I hoped the minister would be able to look into it. I was unable to investigate it myself but I had that done, and the report I received was that because of a mistake made by a firm of solicitors in New York-an entry had been made in a diary to take the proper action to extend the patent, but that was not done-
Radio Broadcasting Act

the solicitors were framing this measure in order to protect their client against their own negligence. I do not know whether that is a correct statement but that is the report I received. In view of the closing sentences of the section, in which the matter is left in the hands of the commissioner of patents after they have established the facts, I know of no reason why the matter should not be left in that position.


Mr. OHEVRIER:: May I say that the right hon. gentleman is quite right in his understanding of the facts. There was a motion for the return of the fees, and I wonder if there is any chance of that being done. I do not want that motion prejudiced by reason of my not mentioning it at this time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Finance is not in his place, but I see no reason why the fees should be returned. I distinctly recall that once in the practice of my profession a mistake was made in my office and I had to pay $1,000 to rectify it. I see no reason why this country should make the contribution instead of the solicitors.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. RADIO BROADCASTING ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 99, to amend the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932-Mr. Bennett- Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 2-Powers of commission.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the recess the Prime Minister spoke at some length with regard to this measure, and to two or three statements which my right hon. friend has been making from time to time I should like to take very strong exception, in the hope that he will not repeat them.
The first statement is that anyone on this side of the house is in any way seeking to prejudice public ownership either in the minds of hon. members of this house or of the public generally. May I tell the Prime Minister that it was a Liberal administration that appointed the royal commission that brought in the report on radio broadcasting, recommending that this service be made a government owned and operated utility The Liberal party has taken its stand strongly behind 
that proposal, and we are just as anxious as the Prime Minister and hon. gentlemen opposite to see this government owned utility made a success and secure the confidence of the public. Indeed we are wholeheartedly in favour of government ownership and control of radio broadcasting. Any criticisms we may have to make from this side are directed not against public ownership as Such but rather in an endeavour to remove those features which may tend to create prejudice against government ownership as it exists under the present radio broadcasting commission. When the right hon. gentleman speaks about private interests getting succor and support from those who are bringing forward criticisms with respect to any features of the present commission, let me say that he is simply drawing a herring across the trail. There can be no question as to the motives behind the criticisms which we have been making from this side.
The Prime Minister said the choice was between having radio 'broadcasting under a commission or under a government department, and he went on to say that if it were under a government department it would become a political machine. I think the Prime Minister is quite wrong. I do not think he would admit for a moment that the post office, which is a public utility, is a political machine. Though there may be reasons for so regarding it at the present time, I do not think he would admit that his own Department of External Affairs, which is a department of government, is a political machine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a business.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the post office is a business and there is a great deal in connection with the departments of Maxine, Fisheries, Public Works, Trade and Commerce and other departments of government that has to do with business. They have not become political machines because of the fact that appointments to the public service are made through the instrumentality of the Civil Service Commission. The absence of this protection is the feature to which we are taking exception in the bill my right hon. friend is now proposing. He Is taking the appointments under the radio broadcasting commission out from under the control of the Civil Service Commission, which has been the one body that has saved our government departments so far as appointments to their staffs are concerned from becoming purely political machines. Some degree of censorship will undoubtedly be expected by the country and will

Radio Broadcasting Act
be approved by hon. members, but great care will have to be exercised as to how that censorship is to be enforced, and as to the judgment and discretion with which it is to be exercised. So far as censorship goes, that is the extent of our criticism. As regards the appointment of staffs however the Prime Minister has told the house that there are certain appointments which Mr. Gladstone Murray says should be made by the radio commission itself. Well, no one is contending that the radio commission should have to go to the Civil Service Commission before its members can employ artists or highly technical or professional persons or others necessary to fill the parts essential to any broadcast. All we are asking at the moment is that with respect to the great body of officers, clerks and employees generally, these classes shall be appointed in the same way as others are appointed who are doing similar classes of work in the public service. There is a very strong reason for that with regard to the public service of Canada generally. If we are to leave to different commissions the right to determine what salaries are to be paid for certain classes of work, there will be endless friction between employees in the public service in and under the various departments of government. The Civil Service Commission was established amongst other reasons for the purpose of classifying certain kinds of work and attaching to the different classifications the salaries that seemed to be appropriate.
A few weeks ago we removed from the purview of the Civil Service Commission many appointees on the staffs of the penitentiaries, leaving to the chief of the penitentiaries staff the appointment of persons connected with the institution and the salaries to be attached to those positions. With respect to the railways we took away from parliament the authority to determine the salaries to be paid in different branches of that service, leaving that function to a group of trustees. And with respect to the tariff board, the government has removed from the Civil Service Commission the duty of appointing the staff of that board and of fixing their salaries. In respect of other bodies the same thing has been done, with the reservation in one or two cases that the governor in council must approve the salaries. Here however there is no approval of salaries demanded. We shall soon have throughout the public service as many rates of salaries as there are commissions and bodies of the kind. The Civil Service Commission exists to prevent that sort of thing and to see that throughout
the public service those employees performing similar services should receive similar rates of pay.
That is what we ask at the moment with respect to these employees, and I do say that unless that control is preserved by the Civil Service Commission the government will be making a grave mistake and will certainly be converting the radio broadcasting commission into a political machine. I think the Prime Minister himself must feel that what I have suggested by way of amendment is fair. Let me read the amendment I propose to offer to section 1 if my right hon. friend will not see his way to accepting it:
To strike out the words "and other officers, clerks and employees or other" in lines 6 and 7, and to insert the word "and" after the word "technical" in line 6.
The section as amended would then read:
The commission may employ such technical and professional persons as the commission may deem necessary or desirable, and such persons shall receive such salaries or remuneration as may be fixed by the commission.
That makes it clear that so far as all technical and professional persons are concerned -and both these words may be construed in a very broad sense to include artists and persons of special talent-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute in another clause is clear in that respect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then, so far as these classes are concerned, we are prepared, with the proviso which the Prime Minister says he is prepared to make, of having the provisions of the bill apply only until March of next year, to have such persons appointed by the radio commission. I do not think it would be right, however, especially if it is desired to establish public confidence in the commission, that stenographers, clerks and others of the radio commission staff doing administrative work generally, and work corresponding exactly to what many of them have been doing up to the moment, should be made exceptions of by being separated from that control which the Civil Service Commission exercises over similar classes of employees in the public service.


Edward James Young: When the bill creating the radio commission came before the house last year I objected to it. I did not speak against it, contenting myself with expressing my opposition by vote. I did not speak against it because I was in such a hopeless minority that I realized that any objections I might raise would be laughed at as groundless fears. My objections to the nationalizing of radio were quite simple. I am opposed to any ex-
Radio Broadcasting Act

tension of the activities of government in the realm of business or over the lives or activities of our people. I am opposed to any further building up of bureaucracy which might seek to control all the activities of this country. We are gradually building up such a bureaucracy, and if we continue the time will come when all aspiring people in the country will look to the government or to some political party for advancement in life. That is not in the public interest. Any advantage we might reap-I say might-from public ownership or control of common utilities would be far more than offset by the disadvantage of having people all depending on governments.
I also object to having any commission arranging for me the programs which I shall listen to over the radio. I prefer to choose my own programs. If I cannot tune in on one station I want to be free to time in on another, and I do not want any commission dictating what it shall be.
I also feared, at the time the bill was introduced, that the licence fee would be raised. It was raised. It was doubled, and I understand it would have been redoubled had the opportunity been favourable. I am told that the commission would like to have raised it still higher, but they thought the time was not opportune because people were hard up; but they are looking forward to the time when they can raise it still higher.
I will not repeat the arguments advanced this afternoon from this side in opposition to censorship. I am thoroughly opposed to it, as were the speakers this afternoon. But in regard to the argument that we must have a national broadcasting system in order to build up a Canadian spirit, because our people were apt to lose their patriotism owing to the influence of foreign programs-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was not stated.


Edward James Young: It was not stated in those words, but it has been said that in order to build up a Canadian spirit-we will put it that way-it is necessary to have true Canadian programs. Let us look at the rules and regulations of the broadcasting commission and see what they regard as truly Canadian programs:
A program of foreign origin which advertises goods manufactured in Canada and names the address in this country where such goods are produced and distributed shall be deemed a Canadian program.
In other words, a program can be produced one hundred per cent in Chicago and so long as it advertises Canadian goods it shall be deemed a Canadian program. If the programs

we were getting from abroad were going to make us all Yankees instead of Canadians, I do not see anything in this regulation that will change that. Such programs can still come in provided they advertise Canadian goods. It seems to me that the same hand that was at work devising these rules and regulations was also at work devising the customs rates, and the regulations are designed not to shut out the ballyhoo of the Yankee but rather to prevent us from listening to his advertising. The fear is not that we shall import American ideas but that we shall import some American goods. The greatest objection I have to the commission is in connection with the unethical practices to which they have resorted in order to beat out their competitors. Any merchant who tried to beat out his competitor not by giving better value or better service to his customer but by overturning his competitor's delivery van and spoiling his goods would be considered unethical and be despised and condemned by every right thinking person in the country. That is precisely what this commission has done. When the bill went through last year I thought that if we did not like their programs we would be able to tune in on the American stations as we had done in the past. However, we now find that we cannot tune in on any of those stations. The commission has so arranged the wave lengths as to make this impossible. In my opinion, this is unethical and should be condemned in the strongest terms.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The suggested amendment of the right hon. the leader of the opposition does not meet the difficulty to whioh attention has been directed. It is felt that the words "and other officers" should at least remain in to be dealt with by the commission. I am quite content to have the section amended to read as follows:
The commission may employ such technical, professional and other officers as the commission may deem necessary or desirable, and such persons shall receive such salaries or remuneration as may be fixed by the commission.
There will then be added these words:
Clerks and all other employees of the commission shall be appointed pursuant to the Civil Service Act.
The only distinct difference between us is as to whether other officers shall be appointed by the commission or by the Civil Service Commission. It was that difficulty that influenced me in suggesting that it should be only for a limited time. There was an inability to settle definitely upon what would constitute other officers. This could not be done without a great deal of study being given to the matter, more than the Civil

Radio Broadcasting Act
Service Commission was in position to give up to this time. May I remind the committee that in dealing with the National Research Council my right hon. friend appointed a head to that body for a period of five or seven years and inaugurated a line of salaries which were out of line with those paid in the civil service. This caused a great deal of heartburning and some differences and difficulties which we are endeavouring to adjust.
I quite follow every argument which has been used as to the undesirability of having different salaries paid by different commissions for the same services but there is at once the answer suggested in connection with the National Research Council, namely, that the struggle to get a certain type of qualified persons is such in view of competition that you must pay the going salaries for the workers required. As I Say, I desire to meet in every way in my power the suggestions which have been made, but I think the whole purpose would fail if the words "and other officers" were stricken out and these employees made subject to the Civil Service Commission. That commission is not able to deal with that phase of the matter and the radio commission must be in a position to do so if it is to function. I believe that because it is what they tell me positively. _
Mr. Murray is very clear about it. I do not desire to quote him again but he has stated that if we are to make this succeed, we should take this course. I should like to endeavour to assist those who are trying to do it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A half loaf
is better than none at all and the circumstances being what they are I am quite prepared as a compromise to accept what my right hon. friend has suggested. I wonder if he would accept a suggestion from me which I think would be in accord with the views he has just expressed. I would suggest adding to the section the words "and approved by the governor in council." These words would apply to the salaries to be paid. I suggest this simply because I think the Prime Minister himself sees the wisdom of not having different salaries paid in the public service for similar classes of work. If the salaries to be paid these professional, technical and other officers were required to have the approval of the governor in council, I think there would be a greater probability of uniformity in the salaries paid throughout the public service. I suggest to my right hon. friend the addition of those words to the amendment he himself is proposing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Frankly, I was endeavouring to avoid that. I wanted to avoid the government taking responsibility with respect to matters of this kind if the commission was to function as I hoped it would. However, if the right hon. gentleman thinks that the addition of those words will improve it, I am not adverse. The section would then read:
The commission may employ such technical, professional and other officers as the commission may deem necessary or desirable, and such persons shall receive such salaries or remuneration as may be fixed by the commission subject to the approval of the governor in council.
Clerks and all other employees of the commission shall be appointed pursuant to tbe Civil Service Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
Prime Minister knows that I am not given to increasing the powers of the governor in council but I believe there are some cases where the governor in Council might exercise a supervision which would be beneficial.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: When this
bill was up a few days ago I took a position in connection with this section which I do not see any reason to change. The Department of Marine, as I pointed out at that time, has had for a considerable number of years a very excellent technical staff which has operated the radiotelegraph section. To my knowledge no complaints have ever been levelled at the ability or capacity of those men. They were appointed under the Civil Service Act and I see no reason why these technical men should be placed outside the operations of that act. I have every respect for the opinion of Mr. Gladstone Murray with regard to the technical construction side of radio broadcasting, but I am afraid that he does not understand our problem in connection with civil service matters, and in fact he cannot be expected to understand it. It has taken us years to reach the stage we have in connection with the Civil Service Commission. If the Civil Service Commission is now to be sacrificed and a tremendous political weapon placed in the hands of the radio commission, this committee will be ill advised to pass even the amendment proposed by the Prime Minister. I submit that these men should not be placed outside the operations of the Civil Service Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does section
two remain just as it is here?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It takes away from parliament the approving of the purchase or lease of stations. It is understood that that will stand only until March, 1934.
Radio Broadcasting Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not added that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That will be
understood?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I intended to add that clause at the end of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Expenditure of moneys.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I have a new clause to offer to be substituted for this one. This provides that the estimates for expenditures shall be submitted to the Minister of Einance; otherwise the commission might contemplate a budget well over expenditures. I will ask my colleague to move this amendment.


Ernest Edward Perley: I move that section 3 be amended as follows:
Section 14 of the said act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
14. (1) The commission may expend for the purposes of this act the moneys appropriated by parliament for such purposes, together with such sums of money as may be received by the commission from any business carried on by it under this act.
(2)	The moneys appropriated by parliament for such purposes shall not exceed the estimated revenue from receiving licences, private commercial broadcasting licences and amateur broadcasting licences:
Provided that if at the end of the fiscal year there is a balance of appropriated moneys unexpended, or if the revenue from the sources mentioned in this subsection exceeds the amount appropriated, parliament may appropriate any such balance and excess in addition to any appropriation provided hereunder.
(3)	The commission shall present to the Minister of Finance annually an estimate of the expenditure proposed to be made by it during the fiscal year and the Minister of Finance shall from time to time pay into a chartered bank to the credit of the commission moneys appropriated by parliament for the purposes of the commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It may be that I am not very quick at apprehending, but I have not yet been able to see justification for the interpretation that I understand the government is placing upon this clause. I understood the Prime Minister to say that the moneys which the commission were receiving were the equivalent of those which they themselves raised in the form of fees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only under this amendment they are not all paid over at once; they are paid over as the commission may require.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that all that the commission may expend?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, such moneys as they earn.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The commission receives from parliament an appropriation which, this year, I understand was $1,000,000, and in addition gets all it raises in the way of receipts for the purpose of expenditure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman has hardly put that fairly. First, the commission receives the moneys that have been collected for licence fees. Second, it has in hand such sums as it earns from the conduct of advertising and business and its expenditures are limited to the sums paid for licence fees and receipts by it from its business. The suggested amendment provides that they must budget and the budget must be sent to the Minister of Finance so that he knows the commission is not incurring liabilities beyond those which the receipts from the two sources will meet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I read this clause, it gives to the commission all that the Prime Minister has just said it is entitled to, but in addition there is an appropriation by parliament. I cannot read that language in any other way. Let me read this sentence:
The commission may expend for the purposes of this act the moneys appropriated by parliament for such purposes.
Parliament has appropriated $1,000,000, so that that means the commission may expend $1,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Provided licence fees are collected to that extent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The clause continues:
Together with such sums as may be received by the commission from any business carried on by it under this act.
That would be the business the commission carries on. Does that business include licence fees as well?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, they do not carry on that business. It is just as the right hon. gentleman said and as the hon. member for Rimouski pointed out this afternoon, up to the moment the Marine department have collected the licence fees and they have been paid into the consolidated fund. Hence an appropriation was necessary to free any part of them for use by the commission. That is the real explanation of the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Parliament is supposed to appropriate for the purposes of the commission the amount raised by licence

Tariff Board Act
fees. The commission will get that amount and in addition such sums as may be received from any business that may be carried on, and nothing more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.
Amendment agreed to on division.
Section 3 as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Limitation of appropriation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the right hon. gentleman will see that this is covered by the new section 14. Therefore section 4 may be deleted.
Section 4 dropped.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The question is now
on section 1.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 1 as amended
will read as follows:
1. Section 4 of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-	#
4. The commission may employ such technical, professional and other officers as the commission may deem necessary or desirable, and such persons shall receive such salaries or remuneration as may be fixed by the commission, subject to the approval of the governor in council.
Clerks and all other employees of the commission shall be appointed pursuant to the Civil Service Act.


Ernest Edward Perley: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1 as amended agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The new section 4 will
read as follows:
This act shall expire on the ... day of
	 1934.
This is only a temporary measure and will expire on a certain date in 1934. March 31 is a little early. As the appropriations are made from fiscal year to fiscal year, the only question is whether there is time to deal with the matter from the opening of parliament to March 31.


Eugène Fiset: In view of the fact that each department is allowed from fifteen days to three weeks after the fiscal year is ended, to spend its estimates, perhaps three weeks after April 1 would be all right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The law has been changed since my hon. friend's time. At present there has to be an appropriation accepted by the comptroller of the treasury.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Make it April 30, if my right hon. friend thinks that is better.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the new section 4 will read as follows:
This act shall expire on the 30th day of April, 1934.


Ernest Edward Perley: I move that new section 4 be inserted accordingly.
Section 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, and amendments read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. BENNETT moved the third reading of the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



TARIFF BOARD ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 100, to amend the Tariff Board Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has been a good deal of discussion already on the second reading of this bill, and if there are no others who wish to speak I think we might as well have a division on it at once, as we are opposed to its provisions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired with the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had 1 voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McLURE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Mac-Xnnis). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon. to ember for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LENNOX:: I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired with the horn, member for Beauhamois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GOLDING:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Sproule). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.,


Mr. CHARTERS:: 1 was paired with the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Blair). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desrochers). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

Tariff Board Act


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BOTH WELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Petenborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted 1 would have voted against the motion.


William Irvine: I was paired with the hon member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Mr. ST-PERE: I was paired with the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Paul Mercier: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. LUCAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BROWN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. TAYLOR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Ryerson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I was paired with the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Charles A. Stewart: I was paired with the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Murphy). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I was paired with the hon.
member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Johnstone). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Ernest Lapointe: I was paired with the
Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. COWAN (Port Arthur):: I was paired with the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BAKER:: I was paired with the hon member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SHORT:: I was paired with the hon member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Goulet) . Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Ernest Edward Perley: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Munn). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: I
was paired with the hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Geary). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Onésime Gagnon: I was paired with the hon, member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Maurice Dupré: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Fer-land). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. FOURNIER (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Kent (N. B.) (Mr. Arsenault). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (N. B.) (Mr. McDade). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Tariff Board Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 1-Pensions.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understood the Prime Minister had an amendment he was going to move.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is already in.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it in this bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; there is the provision for sixty-four years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was a provision to limit it to the chairman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is so limited.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is the section carried?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This bill has been well discussed. Many hon. members have spoken, and the vote which has just been taken must -convince the government that this is the most unpopular measure which has been introduced. Nothing further can be done, except to allow it to pass only on division.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only to add this to what I have already stated: A judge who had enjoyed a judicial position for two years was asked on February 6, 1933, to vacate his office. Judging from the language used by the right hon. gentleman opposite he is faced with the possibility that in the event of a change in administration he would lose his position. Under those circumstances it is difficult to ask a man to undertake a task. That cannot be fully met; all that can be done is to see that after serving ten years and reaching the age of sixty-four he will be dealt with as indicated, and that he will receive a salary of $15,000. As I pointed out, if by reason of the action of a new administration he loses his position, as has been threatened, then of course his salary is still too small. Great Britain pays twice as much for such services. I am not going to labour the matter. These special provisions are applicable to only one person, and that is the chairman. He is to serve ten years, and must be sixty-four years of age before pension is payable as indicated.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.



PRIVILEGE-MR. GORDON

Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. My attention has been directed to an article appearing in the Sherbrooke Daily Record of Monday, May 15, 1933. It is
,CMr. IVipuis.J
captioned, "Our Unfortunate and Much Governed Country," and among other things the editorial states:
The Minister of Labour at Ottawa has a chauffeur to whom he pays $1,560 a year; supplies for his cars of $489.18; gasoline and oil of $120.48; repairs and renewals of $93.11; sundries, $67.43.
There is not an atom of truth in that statement, and if the order of precedence is to prevail I would suggest that Ananias move back from the fire and give place to the editor of this newspaper.


Ernest Lapointe: May I remark that this is a well known Conservative newspaper in the province of Quebec.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved the second reading of Bill No. 106, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this house will recall that at the beginning of the session an endeavour was made completely to revise and consolidate the Canada Shipping Act, and a bill was introduced in the Senate for that purpose. When that bill was under consideration by the Senate committee on banking and commerce, however, it developed that there might be some question as to Canada's power to enact all the legislation therein contemplated, and after a very full discussion the bill was withdrawn. During the hearing before the committee, however, it was made apparent that some remedial legislation should be enacted in order to protect our Canadian shipowners, and that some amendments should be made to our coasting laws.
The primary object of this bill is to amend our coasting laws in order to put them on a parity with the laws of the United States. Under section 935 of our present act United States bottoms cannot transport goods or passengers directly from one Canadian port to another Canadian port, but the law is evaded by taking goods from a Canadian to a United States port, let us say from Fort William to Buffalo, where a transshipment is made to another United States ship which takes the goods to Montreal. The United States ships do indirectly what is forbidden under section 935 of the Canada Shipping Act.
Robert Gardiner: Has the minister any information as to the volume of that business?


Alfred Duranleau: I will give that information when we get in committee, when I will have all the statistics with regard to this traffic. We are trying now to make our laws exactly the same as those of the United

Canada Shipping Act
States; as a matter of fact the wording is about the same. At present section 935 reads as follows:
No goods or passengers shall be carried by water, from one port of Canada to another, except in British ships.
2. If any goods or passengers are so carried, contrary to this part, the master of the ship or vessel so carrying them shall incur a penalty of four hundred dollars; and any goods so carried shall be forfeited, as smuggled.
The amendment suggested in the present bill will read as follows:
No goods shall be transported by water or by land and water, from one place in Canada to another place in Canada, either directly or by way of a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation in any ship other than a British ship.
2. No ship other than a British ship shall transport passengers from one place in Canada to another place in Canada either directly or by way of a foreign port.
And so on. In order to illustrate my point I will read the existing law in the United States, under which foreign vessels are debarred from participation in the United States coasting trade directly or indirectly:
No merchandise shall be transported by water under penalty of forfeiture thereof from one port of the United States to another port of the United States, either directly or via a foreign port, or for any part of the voyage, in any other vessel than a vessel of the United States.
We have been asked by those interested to enact the same law for the protection of Canadian and British bottoms.


Edward James Young: Who are those interested?


Alfred Duranleau: Every Canadian should be interested because this is for the protection of our own people.


Edward James Young: Did every Canadian ask for it?


Alfred Duranleau: The majority of
Canadians are asking for it. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that when this matter was before the Senate committee many people were heard on that very point, and those opposed to this amendment have failed to make a case. They only had a fear that rates might be increased between Fort William or any other port in Canada and Montreal or other Canadian ports. I think it has been made abundantly clear that there is nothing to fear in that respect. We have plenty of Canadian bottoms to transport goods and passengers between Canadian ports either directly or indirectly, so there is no danger of rates being increased. As this house knows, the rates are under the control of the Board of Grain Commissioners. They regulate the rates. Moreover, under section 938 of the act the governor in council has power-


John Vallance: Is there not a maximum rate which the grain commission may fix? Is there not protection in it?


Alfred Duranleau: There is ample protection in it. In the event of any undue increase in rates owing to lack of competition or for other reasons, the governor in council has power to suspend any clauses of this statute. Section 938 provides that:
The governor in council may from time to time by order in council declare that the "foregoing provisions" of this part shall not, for the period specified in such order in council apply, either throughout Canada or in any specified waters of Canada, to the ships or vessels, or to any specified, ascertained, or ascertainable class or number of the ships or vessels, of any foreign country.
We are therefore protected. Those who had any fears in the matter were reassured; it was proved clearly to them that they were protected in three ways.


Edward James Young: How long has the governor it council had that power?


Alfred Duranleau: Since 1923. Those interested in shipping grain or any other commodities are protected in three ways, by fair competition, by the regulations of the grain board, and by section 938 of the statute. I think it is only fair that our Canadian bottoms should enjoy the same protection as American bottoms in our waters.
There are other small amendments. They are not very important but we have taken the opportunity to include them in this bill. First, there is an amendment with respect to authority in the matter of pilotage. So far the authority has been vested in the Minister of Marine, but we have deemed it wise to substitute for the amendment proposed in the bill one providing that the authority vested in the minister in pilotage matters shall be conferred on the deputy minister in the absence of the minister. For the proper administration of the department I think it wise that this amendment should be accepted. Another amendment has reference to the inspection of ship's tackle for the protection of those engaged in the loading and unloading of vessels in Canadian ports. This amendment conforms with the legislation adopted by the League of Nations international labour bureau last year. This provision serves a very useful purpose for the protection of those employed in loading and unloading ships. Every country that signed the agreement will adopt the same legislation. The next amendment provides that everyone shipping goods weighing over 2,240 pounds shall indicate the weight on the package before it is loaded on the ship. As the result of experience this provision has also been adopted by the League of Nations inter-
Canada Shipping Act

national labour bureau last year for the protection of navigation and seamen. The next amendment requires that helm orders shall be given in the direct sense on all ships registered in Canada. This provision was adopted by the international convention for the safety of life at sea and was ratified by this house by chapter 49 of the session of 1931. Every country is accepting the regulation in order to have uniformity in the direction of ships. I do not think there is anything else I can add at the moment, but when the bill is in committee any information desired will be given.


Mr. J. L. BOWMAN (Dauphin):: I have
a few remarks to make with respect to section 935, to which the minister has referred. All members from western Canada are particularly interested in this section because it is possible that if the amendment is put into effect it will have some bearing, directly or indirectly, upon the rates which will be charged' on grain passing over the lakes to eastern ports. I am satisfied that all western members have followed with the keenest interest and have read probably more than once the evidence which was submitted to the standing committee of the Senate on banking and commerce with respect to the original bill, letter J. respecting the Canada Shipping Act. The first witnesses who were heard by that committee were those who appeared on behalf of the grain producers of western Canada. The first witness to appear on behalf of such producers was Mr. P. F. Bredt, representing the Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba pool organizations. Mr. Bredt's view with respect to this particular section is set out at page 44 of the evidence, and possibly I might bring the crux of the amendment to the attention of the house by pointing out that if section 935 becomes law it will mean that only grain carried to Buffalo from Fort William or Port Arthur in Canadian vessels can be transferred to the port of Montreal. The contention of those who appeared on behalf of the various producers was that if this section became law the result would be to create more or less of a monopoly for Canadian shippers with respect to the transfer of grain from Buffalo to Montreal. Mr. Bredt sets forth the view of the three western grain pools in a written memorandum which appears on page 44 of the evidence. This reads:
Whereas the suggested amendment to the Canada Shipping Act would prevent transshipment of Canadian grain through Buffalo or other American lake ports except in Canadian vessels, and
Whereas it is essential in the best interests of Canada that no avenue of outlet for our grain should be closed, and

Whereas the passing of this amendment would result in restrictions of trade through inability to take advantage of possible lower ocean freights at Montreal or Quebec on all Canadian grain stored in lake Erie American ports, and
Whereas it would also have the effect of creating a virtual monopoly on freights to Montreal, which might react seriously against us in the world's markets.
Therefore be it resolved that we, as representatives of a large percentage of western Canadian producers, protest strongly against legislation which will in any way interfere with the normal movement of our grain.
Mr. Bredt stated that those were the views of the three pool associations which were said to have handled approximately forty-five per cent of the crop last year. I note that the minister, speaking in this regard, said something to the effect that those who were protesting against this amendment had not put up a very good case. Dealing with this matter, I note that Mr. Bredt states at page 46:
It is very difficult, of course, to state definitely that it would mean an increase in rates.
On page 51, he gives the following answer to a question asked by the Hon. Mr. Ballan-tyne:
Q. Air. Bredt, if this act went through do you claim it would increase freight rates?
A. There is a danger as we see it, we may be wrong.
While Mr. Bredt expressed the view of the associations in the manner I have quoted, he still seemed to think that there was a certain amount of doubt. The United Grain Growers also filed a memorandum with the committee. Their president was not before the committee personally but he sent a telegram to the chairman, part of which reads as follows:
The principal interest of this to the Canadian grain trade and to the producers of grain in western Canada, including many thousands of shareholders and customers of United Crain Growers on whose behalf this company feels it necessary to speak lies in connection with the Buffalo route for lake transportation of grain and also in the competition in lake freights which the use of that route has made possible
While we recognize that certain conditions in lake transportation have at times driven lake freights on grain down to levels unremunerative to vessel owners and lower than could be maintained for any great length of time, we must point out that the competition from United States vessels has at times in the past been an important factor in holding down lake freights and we fear dangers to the interests of grain producers if such competition is permanently eliminated.
Mr. Sydney Smith, the president of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, also appeared before the committee and his views are set

Canada Shipping Act
forth in the evidence. Mr. Smith stated that he represented the unanimous opinion of the export committee of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, and at page 76 he says:
On behalf of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, which I represent, I should like to say that iny instructions are that they are not at all interested. nor are the export trade particularly interested in forcing grain on any route. The general idea-if I have not explained it clearly, it is my fault-is that they want the freedom of the export routes that now exist, and they believe that that is in the interest of the producer of western Canada. Although the gram exchange has sometimes been accused of being an institution that mixed everything up in connection with grain, they have at least identified themselves with the producer in this.
On page 65 Mr. Smith states that in his opinion this amendment might create a monopoly, but at page 74, in answer to a question by the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen, he makes a rather significant statement. Mr. Meighen's question was:
You are not in the shipping business?
Mr. Smith replied:
I am in the export business. I am not talking of any interests in Buffalo, I am talking of the viewpoint in the west, that we should like these two channels left open. We may be loot ing at a bogy, but that is what we think.
Mr, Smith is a man of vast experience in the exporting business. I suppose he is one of the greatest, if not the greatest exporter in Western Canada. He states that they should like these two channels left open, that they may be looking at a bogy but that is what they think. I might point out that in supporting his contention that a monopoly might be created, Mr. Bredt stated that in July last the lake shippers formed an association known as the Associated Lake Freighters, Limited. Mr. Bredt stated that this association came into being on July 10 and that on July 11 the rates were raised, other increases taking place at periods of a few days until the rates were increased from four and a half cents, I think his statement was, to seven cents. My recollection is that another witness corrected that by stating that the rates had got down to three and a half cents and were increased to six and a half cents. Mr. Bredt supports his contention that a monopoly might result, if the business was handed over wholly to Canadian shippers, from what happened last July.
I should like to refer to certain statements and figures which appear on pages 28 and 29 of the evidence. I do not wish to weary the house by repeating these figures, but I want to draw attention to certain facts in order that when this bill is discussed in committee 53719^-323
the minister may be able to give some explanation in respect of the matters to which I refer.
On page 28 of the evidence schedule 1 is set out showing shipments of grain from Fort William and Port Arthur to Canadian and United States ports by Canadian and United States vessels. It covers eleven crop years from 1920-21 to 1930-31. In the first two columns it shows that out of, in round figures,
1.452.000.	000 bushels handled through Canadian ports, 1,411,000.000 were handled by Canadian vessels and only a little over
41.000. 000 bushels were handled by United States vessels. In other words, the grain that went to Canadian seaports was handled almost entirely by Canadian boats. On the other hand, in the next two columns iF is shown that out of 1,464,000,000 bushels of grain which were sent to United States ports,
1.282.000.	000 bushels were handled by United States vessels while only about 181,000,000 bushels were handed by Canadian vessels. In other words, the grain which was shipped to United States ports was largely handled by United States ships.
There is a rather interesting schedule following that, schedule 2, which shows the lake shipments from Fort William and Port Arthur by nationality of vessels. In 1927-28, 788 cargoes in Canadian vessels comprised a total of roughly 148,000,000 bushels while 508 cargoes in United States vessels comprised 150,000,000 bushels. In other words, 508 United States vessels carried more than 788 Canadian vessels. This indicates that the Canadian vessels were either old and obsolete or were of less carrying capacity than the United States vessels. The same proportion holds good more or less throughout the remainder of the schedule.


Robert James Manion: Is that not because the Canadian vessels are largely canal boats going through to Montreal?


James Langstaff Bowman: Some of them go all the way from the head of the lakes to Montreal.


Robert James Manion: That is what I mean.


James Langstaff Bowman: That is probably one
reason that would account for this. But reading the evidence one certainly was impressed by the fact that a considerable number of the boats belonging to the Canadian shipping interests were obsolete, although the shipping interests emphasized the fact that they had plenty of tonnage to handle the grain under all circumstances.

dl 14
Canada Shipping Act

Schedule 3 shows how the grain was exported during a period of four years, as follows, in round figures:
	Exported	Exported through
	through	United
	Canadian	States
	ports	ports
Crop year-	bushels	bushels1927-28.. ..	.. 140.000,000	168,000,0001928-29.. ..	. . 180,000',000	190,000.0001929-30.. ..	.. 86,000,000	78,000,0001930-31.. ..	.. 119,000,000	102,000,000
This shows that in the first two years more wheat was shipped through United States than through Canadian ports, but in the latter two years more was shipped through Canadian than through United States ports, although the quantities are very close. I have taken some time to draw these facts to the attention of the committee to show that the routing of grain is of tremendous importance to western Canada. The eastern route is of great importance to Manitoba and the eastern part of Saskatchewan. I presume from about the middle of Saskatchewan west through the province of Alberta the grain is mostly routed through Vancouver.


John Vallance: No, all Saskatchewan grain goes east.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not all.


John Vallance: Most of it.


James Langstaff Bowman: A considerable proportion of it goes east.


John Vallance: The dividing line is about twenty miles from the eastern boundary of Alberta.


James Langstaff Bowman: A fraction o<f a cent of difference in shipping charges often determines the route by which grain will be shipped, and before I, for one, would be prepared to support this bill, I would certainly have to know, if the shipping interests are to be benefited, that it is not to be at the expense of the producers. The minister may be able to show us by the statistics which he has and as a result of the amendments which are contained in this bill, that the effect will be to give an increased volume of business to Canadian vessels, thus helping them, but certainly I would not for a moment be prepared to support this bill if I thought the effect would be, as I said a moment ago, to increase in the slightest degree, by a fraction of a cent, the cost to the grain producers of the west.
Another element which I think should be cleared up, I presume in committee, is the matter of safeguards or control. The minis-
ter, in the few introductory remarks which he made, referred to control, and read to the house the provisions of section 938 of the Shipping Act. I regret that I did not have an opportunity of reading carefully the provisions of that section, but I was surprised to hear the minister say that it had been in effect since 1923. I of course accept the minister's statement. But lion, members from the west will remember that, I think in 1924 or 1925, I am not sure of the year, there was some trouble with respect to shipping grain east. An hon. member informs me that it was 1922. If 1922 was the year, probably that would account for the amendment in 1923. At that time United States vessels had to be invited in to break our laws and we had to grant them immunity for so doing, which Was a rather paradoxical situation. I should be glad if, when we are an committee, the minister would again read to us the provisions of section 938, so that if that is the case it [DOT]may be made dle,ar to us, that the governor in council may by order in council suspend the provisions of the bill now before us for consideration.
In the evidence to which I have referred the only questions that were asked of Mr. Bredt with respect to control appear on page 56:
Right Hon. Arthur Meighen:	But with
evolution the units get bigger and there has to be control.
Mr. Bredt: That answers the question, then, that we must L^ve a rate control body?
I may say in fairness to Mr. Bredt that he did not express any opinion other than this with respect to the advisability of control.
The minister has referred to the power which at the present time is vested in the Board of Grain Commissioners with respect to control of rates. I have looked up the provisions of the act and I am not so clear in my own mind that the board have sufficient control. While the minister was speaking one member interjected that the act provides for maximum control, which is the case. Section 3 of the Inland Water Freight Rates Act of 1923 provides for the filing with the Board of Grain Commissioners of the tariff of rates to be charged, as well as subsequent changes in that regard. Section 4 of that act provides:
It shall be the duty of the board to receive and tabulate all such tariffs and rates as may be filed with the board as aforesaid, and moreover, to ascertain by all available means, the rates of freight which prevail or are exacted or required for the carriage of grain from Fort William or Port Arthur to any of the ports or places aforesaid, and to consider and report to the Minister of Trade and Commerce from time to time any facts which may come

Canada Shipping Act
to the knowledge of the board and which tend to show that there is a deficiency of cargo space, excessive freight charges or discrimination in the rates with respect to the carriage of grain as aforesaid, and all shipowners and other persons engaged in the grain carrying trade in Canada shall, npon reasonable request, immediately furnish to the board such information as they may possess relating to any of the matters aforesaid, and shall for any wilful refusal or neglect to furnish the same be guilty of an offence against this act and be liable to a penalty recoverable upon summary conviction not exceeding one thousand dollars and not less than two hundred dollars for each such offence.
Section 5, which is the operative part, provides :
When in the opinion of the board the toll, charge or rate which any company, owner or person charges or intends or proposes to charge for the carriage of grain as aforesaid is unreasonable or excessive or amounts to an unjust discrimination against any person, company or class of persons as compared with the tolls or rates for similar traffic between Canadian and United States ports, or between one port and another in either of said countries, the board may prescribe such maximum rates as it may consider reasonable.
The section goes on to provide that the rates so prescribed may be limited in their application to particular seasons of the year.
If there is a possibility of a monopoly being created, or if there is, by reason of the fact that our coastal laws are changed, a possibility of their having the effect which I have previously set out, then it is certainly most important that the government retain complete control so that it may at any time the need arises take action either through the Board of Grain Commissioners or by order in council to keep effective control over the situation. I may say in that connection that Mr. Sydney Smith stated that he did not think it was necessary to have a board but that if the act was left as it was competition would effectively settle the rates. But the fact is that under the old act there did arise in July of last year a situation which those appearing before the board treated as a monopoly, and upon that occasion they appealed to the Board of Grain Commissioners and had a maximum rate fixed. I do not know on how many occasions the Board of Grain Commissioners have acted in that way, but I am ratlier under the impression that there have been only two. Certainly up to the present the board has not been regarded as a rate fixing body.
I have made these remarks, Mr. Speaker, with a view to drawing to the attention of the house certain facts which in a measure cover the situation. Might I again state that in order for this bill to receive my support it will have to be shown to me quite clearly 53719-323i
that there is ample provision for protecting the western producer so that he will not become the victim of any monopoly which may result from the bringing into effect of this amendment; also that there will be effective control, and that if there is to be benefit to those engaged in the carrying of this grain, it shall not be acquired at the expense of the grain grower.


Alan Webster Neill: I
was under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that there was a time-honoured rule that speakers should be taken alternatively in an important debate, and I cannot recollect in a rather long experience a cabinet member introducing a bill being immediately followed by a speaker on his own side of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) was the first to rise to his feet and was first seen by the Speaker when the minister sat down. There was no discrimination in the matter.


Alan Webster Neill: I see that Bourinot at page 334 says:
In all important debates it is customary for the Speaker to endeavour to give the preference, alternately, to the known supporters and opponents of a measure or question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The same rule is followed in this house invariably. But if an hon. member desiring to speak neglects to rise to his feet and another hon. member is on his feet the latter has a right to be heard.


Alan Webster Neill: I was on my feet first. I was on my feet too soon, as a matter of fact. However, I am not surprised at all.
We have waited twenty-five years for a measure of this kind, and now a sorry substitute for the reform we desired has been brought down in the very last hours of the session.
I am not rising to deal with the subject matter which entirely engrossed the minister when he introduced the bill and his supporter behind him. I leave that to be dealt with by members on both sides of the house who are far more competent to deal with it than I am, nor shall I follow the hon. member for Dauphin in putting on Hansard a large portion of the records of another house. I would assume that hon. members interested in the subject would have already read that debate. For a few moments I should like to deal with another matter. I wish to enter a protest against this bill which seeks to amend the Canada Shipping Act having to be discussed in committee of the whole house instead of by the special committee appointed for such purposes, namely the committee which deals with marine and fisheries matters.
Canada Shipping Act

We have an illustration of the need for such reference to a committee in the fact that this bill, which I suppose contains a dozen sections, has been referred to as regards one section only. But there are a dozen more sections.
The general character of any bill amending the shipping act is largely technical and for that reason it is all the more necessaiy it should be referred to a committee, because there are very few, if any men, in this house thoroughly versed in shipping terms. I do not know that there are any men in the house thoroughly versed in the technical terms, and moreover there are very few hon. members -I doubt if there are any-directly representative of the shipping interests, more particularly the seamen, the masters, mates and so on. Therefore a very large body of hon. members will be more or less indifferent to a measure of this type, although it has tonight a special interest given to it because of reference which has been made to the grain trade. The presentation of the bill in this way will mean one of two things, either that it will be a long time going through committee of the whole, or it will go through without being properly understood and debated. A very fine illustration of the advisability of sending it to a committee was seen the other day when one of the most contentious bills -not contentious in a party sense; I refer to the pensions bill-was put through the house in two or three hours, because it-had been thoroughly discussed and agreed to in committee. That is what should be done in this case. May I give an illustration of one or two of the technical points involved. I wonder how many hon. members understand some of the terms with which we will have to deal. I wonder if the minister himself understands them? Does he know what a cotter pin is? Does he know what mousings are? Does he know what a full line is, or a hatch combing, or a heel block, or a hog lashing? I have picked out only one or two at random. Yet we are supposed to discuss the technical use of these terms.
I refer more particularly of course to the big bill which was introduced earlier in the session in the Senate. It contained over eight hundred sections. I am told it was the biggest bill that had ever been introduced into this parliament, and yet it was solemnly proposed, in the face of protest, to bring it into committee of the whole in this house and have it passed in a way which would make it impossible to get anything like appropriate information or discussion on the matter.

Let me quote a sentence or two from letters I have received concerning this bill. In a letter from the Canadian Merchant Service Guild I find the following:
There is no language which we would care to employ that could adequately express the feelings of the masters and officers on this coast with regard to some of the proposals which are contained in the act. When we say that it is rank discrimination that, in our opinion, is only half expressing the situation.
And later:
It is the most impracticable piece of legislation that we have heard of and those who are responsible for framing the act can have little or no practical knowledge of the steamship business, particularly as it affects this coast.
Then the Canadian Association of Seamen, Vancouver branch, writes as follows:
For three weeks we have had a committee working steadily on each clause.
And then they go on to express their opinion about the legislation. The committee worked for three weeks on it, and then they obtained only a vague grasp of it. Then, I should like to make some comments concerning the number of amendments arising from their investigations. The first body I mentioned produced amendments numbering twenty-five. Another body, the All-Canadian Congress, produced twenty-five amendments. Then, the Association of Seamen, which had a committee silting for three weeks, produced amendments which cover many pages. Their amendments are contained on thirty-five closely typewritten pages. After they had sent them in they had another thought, and sent another couple of pages of closely typewritten foolscap containing further amendments and comments they had made concerning the bill. That is the body which has studied the legislation for three weeks. Does that not give some indication of the necessity for this legislation going before a committee where men sitting around the table could take it into consideration, a place where they would have the advantage of the Services of men capable of giving technical explanations? After such treatment they would be in a better position to deal with it.
If I remember correctly, this bill was brought to the house last Saturday. The people on the Pacific coast have not yet heard of it, with the exception of the casual wire which may have been sent out and which could explain only sketchily the nature of the bill Which had been introduced!. As their representatives in this house we are supposed

Canada Shipping Act
to stand up and give competent opinion anid advice on a matter with which we are almost entirely unfamiliar. We have not heard from those men whose interests will be affected.
Is that the famous British justice that we hear so much about? Is it common sense?
Mr. DURANLF.AU: Does the hon. member know that for over a month this bill has been before the Senate?


Alan Webster Neill: It was before the Senate, but who in British Columbia knows or wants to know anything about the Senate?


Alfred Duranleau: They could read the
proceedings of the Senate in the newspapers.


Alan Webster Neill: It would be a hard day for
us when we had to shape our legislation from newspaper reports, because they cannot be accurate. Besides, did the newspapers wire eight hundred sections? The associations to which I have referred got hold of the big bill, and over forty typewritten pages of proposed changes is the fruit of their research. Those who went through the legislation said it was absurd; they had never seen the like of it. They believed it was the greatest piece of discrimination they had ever seen. But so far as this bill is concerned, I must say that unless it has come to them in their dreams, they have not heard of it. As soon as I got it I mailed it, but I could not wire it. Should we stand here passing something vitally affecting their interests, when they do not know anything about it?
Why was this bill left until the last minute? Why was it not introduced earlier? It has been lying in the minister's office since 1908- I do not blame the minister-but I must say the deputy minister did not have the courage or the enterprise to bring it forward. Then other things developed,-the war, and so on. We have waited all that time. The act was so obsolete that the penalties were described in pounds, shillings and pence, instead of in dollars and cents. It is so obsolete that those who had framed the legislation had never heard of a motor gas boat. During the last two or three years I have begged the minister, time and time again-and I begged the last administration-to bring in a bill and let it stand over for a session thereby giving the people interested an opportunity for discussion.
I shall not take further time of the house. I do hope the government will take notice of what I have said concerning what these people think and want. They are an important body. When the big bill comes down next year it should be sent to a committee. There
are some changes I should like to suggest in this bill, I shall refer to one change made by the 'Senate which in my view is most unfair. It deals with the tackle for the loading and unloading of ships. However I shall speak in committee, and shall give other hon. members who are vitally interested an opportunity to speak now on the motion for second reading.


Edward Joseph Garland: I rise to oppose the second reading of the bill. As an illustration of legislation calculated to serve special interests, this is about the finest specimen that has come to my attention. I ask the government this question: What was the special hurry in connection with these sections? They constitute only a few out of the very large bill which has to be considered next year. What is the hurry in connection with this bill? The present coastal laws with respect to the great lakes and to the Pacific have remained on our statute books for some time. From time to time they have been altered or amended by order in council and regulation. Now, on the second to the last day of this session, as some of us hope, this bill is suddenly thrust upon us without any opportunity of considering it in a standing committee of the commons. Indeed, in its very make-up there is evidence of the haste with whioh it was drafted, in spite of the consideration given by the Senate committee. I wonder if hon. members of the committee have taken the trouble to read section 3, which appears on page 1 of the bill. Let me read the first three lines:
Whenever the minister is so appointed as the pilotage authority his appointment shall, without, more, extend to his successors in office-
In the name of goodness what does that mean? I have always understood that the language of seamen was a weird and awful thing, and this may have been drafted by a seaman. I understand that when they are ashore "more" is a popular word with them.


Alfred Duranleau: Would my hon. friend permit me to make an observation? In my opening remarks I stated that an amendment would be proposed in connection with this section.


Edward Joseph Garland: I should
imagine so; I should be very much surprised if the minister did not move an amendment. I am not criticizing his proposal to amend the section; I am pointing to the evidence of haste and carelessness which appears in the bill before me.


Alfred Duranleau: Perhaps I might read the amendment to my hon. friend; I hope he will be satisfied with it.
Canada Shipping Act


Edward Joseph Garland: I hope so, but I am not quarreling with the minister on that point.


Alfred Duranleau: Why discuss the
clause now when it is to be amended?


Edward Joseph Garland: Because it is a typical illustration of the haste in this matter which, as the minister said, is to give protection to special shipping interests. The minister's own words come back to him; this is to give special privilege to some shipping interests.


Alfred Duranleau: To Canadian ship
owners.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, but how does the minister know they are Canadian companies? When we are in committee of the whole will he be prepared to lay before the committee the names and nationality of the shareholders and the amount of their holdings in these companies? There are many so called Canadian companies that are by no means Canadian, and I should like further information before I accept the glib reference of the minister to Canadian companies.
That is aside from the subject, however; the minister draws these remarks upon himself by his interjections. He has stated that this bill is for the purpose of protecting shipowners, and there is no doubt in my mind that this is the purpose. Equally there is no doubt that this protection will be secured to the disadvantage of the farmers of western Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, that
is my conviction. I will tell the Minister of Marine, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), that it was recognition of the danger of agreements between the two railway companies against the interests of the western grain growers that induced this 'house to put on the statute books a statutory maximum rate for grain moving over the railways. I say that in this case also, if the government are sincere in their desire to protect the interests of the farmers, they will provide a statutory rate on the great lakes for grain and grain products as they have done on the railways.
There is no doubt whatever that section 935 of the bill before us strengthens the position of the lake shippers' association to which the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) very properly referred as having taken advantage of their organized position m days gone by, to the disadvantage of the grain growers of western Canada as well 
as the exporters of grain. Here there are two great interests involved, and it is not going to satisfy the farmers of western Canada to say that the shippers of eastern Canada are to receive a special privilege which enables them to create a monopoly under the guise of legislation, and so take advantage of their position as they did in the past. The hon. member for Dauphin said that representatives of some bodies appearing before the Senate committee feared the possibility of a combine. I say they would have been justified in declaring that it is virtually certain that a combine will be created as soon as this legislation is passed. Indeed, to all intents and purposes there is a monopoly and a combine on the great lakes at the present time. As an illustration of that statement let me remind the committee that last year in spite of steadily declining grain prices to a point which the government must admit to have been far below the cost of production, these lake shippers reorganized their association which apparently had not been operative since the scandal in connection with the previous combine, and at once advanced the rate to 7 cents.
Then this Inland Water Freight Rates Act of 1923 appeared on the scene, but I direct the attention of the government to the fact that here, as in previous cases, no rate fixing power is vested in the Board of Grain Commissioners under the act. Whatever rights they have are ambiguous in the act, and it is questionable whether or not the act is within the competence of this parliament. At any rate, according to all the information I have been able to secure, no decisions have been handed down as such by the Board of Grain Commissioners under the Inland Water Freight Rates Act of 1923, but they brought moral pressure, moral suasion, to bear on the lake shippers. The result has been that in spite of the collapse in grain prices we secured a reduction of only half a cent in the freight rates on the great lakes, a reduction from 7 to 6J cents.
I can assure the members of the government that the farmers of the west do not look upon that sort of protection as at all adequate. As soon as this body is created the farmers will pay the price to the shareholders of these companies. I submit that instead of going into this thing in this way-I am reminded by a good friend of mine that the promise of some reciprocal trade treaty with the United States looms on the horizon -the government should delay action on this bill. The matter is not so very urgent, so why not delay action until the complete re-

Canada Shipping Act
vision takes place next year, and in the meantime the government might exert all its influence in order to secure a cooperative agreement with the United States so as to free shipping on the great lakes and give the farmers healthy competition in regard to rates. Some hon. gentlemen may argue that the farmer does not get the benefit of reduced rates on the great lakes, and I think that is very true. I believe that in the majority of cases when there is a temporary reduction, especially in the shipping season, say a monthly or a weekly reduction, it is the exporter who gets the advantage. I do not think there is any doubt about it; the man who owns the grain at Fort William gets the benefit. I ask hon. gentlemen to notice that the creation of the pools, especially when they established their own agencies at Liverpool, brought into the picture an entirely new factor so that the farmers were enabled to secure the advantages of the reduced rates because of the fact that they were themselves shipping grain and selling it on the Liverpool market.
There is a further point in this connection which should not escape hon. gentlemen; it is that when the rates are pushed up at once the farmer is compelled to carry the load. The increase is deducted from the Fort William price, and this is a factor in determining the level of wheat prices in Winnipeg and throughout the west. So any bill of this kind, which is calculated to create a monopoly unless accompanied by a statutory maximum rate, does not do justice to the farmers of the west, and in my opinion should not be permitted to pass the house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Garland, Bow River) asked the reason for the hurry with this bill, and suggested that it should be left over until next year. There is at least one veiy good reason, if not several. It will be recalled that for some time past- and personally I have had the matter in hand for several years-pressure has been brought to bear upon the government to enact some safety legislation with regard to ships' tackle and so forth. But those who were urging this were advised that the revision of the shipping act was coming forward in the near future, and it was suggested .that they should wait until that time arrived. This year an attempt was made to introduce a complete revision of the shipping act, but certain very serious constitutional difficulties arising out of the necessity of synchronizing the new revised act with the statute of Westminster and
similar shipping acts throughout other parts of the empire made it necessary to postpone the revision. It was thought desirable therefore to bring in this brief bill for the purpose at least of giving effect to .this safety appliance provision with regard to ships' tackle. That is one reason, and to my mind a sufficient reason, and I wish to pay due meed of praise to .my colleague for bringing this forward and doing a measure of justice to those who are engaged in the hazardous work of loading ships in our various ports. It has been recognized for a long time that such hazardous work called for some definite measures .that would reasonably protect the workmen while at their task, and before turning may attention to the controversial clause of the bill I should like to refer briefly to that portion of it.
The hon. member for Comox-Aiberni (Mr. Neill), in his usual sarcastic manner,-


Alan Webster Neill: Thank you.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -referred to this part of the bill in most scathing berms. I think his remarks were entirely unjustifiable. There is nothing mysterious about the nautical or shipping terms used in the bill; they are ordinary terms which are quite common and are fully understood tooth by the officials dealing with the matter and by any person who has had any acquaintance with shipping, and most certainly by everyone associated with the work of seamen. But there is no reason why my hon. friend should sneer at the supposed ignorance of members of the government so far as these nautical .terms are concerned. The hon. gentleman .is not .the only man in the house or in the world who has a fairly wide knowledge of many of these things, and I would suggest to him that he would have been serving those whose interests he frequently pretends .to have at heart-


John Vallance: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is nothing out of
order in that. I say, he would have been serving much better those whose interests he has at heart had he said a word of commendation to the minister for at least the attempt to bring in these measures providing for safety appliances in the ports. In regard to that feature of the bill I would say this- details of course will be discussed in committee ; I am making a very brief reference to the matter here. Provision will be made for an inspector in the ports, to be paid by the government or by the port authorities, to inspect ship's tackle. It is commonly known that frequently stevedoring companies in loading ships will put a more severe strain upon
Canada Shipping Act

the tackle than it is properly constructed to bear, and so in the bill it is provided that when any heavy weights are to be loaded, weights such as heavy machinery, huge castings, and things of that kind, the weight if above a specified point must be clearly marked on the article itself, and due care must be taken in the handling of such heavy weights. Furthermore, the inspector is empowered to enter a ship at any time and demand access to its tackle, and any information, any records or matters of that description that may be required by him in the inspection of tackle to see that it is safe shall be provided. He is also empowered to see that any man working around ships at night shall do so by adequate lighting. He is empowered, again, where he learns of a practice which is becoming very common, of having men working in the hold of ships when huge weights are being lowered, in the larger ships from a comparatively great height, to see that the men are not forced to work under conditions such as they have worked under in the past. I know, as I am sure my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni also knows, that particularly on the Pacific coast where large fir logs, huge things weighing tons, are loaded to be shipped to Japan, frequently serious accidents occur and sometimes death because men have been compelled by shall I say rather avaricious bosses to work in dangerous situations. The minister and his staff have provided in this bill very fair and adequate measures for the protection of such men, and I submit that if for no other reason at all the bill should be welcomed by -the house. It ought to be having the support to-night of members who are not in the house and who ought to be in their places to support it. There is another provision dealing with pilotage, with which I am not so familiar, but which I understand is desirable in the interests of the pilotage authorities of the country.
Now, for these purposes the bill was justified in its introduction into this house. In the closing clause of the bill will be noted a paragraph which I think is absolutely necessary because of the new conditions which arise out of the passage of the statute of Westminster.
I am not presuming now to give any opinion from a legal standpoint, for I am not competent to do so; I merely state the matter as a layman. I understand however that by the passage of the statute of Westminster there are certain provisions of the Canadian act which if disturbed now might be regarded as not in harmony with the statute of West-
minster and the old act, and so it was necessary to insert this clause, closing the bill:
No provision of this act shall be deemed to operate as a repeal within the meaning or pursuant to the provisions of the statute of Westminster, 1931, or otherwise, of any provision of ,the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, of the parliament of Great Britain, or any amendment thereof or addition thereto.
The need for that is that until the Canada Shipping Act is completely revised and brought into complete harmony with the act of Westminster it is imperative that we maintain all rights which shipping interests, sailors, masters and others have under both the Canada Shipping Act and the Merchant Shipping Act, both of which statutes are largely interwoven in their administration in Canada. This is an added reason why the bill should go through now.
May I turn now briefly to the controversial clause of the bill, the amendment to section 935 of the Canada Shipping Act? The hon. member for Bow River a moment ago, with that vigour for which he is so noted, and that eloquence that marks all his utterances, declared that this legislation was designed to create a monopoly in shipping. He said it was designed to serve special interests, the shipping interests, and he also said we had designed the legislation to serve such special interests because we wished to injure the producer. That is summing up very briefly the observations of the hon. gentleman, and I may say that in making these observations he has voiced an opinion which I have heard expressed in the last few days in casual conversation by some who apparently have not given due consideration to the proposals contained in this bill.
I submit in the first place that the bill is not designed for any such purpose; but there is a certain condition obtaining in Canada which has obtained for many years to which it is desirable the Canadian parliament should give consideration. I shall give certain figures in a moment to support my point, but briefly stated it is this: so far as the movement of American grain from American ports to the seaboard is concerned, Canadian ships cannot get any share of that business. Let us put that down clearly as a statement of fact. We are not complaining about it; that is the business of our American neighbours, but under their law Canadian ships cannot share in that or any other business. For the moment, we are dealing largely with grain. On the other hand, Canadian grain or other merchandise

Canada Shipping Act
which moves in large quantities from the head of the lakes may be and has been moved quite freely by American vessels. It has moved just as freely and in almost as large quantities as by Canadian vessels. While hon. gentlemen may feel some apprehension should we attempt to divert a larger portion of this particular trade to Canadian bottoms, I submit that it is certainly no crime for the Canadian parliament, this government, myself or anyone else to propose to nurture Canadian shipping interests. It is no greater crime than proposing that we should nurture Canadian interests in any other branch of activity.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: The minister says that at the present time Canadian grain can be moved and is being moved practically as freely by American bottoms from Canadian ports to seaboard as in Canadian boats. Could that be done from one Canadian port to another?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will bear with me while I make a general argument, I will come back and demonstrate that point in a moment. Let us lay this down as being fair at least: it is the business of parliament to nurture Canadian interests, whatever those interests may be. In this instance we have found that Canadian shipping interests on the great lakes are subject to a discrimination. As I have stated already, they are precluded from sharing in the business from American sources but they must share the Canadian business with American bottoms. Let us examine this briefly. With the permission of the house I shall place on Hansard a table which I shall analyse very briefly. I shall not merely ask to place this upon Hansard, I shall deal with it step toy step. For the sake of clarity, I will ask Hansard to place one column of the table in 'tabulated form upon the record. This table is as follows:
Season 1919
Bushels
Canadian boats to Canadian ports.. 115,124,718 Canadian boats to American ports.. 1,902,631 American boats to American ports..	8,964,708
125,992,057
Season 1920
Canadian boats to Canadian ports..	76,740,790
Canadian boats to American ports..	12,774,790
American boats to American ports..	52,545,910
142,061,490
Season 1921
Canadian boats to Canadian ports.. 131,832,493 Canadian boats to American ports..	7,049,463
American boats to American ports. .	91,589,910
230,471,866
Season 1922
Bushels
Canadian boats to Canadian ports.. 135,762,088 Canadian boats to American ports..	14,110,334
American boats to Canadian ports..	383,148
American boats to American ports.. 141,695,117
291,950,687
Season 1923
Canadian boats to Canadian ports.. 163,381,617 Canadian boats to American ports.. 17,071,130 American boats to Canadian ports..	1,220,900
American boats to American ports. . 126,476,071
308,149,718
Season 1924
Canadian boats to Canadian ports.. 158,966,375 Canadian boats to American ports..	8,856.846
American boats to Canadian ports.. 4,241,535 American boats to American ports.. 115,478,030
287,542,786
Season 1925
Canadian boats to Canadian ports.. 149,184,387 Canadian boats to American ports.. 15,605.354 American boats to Canadian ports..	113,810
American boats to American ports.. 151,681,062
316,584,613
Season 1926
Canadian boats to Canadian ports.. 152,092,805 Canadian boats to American ports.. 30,875,062 American boats to Canadian ports..	4,950,400
American boats to American ports.. 116,197,993
304,116,260
Season 1927
Canadian boats to Canadian ports.. 129,912,426 Canadian boats to American ports..	17,337,075
American boats to Canadian ports.. 7,542,345 American boats to American ports.. 136,380,527
291,172,373
Season 1928
Canadian boats to Canadian ports.. 178,506,400 Canadian boats to American ports.. 26,563.669 American boats to Canadian ports.. 19,082,143 American boats to American ports.. 179,652,127
403,804,339
Season 1929
Canadian boats to Canadian ports.. 104,685,100 Canadian boats to American ports.. 21,321,267 American boats to American ports..	71,193,058
197,199.425
Season 1930
Canadian boats to Canadian ports.. 117,255,555 Canadian boats to American ports.. 5,856,884 American boats to American ports.. 96,642,483
219,754,922
Season 1931
Canadian boats to Canadian ports.. 127,580,919 Canadian boats to American ports..	4,611,769
American boats to American ports..	72,421,040
204,613,728
Canada Shipping Act

This shows the clearances from the head of the lakes for the years 1919 to 1931, and I have 1932 on a separate sheet. I will refer hastily to the figures leaving out the odd numerals. I think it will be seen very readily to what degree American boats have shared in our business. In referring to tonnages, I will refer to those for total grains rather than just wheat as it will give a more complete picture.


Edward James Young: Has the minister the rate3 for those years?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will base another argur ment upon rates. In 1919 there was moved by Canadian boats to Canadian ports, 115,000,000 bushels; by Canadian boats to American ports, 2,000,000 bushels and by American boats to American ports, 9,000,000 bushels. In the next year there was moved by Canadian boats to Canadian ports, 76,000,000 bushels; by Canadian boats to American ports,
12.000.	000 bushels and by American boats to American ports, 52,000,000 bushels. In the next year there was moved by Canadian boats to Canadian ports, 131,000,000 bushels; by Canadian boats to American ports, 7,000,000 bushels and by American boats to American ports, 91,000,000 bushels. The figures show the same relation right down the line, but later on they are even more startling. For instance in 1923 the movement by Canadian boats to Canadian ports was 163,000,000 bushels; by Canadian boats to American ports,
17.000.	000 bushels; American boats to Canadian ports, 1,000,000 bushels and American boats to American ports, 126,000,000 bushels. Those figures show the competition by American boats in carrying grain from Canadian sources. A very substantial portion of the movement by American boats to American ports is moved back again into Canadian sources. The movement in 1929 by Canadian boats to Canadian ports was 104,000,000 bushels; by Canadian boats to American ports, 21,000,000 bushels and by American boats to American ports, 71,000,000 bushels. In that same year there were 51,000,000 bushels moved back again into Canadian channels, and largely by American boats from Buffalo to Montreal.


John Vallance: Has the minister the
figures showing how much was carried by American and how much by Canadian boats?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I have not.


John Vallance: That is a very important point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is important, but we do know that a very large portion is moved by American bottoms. The firm of Boland and Cornelius of Buffalo handle the majority of this Canadian grain to Montreal. If my hon. friend will follow me he will see that, all the way down in this list there is a movement by American boats from Canadian sources to American ports. The figures are
72,000,000 bushels, 96,000,000 bushels, 71,000,000 bushels, 179,000,000 bushels, 116,000,000 bushels, 151,000,000 bushels and so on. We are arguing that a larger proportion of that grain ought to be moved by Canadian boats from Canadian sources to the destination in eastern Canada. So much for that.
Then we come to the grain moved to Buffalo by American boats where it goes into storage. The voyage is ended as far as we are concerned. Buffalo is a sort of kicking-off place; the grain may go to New York, to Baltimore, to Portland, to Boston or to Montreal and, to a lesser degree, to Halifax or Saint John during the winter time. However, that is a movement by rail and does not concern us at this time. The fact is that the shipment ends at Buffalo and becomes a new shipment when it goes on to Montreal. American boats are allowed to go in to pick up this grain and move it to Montreal. This cannot be done under the American law with the conditions reversed.


Edward James Young: Where would such a reverse condition prevail?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There might be a movement from Duluth to lake ports, although nothing like as large as far as grain is concerned. There might be a considerable movement in other commodities. Grain might be moved from Duluth or Chicago to Port Col-borne, to Midland or other ports and from there moved on to Montreal.


Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: On grain moved from Buffalo to Montreal, could you get the preference?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, if that grain is
shipped on a through bill of lading from the head of the lakes, it would get the preference just the same as if it went direct to Montreal.


Edward James Young: I do not think the minister grasped my question. I wanted to know where a condition prevails where United States goods come from a United States port to a Canadian port and then back again into the United States.

Canada Shipping Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have already stated from Duluth, for instance, to the bay ports and then back to Buffalo, then shipped down to New York direct by rail, or shipped to Port Colborne, for example, and then by rail or the Erie canal to New York or other United States ports.


Edward James Young: Has the minister any figures in regard to that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have them somewhere,
but I cannot lay my hands on them at the moment. The movement of course, is very much smaller on the Canadian side. I have figures somewhere showing the movement runs from about 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 bushels to, I think, 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 in a year. It is not a large movement, but the principle is there just the same that you cannot move United States grain by Canadian vessels to a Canadian port where it is again moved back into United States channels.


John Vallance: In the evidence submitted before the Senate committee, was it not proven that very little, if any, of the grain going from Buffalo back to Montreal ever went out in United States bottoms?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


John Vallance: The evidence says so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My information is-and
it was very carefully prepared for me-that the major portion of it is4 moved by United States bottoms.


John Vallance: The minister has not
the figures?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


John Vallance: From Buffalo to Montreal?


Henry Herbert Stevens: From Buffalo to Montreal, and I gave the name of one of the large shipping companies which handles most of it. I think we are clear, however, on that discrepancy between, shall I say the rights of Canadian shipping interests on the lakes as against United States shipping interests.


Albert Joseph Brown: In order that we may be
clear on that point, is the minister prepared to assert that the United States laws would prevent Canadian ships from taking United States grain from Port Colborne back to a United States port?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Albert Joseph Brown: That is a parallel case.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I say that a Canadian shipper cannot carry United States grain from a United States port to a Canadian port and
then by the same or another vessel, either one or the other, carry it from that Canadian port back into a United States port. Furthermore, they cannot do that for either leg of the movement. That is why in this bill, as will be noted, the minister has provided:
No goods shall be transported by water or by land and water, from one place in Canada to another place in Canada, either directly or by way of a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation in any ship other than a British ship.
That is why that provision is inserted. That brings us into conformity with the United States law in a reverse situation. I have under my hand the United States law which I might read at this point in juxtaposition with the clause I have read from the present bill:
No merchandise shall be transported by water, under penalty of forfeiture thereof, from one port of the United States to another port of the United States, either directly or via a foreign port, or for any part of the voyage, in any other vessel than a vessel of the United States.
That is the United States law and It will be seen that the legislation we are now enacting is practically the same.


John Vallance: At the present time no United States bottom can take Canadian wheat from one Canadian port to another.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is true, if the law is strictly applied. I am glad my hon. friend has mentioned that because I was overlooking a point. During past years it has been the practice to permit United States vessels to come into Canadian waters to move grain. This will be seen by the following figures. I will take, for instance, a series of years showing the number of bushels carried by United States boats from one Canadian port to another:
Year	Bushels
1924		 1.000,000
1925		 4,000.000
1926		 4,900,000
1927		 7.000.000
1928		 19,000,000


William Thomas Lucas: Is that from a Canadian port to a Canadian port?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, by United States vessels with the permission of the government of Canada.
Let me make this point clear: It was admitted that some years ago there was possibly a shortage of Canadian tonnage to cope with the full movement of our Canadian wheat, but during the last six or seven years there has been a tremendous accretion to Canadian tonnage for the purpose of taking care of more and more of this business. To-day we
Canada Shipping Act

*have sufficient Canadian tonnage to handle all Our business and also to take care of a substantial portion of that which has been moved by United States vessels to United States ports.
Mr. VALLAN'CE: Has the minister the information as to the time of year that those volumes of wheat were moved by United States bottoms?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Albert Joseph Brown: Is that not wheat that was in storage?


John Vallance: That is the point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Possibly some of it was, but not to the extent of 19,000,000 or
21,000,000 bushels.


Charles A. Stewart: I think the minister will remember that every fall there was a row over this very matter and United States bottoms were allowed in.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is true.


Charles A. Stewart: I know there was a row three or four years ago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but the point I made a moment ago must not be lost sight of. It was recognized that there was a shortage of Canadian tonnage and Canadian firms remedied that from year to year by increasing their tonnage and putting more capital into the building of ships until, I think, in the last five years-and some hon. gentlemen who are better informed than I am may correct me- there was developed sufficient tonnage to take care of this business and to-day we have a great surplus of tonnage.


Alfred Speakman: Might I ask one more question purely for the sake of accuracy? As I understand the matter, when this bill becomes law, under the laws of the two countries it will no longer be possible for Canadian grain to go to Buffalo or another United States port and then back to a Canadian port, by any line whatever?


Henry Herbert Stevens: By Canadian vessels.


Alfred Speakman: By either. The United States law would prevent its being done by a Canadian vessel. Wheat having once been shipped from a Canadian port to Buffalo could not be reshipped to a Canadian port.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is losing
sight of the fact that the United States coastwise law is limited to grain moving from one United States destination to another United States destination. In this instance grain will be moved by Canadian vessels just the same as it has been moved on both legs of the route by Canadian vessels.


James Malcolm: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but I think he realizes that the privilege of moving grain in the fall by United States boats has not been on account of shortage of Canadian tonnage; it has been to provide extra storage at bay ports for winter unloading and shipment by rail.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In part, yes.


James Malcolm: Mostly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not say mostly,
because my hon. friend will note in some instances the figures are very large. May I suggest to my hon. friends that I have only forty minutes and we are not in committee. I wish to deal with one or two points which really come under my department and I am afraid I am not making very rapid progress.
Naturally there comes to the minds of hon. members the question of rates; that is, I think, the all-important point. We have before us evidence of the rates, for instance, over a period of years. I am taking the rates for the years 1923 to 1932 and for the months of July, August, September and October. Taking the average of those four months the rates from Fort William to Montreal since 1923 have been as follows:
Rate
per bushel
Year	cents
1923		 10.45
1924		 8.40
1925		  8.30
1926		 8.94
1927		 7.80
1928		 8.40
1929		 8.35
1930		 8.05
1931		 5.90
1932		 5.75
It will be noted that the average rate during that period, with the exception of the last two years, exceeded eight cents a bushel. What I want to place before my hon. friends is this. When we are chided as we were a moment ago by the hon. member for Bow River with not having done any better last year than fixing the maximum rate at 61 cents, it is not quite fair criticism in the light of the rates that have prevailed during all those years. In other words, there is an element of fairness in all of this, and we thought that last year in preventing the lake shippers from raising their rates above 61 cents we were giving them not only a fair deal but at the same time a chance to live, which they were not having under the very low rate which had obtained for a month or two. I am certain of this, that the producers of western Canada are not going to ask that they shall continue to be served by rail or boat at a constantly

Canada Shipping Act
losing rate. It cannot be done economically; it cannot continue. The evidence I have placed before the committee shows that for a period of ten years the average rate has been upwards of eight cents, and therefore we ought not to be condemned for fixing the maximum rate at 61 cents. That brings me to the point of control.
My hon. friend from Dauphin and others have asked, is there any effective control? Some slighting remarks were made about the Inland Water Freight Rates Act. I think that was not wisely done. The Inland Water Freight Rates Act, it is true, does not say that the Board of Grain Commissioners shall fix rates at which cargoes shall be moved, in the way that the railway board fixes rates for rail traffic, and there are obvious reasons why that would be undesirable. I think it would be equally inimical to the producers and shippers as well as to others because the board might even fix a rate which was above that which the boats would charge under open competition. There is open competition at the present time. There is not a monopoly on the great lakes; let us get that clear. Many boats are handling grain to-day below the maximum rate fixed. The maximum rate was fixed here about two weeks ago when the matter was referred to me by the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners. The board under the act brought the matter to my attention as a matter of routine and a maximum rate was fixed from the head of the lakes to Montreal, Sorel and Quebec of 6| cents, which is looked upon as a fair and equitable rate. Somebody has said that it was unwise to fix maximum rates, suggesting there was something bad about it. Why, Mr. Speaker, the fixation of a maximum rate, leaving it open for competition to give a rate below the maximum, is obviously better than having a rate fixed by some board of commissioners as has been suggested.


John Vallance: Only to the exporter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: To the producer too.


Air. COOTE:: Would the minister be good enough to bring down to the committee tomorrow morning a copy of the order fixing the maximum rate?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will have that order brought down. Let me now turn to the Inland Water Freight Rates Act. I may say that I criticized this act pretty severely at the time it was passed. My hon. friend (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) will remember when the late Mr. Low was minister, standing right where I am now standing, when he passed this act.


Charles A. Stewart: I will say .you criticized it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And it had a rather bad effect, I believe. Certainly we did criticize the act. The act has been in force. It has seldom been used, it is true, but it has been held there, as it were, over the shippers, and my hon. friends who are somewhat perturbed in the interests of the producers of the west could have invoked this act at any time, but they have not done so-not that I criticize them for that, but they did not invoke the act when the rates were ten and nine and eight cents. But we are putting it into force. We are exercising federal authority. The act says that every shipper shall immediately after entering into a charter party file with the board the terms of his charter party. That is the first clause. The next clause provides, and I think this clause has value and merit in it:
. It shall be the duty of the board to receive and tabulate all such tariffs.
That is the first duty. The next duty is this, that if the board on examination of the rates find that there is any deficiency of cargo space-I pause there for the purpose of emphasizing a very important point. If there is a deficiency of cargo space as there was in the years that I mentioned a moment ago, the particulars of which are under my hand, then what is done is to invoke the powers under the shipping act and suspend the coastwise laws. The clause was read by the Minister of Marine, but I shall read it again. It is section 938 of the Canada Shipping Act:
The governor in council may, from time to time, by order in council declare that the foregoing provisions of this part-
That is the provisions that we are dealing with in this bill, namely sections 935 and other sections:
-shall not, for the period specified in such order in council apply, either throughout Canada or in any specified waters of Canada, to the ships or vessels, or to any specified, ascertained or ascertainable class or number of the ships or vessels, of any foreign country.
That is, the governor in council may admit foreign tonnage into our waters if it is found under this act that there is a shortage of cargo space, and that has been done in almost every year, or in many years at least, during the last ten or twelve or thirteen years. Not only is it to be done in .that case, but should there be any monopoly, should there be any challenge of the right of the government or of the Board of Grain Commissioners under this act to fix a maximum rate, this would then be applied. It has been the practice of governments to do it. It was done many times in the past, repeatedly done, and it is there for us to do it.
Canada Shipping Act

Should that not be considered sufficient, we have a regulation or a clause in the Customs Act, clause 298, which provides:
The governor in council may, from time to time, make regulations for declaring what shall be coasting trade or inland navigation respectively, and how the same shall be regulated in any case or class of cases, and may declare any trade or voyage on the seas, rivers, lakes or waters within or adjacent to Canada, whether to or from any place within or without Canada, or whether such seas, rivers, lakes or waters are or are not geographically, or for the purpose of other acts or laws, inland waters, to be a coasting trade or a coasting voyage within the meaning of this act and of such regulations, any may also, from time to time, by regulation, dispense, on any condition which he sees fit to impose, with such of the requirements of this act as he deems it inexpedient to enforce with regard to vessels engaged in any such trade or with respect to any case or class of cases.
In other words, under the Customs Act the governor in council has power to admit foreign vessels into the coastwise trade, both at sea, inland and elsewhere. So I submit to the committee that there is ample protection against a possible monopoly or against a violation of the principles of this bill.
I have taken more time than I expected, Mr. Speaker, largely because I have tried to answer questions at this stage instead of in committee. Let me conclude with just one or two observations.
Will the shipping interests, someone asks, benefit at the expense of the producer? I submit that that will not be the case. Certainly if I thought for a moment it would, I would never support this bill. I do say that we are entitled to take cognizance of the fact that our 100,000,000 bushels a year is carried in foreign vessels, and we have no opportunity of a like access to the American market. We are entitled to take cognizance af that fact, and to provide regulations which will safeguard Canadian shipping interests. It is not intended, however, that these shipping interests shall take advantage of such a privilege, to the detriment of the producer or shipper. As I have said, ample power is given to us, under the Inland Water Freight Rates Act, in the shipping act and in the Customs Act, to provide against any such encroachments on the rights of shippers, or any danger of a monopoly. Furthermore, such powers have been frequently exercised, and are recognized as common practice in this country.


George Gibson Coote: The minister was frank enough to say, as I understood him. that the purpose of the bill was to give protection to Canadian ship owners. Then he went on to say that he thought in this regard Canadian legislation-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. member would be content to call it eleven o'clock, if he intends to make a speech.


George Gibson Coote: I should be very happy if
Mr. Speaker would call it eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 17, 1933