1933-02-03

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) presented the report of the special committee appointed tio prepare and report lists of members to compose the select standing committees of the house, as follows:
PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Messieurs
Anderson (Toronto-
High Park), Beaubien,
Burns,
Casgrain,
Casselman,
[Stage Direction]
Elliott,
Esling,
Gagnon,
Gray, _
Guthrie,
Hanson
(York-S unbury), Jacobs,
Kennedy
(Peace River),
Lapointe,
Lawson,
Lennox,
Macdonald (South Cape Breton), MacNicol,
Mareil,
McPhee,
Mercier (St. Henri), Mitchell,
Morand,
Ralston,
Stinson,
Sullivan,
Thompson
(East Simcoe), Turnbull.-29.
(Quorum 10)

Select Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Ahearn,	MacMillan,
Anderson (Toronto-	McGibbon,
High Park),	McIntosh,
Beaubier,	McLure,
Bell (West Hamilton),	Manion,
Beynon,	Mercier (Laurier-
Bothwell,	Outremont),
Bradette,	Moore (Ontario),
Bury,	Nicholson,
Butcher,	Pouliot,
Cantley,	Price,
Casgmin,	Rogers,
Casselman,	Ross,
Chevrier,	Ryerson,
Dor ion,	St-Pfere,
Dubuc,	Sanderson,
Dupre,	Seguin,
Edwards,	Shaver,
Esling,	Simpson
Fiset, Sir Eugene,	(West Algoma)
Fraser (Cariboo),	Smith
Gardiner,	(Cumberland),
Geary,	Speakman,
Hackett,	Stewart
Hanbury,	(West Edmonto
Hanson (Skeena),	Stitt (Nelson),
Harris,	Totzke,
Heaps,	Turnbull,
Jones,	Urquhart,
Kennedy	Vallance.
(Peace River),	White (London),
Lacroix,	White
Laurin,	(Mount Royal)
Macdonald	
(Kings, P.E.I.),
(Quorum 20)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Ahearn,	Lafloche,
Anderson (Halton).	Larue,
Arsenault,	Lawson,
Barber,	Luchkovich,
Barrette,	Maclnnis,
Bell (St. Antoine),	Mackenzie (Vancou
Bowen,	Centre),
Brown,	McDade,
Chaplin,	McGregor,
Chevrier,	Maloney,
Cowan (LongLake),	Mercier (Laurier-
Denis,	Outremont),
Deslauriers,	Mitchell,
Duff,	Moore (Ontario),
Dumaine,	Myers,
Dupre,	Peck,
Dupuis,	Pettit,
Edwards,	Raymond,
Ernst,	Sanderson,
Fournier,	Seguin,
Gobeil,	Spence,
Golding,	Stinson,
Gott,	Sullivan,
Hall,	Tummon,
Irvine,	Verville,
Kennedy (Winnipeg	Wilson.-50.
South Centre),
(Quorum 15)
STANDING ORDERS Messieurs
Arthurs,
Baker,
Bell (West Hamilton), Bell (St. Antoine), Blair,
Bury,
Cahan,
Deslauriers,
Fontaine,
Fraser (Northumberland, 0.),
Hay,
LaVergne,
Luchkovich,
McKenzie (Assiniboia), Mercier (St. Henri), Munn,
Plunkett,
Rowe,
Thompson (Lanark), Woodsworth.-20.
(Quorum 8)

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons)
Messieurs
Anderson (Halton), Baribeau,
Belee,
Boulanger,
Bourgeois,
Br asset,
Charters,
Desrochers,
Dubois,
Embury,
Esling,
Factor,
Fortin,
Girouard,
Gott,
Gray,
Hay,
Heaps,
Howden,
Lucas,
MacLean,
Maloney,
Marcil,
Matthews,
McKenzie (Assiniboia), McLure,
Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon),
Munn,
Murphy,
Parent,
Peek,
Perras,
Pickel,
Porteous,
Price,
Quinn,
Rheaume,
Rinfret,
Roberge,
Robinson,
Rowe,
Ryerson,
St-Pere,
Short,
Simpson (North Simcoe), Spankie, Spencer, Spotton,
Taylor,
Tetreault,
Yerville,
Wilson,
Woodsworth,
Wright.-54.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Messieurs
Anderson (Halton), Arthurs,
Beaubien,
Beaubier,
Bell (West Hamilton), Bothwell,
Bourgeois,
Cahan,
Coote,
Cowan (Long Lake), Cowan (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay), Davies,
Donnelly,
Dubuc,
[Stage Direction]
Dumaine,
Duranleau,
Edwards,
Embury,
Fournier,
Fraser (Cariboo), Fraser (Northumberland,©.),
Gagnon,
Garland (Carleton), Geary,
Girouard,
Hanson
(York-Sunbury), Ilsley,
Jacobs,
Lennox,
MacDonald (South Cape Breton), Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre), Maephail, Miss,
Perras,
Pouliot,
Power,
Ralston,
Rhodes,
Robinson,
Ross,
Rutherford,
Smith
(Cumberland),
[Stage Direction]
Select Standing Committees
Smith	Stanley,
(Victoria-Carleiton), Steuart (Leeds), Smoke,	Swanston,
Speakman,	Taylor,
Willis.-50.
(Quorum 15)
BANKING AND COMMERCE Messieurs
MARINE AND FISHERIES Messieurs
Baribeau,
Barrette,
Beaubien,
Black (Halifax), Brasset,
Cantley,
Cardin,
Dickie,
[Stage Direction]
Duranleau,
Ernst,
G anong,
Hanson (Skeena), Ilsley,
Jean,
Johnstone,
Larue,
MacDonald (South Cape Breton),
(Quorum 10)
MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messieurs
Beaubien,
Belec
Bell (St. John-Albert), Beynon,
Bowman,
Bradette,
Cotnam,
Cowan (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay),
Denis,
Desrochers,
1'ickie,
Duguay,
Esling,
Fraser (Northumberland, O.), Garland (Bow River), Gershaw,
Gordon,
Hurtubise,
(Quorum 10)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Arthurs,
Baker,
Beynon,
Bothwell,
Bowman,
Campbell,
Casgrain,
Chaplin,
Donnelly,
Dorion,
Ernst,
Euler,
Fafard,
Gagnon,
Ganong,
Geary,
Hackett,
Hanson
(York-Sunbury), Harris,
Hepburn,
Howard,
Hurtubise,
Irvine,
Jacobs,
Lapointe,
Barber,
Bertrand,
Blair,
Bowman,
Bouchard,
Boulanger,
Bowen,
Boyes,
Brown,
Burns,
Campbell,
Carmichael,
Cayley,
Coote,
Davies.
Donnelly,
Dubuc,
Dupuis,
Elliott,
Fafard,
Garland (Bow River), Gobeil,
Gott,
Goulet,
Hall,
Hay,
Jones,
Loucks,
Lucas.
McGillis,
McKenzie
(Assiniboia),
Laurin,
Lawson,
Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre), MacMillan,
Matthews,
McGibbon,
McPhee,
Mercier (St. Henri), Peck,
Perley (Qu'Appelle), Pettit,
Power,
Ralston,
Raymond,
Rhodes,
Robinson,
Sanderson,
Smoke,
Spencer,
Stanley,
Stevens,
Sullivan,
Vallanee,
White (Mount Royal), Willis.-50.
McPhee,
Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Motherwell,
Mullins,
Myers,
Perley (Qu'Appelle), Picket,
Porteous,
Rowe,
Sauve,
Seguin,
Senn,
Shaver,
Simpson
(North Simcoe), Smith
(Victoria-Carleton), Spotton,
Sproule,
Stewart (Lethbridge), Stirling,
Swanston,
Taylor,
Thompson (Lanark), Totzke,
Tummon,
Vallanee,
Weese,
Arsenault,
Bell (St. Antoine),
Bell (St. John-Albert), Black (Halifax), Bourassa,
Ferland,
Golding,
Gordon,
Hackett,
He; nan,
Howard,
Jean,
Johnstone,
Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre), Lacroix,
Macdougall,
MacNieol,
Macdonald (Kings, P.E.I.), Maelnnis, MacLean,
Me Dade,
McLure,
Neill. '
Pouliot,
Plunkett,
Price,
Quinn,
Reid,
Ross,
Short,
Speakman,
Stitt (Selkirk), Urquhart,
Veniot.-35.
Ilsley,
Johnstone.
Kennedy (Peace Riter), Macdougall,
Mitchell,
Mullins,
Nicholson,
Parent.
Plunkett,
Roberge,
Simpson (West Algoma),
Smith (Cumberland), Stewart (West Edmonton),
Stewart (Lethbridge), Stitt (Nelson), Tetreault,
Weir (Macdonald).-35.
Macphail, Miss Matthews, McGibbon, McIntosh,
Morand,
Neill,
Nicholson,
Parent,
Perley, Sir George, Reid,
St-Pere,
Stanley,
Stitt (Selkirk), Turnbull,
Veniot,
White (London), Woodsworth, Wright.-35.
Weir (Melfort), Weir (Macdonald), Young.-60.
(Quorum 20)
(Quorum 10)
(Quorum 15)
AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION Messieurs
[Stage Direction]
Business oj the House


[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Bouchard,
Coote,
Esling,
Lafleehe,
Macdougall,
Mareil,
(Quorum 7)
Rinfret,
Rogers,
Stirling,
Sutherland,
Wilson,
Young.-12.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Cotnam he substituted for that of Mr. Manion on the special committee appointed to consider and report upon Bill No. 2. an Act to Readjust the Representation of the House of Commons.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messieurs
Barber,
Bertrand,
Bourassa,
Boyes,
Butcher,
Carmichael,
Charters,
Chevrier,
Cotnam,
Dubois,
Dupuis,
Factor,
Ferland,
Fontaine,
Fortin,
Fraser (Cariboo), Gagnon,
Girouard,
Guthrie,
Hepburn,
Irvine,
Jones,
Lafleehe,
Larue,
LaV ergne, MacMillan,
McGillis,
McGregor,
McIntosh,
Mareil,
Peck,
Perley, Sir George, Pouliot,
Quinn,
Rheaume,
Short,
Smoke,
Stirling,
Thauvette,
Thompson
(East Simcoe), Thompson (Lanark), White (London), Wright.-44.

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messieurs
Ahearn,
Barrette,
Black (Halifax),
Bourassa,
Carmichael,
Cayley,
Garland (Carleton) Hanbury,
Howard,
Howden,
Lafleehe, Macphail, Miss, Mullins, Ryerson,
Semi,
Spankie,
Spence,
Sproule, Thauvette.-20.
Mr. RHODES moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: That the select standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether it is still the intention of the government to bring down certain amendments to the Grain Act, as previously announced, more particularly that with respect to the separate grading of garnet wheat.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: It is not thought desirable that any revision of the Grain Act should be proceeded with, and the information that we have secured is not considered completely satisfactory to warrant our proceeding with the particular item referred to.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his understanding^ is the same as my own with respect to the taking up of estimates on Thursday and Friday. I understood last night that the Prime Minister wished to proceed to-day with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce and expressed the view that that might have to be by consent. Let me say at once that so far as the official opposition is concerned we are quite agreeable to proceeding to-day with the estimates of that department by consent. My inquiry at the moment is as to whether it will be necessary or not for the estimates of all other departments to be taken up in committee of supply on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday before they can be taken up, except by consent, on Thursday or Friday. I believe that last night, from his remarks, the Prime Minister may have had in mind that the house having taken up in supply some supplementary estimates of the fiscal year 1932-33, we might be considered as having already entered upon the estimates of these particular departments. My reading of the
Business of the House

rule is that unless a department has had its estimates gone into before a Thursday or Friday, it cannot, except by consent, have its estimates considered on a Thursday or Friday, and that this applies to the main estimates of the session and not to supplementary estimates pertaining to a previous fiscal year. If there is any doubt about this, perhaps His Honour the Speaker would give a ruling on the matter.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime
Minister): It was because I was somewhat uncertain about the matter myself that I mentioned it last night as I did. Had it not been for that uncertainty it would have been unnecessary to have brought it to the attention of the house. The fact is that this house as at present constituted has already resolved itself into committee of supply and that committee of supply has considered the estimates of several of the departments, including Trade and Commerce. It is equally true that the estimates considered were supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1933, and I was somewhat uncertain as to whether, reading the rule, you could not technically say that the obligation had been discharged when the house was in committee on the estimates of any department on Thursday and Friday, as in fact was the case. It is true that in the early days of this session we passed a motion suspending the operation of the rules, whereby it became possible to have every day regarded as a government day. That is clear. I think it would probably be the sense of the house that it would be a more equitable observance of the rule if we treated the supply that was granted, by referring the items of several departments to the committee, on supplementary estimates, as not having reference to the main estimates. That would strike me as the more equitable view; if I were in the opposition I would take that view. That is the reason I mentioned it last night as 1 did, and by consent we will take up Trade and Commerce and observe the rule hereafter as though the supplementary estimates had not comprised the estimates of any department that had to be referred to the committee for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1934.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is entirely satisfactory. My impression is that, at the time the house passed the resolution to which my right hon. friend has referred, a reservation of the kind mentioned was made by the opposition. There is one other point which I should like to have understood between us before we discuss the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. It is the same point that arose last year with respect

to the ten per cent deduction from the salaries of the civil service. As hon. members will have noticed by the estimates, apparently the intention is to continue the ten per cent deduction this year, though I understood last year from the government that the deduction was to be for one year only, and that it would not apply to the present year. I am not raising that point at the moment however. My question now is whether the government should not in the first instance introduce its bill, authorizing the ten per cent deduction and let us settle the matter of principle, which will be necessary on the bill, rather than attempt to settle it item by item as we discuss the estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not proposed to
vote in the aggregate a sum greater than ninety per cent of what the figure heretofore has been. It will be observed that at the end of each item a deduction of ten per cent is made, so that the vote will be only for ninety per cent of the salaries as they were prior to last year. That is my understanding of the situation after the discussion I have had with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). I cannot see that it will make any difference inasmuch as the amount available under the action of the committee for the purposes of discharging the public services will be only the sums mentioned in the final estimates, as indicated by the document tabled yesterday. If it would affect in any sense the principle, I could understand there being some importance in passing the legislation, but as it stands I cannot see that it would be necessary to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It does affect
the principle. This house this year has not decided that the salaries of the civil servants shall be cut ten per cent, and until the house does so decide I do not think we should by any act, either implied or otherwise, countenance that action. The same point was raised last year and the government admitted eventually that the course of procedure which I urged should be followed was the correct one. While we were discussing the items under trade and commerce we withheld any which affected salaries until after the government had brought in its bill and the bill had passed this house. All I am asking is that the same procedure shall be followed this year.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) :: Mr. Speaker, as my right hon. friend
nas said, we covered this point quite fully last April. Personally I have no objection to the position he has taken, that the better course to follow would be to proceed with the

French Language
bill, but I would point out that strictly to follow that course means that the bill would have to be introduced at the beginning of the session and there might be no opportunity to consider the estimates as long as the house desired to debate that particular bill. There-:ore, it was felt to be in the interest of public business that we should present the estimates to the house in order to provide it with business, it being the intention of the government to bring in immediately a bill to deal with the question of the ten per cent reduction. That bill has been prepared and printed and I hope it will be submitted to the house the first of next week.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no desire to delay the procedure in any way, but I would point out to my hon. friend that he has had at least four months in which to prepare the bill. It is not our fault if it has not been introduced ahead of the estimates.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It was not a question of
requiring four months in which to prepare the bill, it was a question of deciding as to whether it was in the public interest to make a ten per cent deduction. The question of the preparation of the bill is a minor matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is understood that we shall proceed in this matter at this session as we did previously


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The bill will be introduced, I hope, on Monday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will withhold any items which relate to salaries.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As I understand it, last
year we withheld those items which hon. gentlemen opposite desired should be withheld.



FRENCH LANGUAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOSEPH A. BRADETTE (North Temiskaming):	Mr. Speaker, I have before
me a daily bulletin published by the Department of Trade and Commerce. This bulletin contains information which is very useful to every section of the country, and I should like to inquire of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) if it would be possible to have such bulletins printed bilingua lly?
Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, these bulletins are really brief editorial presentations of what otherwise would be technical reports
which emerge from time to time from the bureau of statistics. They are put out for press circulation to facilitate the distribution of information to the public through the press. Up to the present time there has been no necessity for their being printed in the French language, and to do so would double the cost of production without perhaps adding anything effective to their value. My hon. friends will please bear in mind that these are specially distributed to the members of the press gallery.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Some of the members
of the press gallery are French speaking and they have not time to make a translation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No request has been
made for publication in French. These are issued very promptly and the translation into French would cause some delay and possibly some of their real merit would be lost. However, I have no objection to offer in the matter. Up to the present this subject has not been brought to my attention other than by a question placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). If it is thought desirable that these bulletins should be printed in French as well as English, we will endeavour to do so, although I would point out that it will double the cost.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In view of the request
made by the hon. member I think the government should see that they are printed in French.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very well, we will do so.


Mr. BRADETTE:: There is a considerable
demand in my section of the country for these bulletins, and I am glad to hear the Minister's decision that they will be printed also in French.



WHEAT MARKETING BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, in view of the
interest shown in different parts of western Canada in the setting up of a national wheat marketing board, may I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if the government has given any consideration to the establishment of such a board or to the calling of an international wheat conference of the wheat exporting countries of the world to deal with the questions of production and marketing.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It has not been considered necessary
to consult other nations as to the domestic policy of this country.
1T66
City oj Ottawa Agreement

PENSION ACT ADMINISTRATION On the orders of the day:
Mr. PETER MoGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):	I should like to inquire of the
Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren) if it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation based upon the findings of the committee investigating the workings of the Pension Act.


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: This matter is now under consideration by the government.



CITY OF OTTAWA


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of Bill No. 15, to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Agreement with the city of Ottawa.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
that this agreement is a duplication of the one in force last year and save as to date of its application does not differ in any particular.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: My right hon.
friend is absolutely correct in his assumption, this bill simply continues the existing arrangement for the current year, a considerable portion of which has already expired.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 19, to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Publication.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister might explain the significance of this section.


Mr. MURPHY:: The proposed amendment is the result of a request of the law clerks 
of the house. I think I could not do better than read the letter which was submitted by Messrs. Troop and Ollivier on June 26, 1928, to the Deputy Minister of Justice. This letter reads:
Dear Mr. Edwards:
The statutes of 1928 are being printed rapidly and we are comparing and correcting the proofs.
There is a serious matter to which you will allow us to draw your attention in this respect.
By section 46 (2) of the Fisheries Act, Revised Statutes, chapter 73, by section 4 (3) of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, Revised Statutes, chapter 100, the regulations under these acts are to be printed in the prefix to the annual volume of the statutes. We have had to do this for years past and it is the cause of delay in getting out of the statutes. This year is worse than usual, as we have to print again the special fishery regulations for each province, a small volume in themselves, besides the amending regulations. The migratory birds regulations are not so long.
Some years ago, when Sir Lomer Gouin was Minister of Justice, we brought this to his attention and he advised us to leave the regulations out if any delay was caused in issuing the statutes. We asked him to bring in a bill to amend these two acts, to delete these provisions, but it was overlooked.
These regulations are printed in the Canada Gazette and printed and distributed widely by the departments concerned. They are printed for the third time in our annual volume.
We will be sending this prefix to the printing bureau to-morrow, and would like just to show it to you before doing so, and you will understand the point clearly. Mr. Troop will call in and it will only take a moment of your time.
Yours sincerely,
Troop and Ollivier, Law Clerks.
W. Stuart Edwards, K.C.,
Deputy Minister of Justice,
Ottawa.
That is the reason for this proposed amendment; it is merely to meet the wishes of the law clerks so as to enable the statutes to be printed at an earlier date than is otherwise possible.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Just for the purpose of information, may I ask the minister; if these regulations are not printed annually in the statutes, in what manner will the public be informed, because practically nobody outside of the lawyers reads the Canada Gazette?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: And not many of them do so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes. These regulations are important to the people in my community because they want to observe the law. The regulations are part of the law.

Migratory Birds Convention Act


Charles Murphy: The regulations are very widely distributed by the department, and any interested party can easily secure a copy from it.


Mr. POULIOT:: Would it be possible for the department to post the regulations in each post office?


Charles Murphy: If my memory serves me correctly, that is being done at present.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Is there in this bill anything which will be incompatible with the provincial game acts?


Charles Murphy: I cannot answer that question, because I am not certain what action the provinces might take, but any bill passed by a provincial legislature cannot go beyond the terms of this act, which is a dominion act giving effect to an agreement with the United States.


Robert McKenzie: That is not exactly what I had in mind. What I had in mind is whether any change is being made by this bill which is not already included in provincial game acts.


Charles Murphy: In this bill there is nothing of which I am aware that would conflict with any provincial act.


Jean-François Pouliot: The migratory birds fly over several provinces and for that reason, by virtue of the British North America Act, this law is under dominion jurisdiction.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: AVill the minister consider an amendment to the act in addition to those now before the house, that would allow the legal opening of the shooting season in the Yukon territory earlier than the first September? When the original act was passed, it and the terms of the treaty as well, provided that no open season should be permitted before the first September. That applies to Alaska as well as the Yukon territory. If the hunters there wait until the first September, they get no shooting, because the birds nesting in those northern regions are fully fledged and going south by August 10 and any shooting done is done in violation of this act. Local legislatures in both Alaska and the Yukon territory have; endeavoured to overcome this. I have many times discussed the matter with the officers of the department who are charged with the administration of this act, and it has been said that on the first occasion when an amendment to the act came before the house, the question of this amendment would be raised. I would ask the minister to consider it while the bill is before the house.


Charles Murphy: Before any amendment of that nature could be made it would necessarily have to be taken into consideration, in relation to the agreement which this country has with the United States. Therefore, until I can consult the act, I would not be prepared to consider any such change. This act is based upon an agreement with the United States and certain dates are no doubt incorporated in it. We cannot go beyond the terms of that agreement in any amendments we might seek to bring down at this time.


George Black: That matter I am convinced can be very easily settled. I think there would be agreement between the United States and Canadian authorities. Probably we have something on record in the department now concerning it.


Mr. CANTLEY:: It is true that the great bulk of the migration northward in the spring follows the Atliantic-St. Lawrence past Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, but ninety per cent of the southward migration passes overland, first passing over the wheatfields of the west and then going down through the United States, and it is the people of the United States who get all the advantages of the treaty, and we get none. That is the situation.


Mr. MACLEAN:: The people of the maritime provinces feel that they are not getting a fair deal under the treaty, and petitions I believe have been presented to the government time and again asking for a revision of the whole matter. I would ask the minister if the treaty has been renewed for a term of years, or if it is just being extended from year to year.


Charles Murphy: There has been no renewal of the treaty for any specified term of years.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Has the first fifteenyear period expired?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With all
due respect to my hom,. friend from Pdctou and my bon. friend from Prince, there are two views with respect to this matter. Anybody who has shot geese in the fall of the year and also in the spring will know exactly what I mean. In the fall of the year the birds are in good flesh and are good to eat; in the spring they are not; they are skinny and tough and lean. I say, leit the birds have a chance to get up north and breed. It will be better for them, notwithstanding what a few game hogs, if that is a proper term to use here, ma.y think. I think we had better not change this. Let us give the birds a chance.
1768	COMMONS
Migratory Birds Convention Act


Thomas Cantley: With all due deference to my hon. friend from York-Sunbury, I have probably had as much experience in the attempt to shoot ducks, brant and geese in the province of Nova Scotia as he has, and my experience is that the first flight in the spring, when probably only three or four days elapse between the birds leaving their southern winter sojourn and their arrival in Nova Scotia, finds the birds in as good condition as they are in when they come down from the north. Later flights to the northward may possibly be open to the objection my hon. friend points out, but that certainly does not apply to the first flight, and I think my hon. friends from Prince Edward Island will corroborate that. After many years of experience of the treaty the people of the maritime provinces feel that we are not getting a fair deal. The United States gets ninety-five per cent of the advantages under the treaty, and they know it.


George Black: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-R.C.M Police to he game officers.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Has the
minister given consideration to withholding from the mounted police who are now policing the western provinces the right to try those whom they apprehend for breaking the law? I always questioned myself the wisdom of allowing the officer who apprehended a man to try him. I am speaking, of course, of territories where magistrates are available.


Charles Murphy: That phase of the situation has never been brought to my attention before, and I shall be glad to give it consideration.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I think this section is likely to lead to conflict between the federal and provincial authorities, for in northern Ontario we have both provincial and federal

police. I know cases where the penalties inflicted in northern Ontario were absolutely unwarranted. I think we should specify in the act just where the mounted police shall have jurisdiction. To extend the use of the word ex-officio in this way is giving the police too much latitude and is likely to lead to conflict of jurisdiction.


Charles Murphy: At the present time the nfounted police, under certain circumstances, are made game officers, and it has been found necessary in each individual case so to appoint them. This section simply means that these men will be game officers without the necessity of taking another oath.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is too broad. There should be an amendment specifying the jurisdiction of the police, and this is the time and place to do it. To my knowledge conflicts have arisen in the past, and an amendment ought to be introduced specifying where these activities of the mounted police will be permitted. I would include the Northwest Territories, and possibly Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but leave out the old provinces where the mounted police have no jurisdiction in these matters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I direct the minister's attention to the previous clause which says that the minister may appoint members of the police force game officers? It also says that hie may appoint them magistrates. Is it intended by this amendment to do other than to make them exofficio game officers? In other words the amendment does not contemplate their becoming ex-officio magistrates?


Charles Murphy: The intention is simply to appoint them ex-officio game officers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If they are to exercise power as magistrates they will have to be specially appointed as such?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: In the provinces, yes.


Charles Murphy: I am informed that in the provinces the province appoints the police magistrates, in the Northwest Territories the Dominion government appoints them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The original section reads:
The minister may appoint game officers for carrying out this act and the regulations,-
As I understand the amendment, all the members of the mounted police are made game officers ex-officio. But the section goes on:

and may authorize such game officers to exercise the powers of a justice of the peace or the powers of a police constable.

Migratory Birds Convention Act
My question is, does this amendment make any of these members of the police force who are appointed game officers ex-officio justices of the peace as well?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
the leader of the opposition, reading the whole of section 5 with the addition now provided for by section 2 of this bill, is right; and they would not be confined to any province. But it would have to be by designation by name. So there is a potentiality there along the line the right hon. gentleman has intimated.


Charles A. Stewart: I may say for the information of the committee that in part the reason for the granting of this authority to the minister arose from the very matter that was in controversy a few minutes ago. It was the difficulty of getting a conviction before a magistrate for spring shooting. A great deal of unnecessary expense was incurred trying to obtain convictions and it was suggested that if the minister had authority to appoint his own magistrates it would get over that difficulty. However I am not in favour of a police officer who is attempting to bring a party to justice being the magistrate who tries him for the crime.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister has not yet given a statement that is satisfactory. Let me ask specifically, does this act as he is amending it now make members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police exofficio justices of the peace where they are made ex-officio game officers?


Hugh Guthrie: The act as it now reads, without this amendment, is:
The minister may appoint game officers for carrying out this act and the regulations, and may authorize such game officers to exercise the powers of a justice of the peace ....
Now it is provided by the amendment that that all members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall for the purposes of this act be ex-officio game wardens. That is the first. Then if the minister subsequently authorizes it they may also become justices of the peace.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under the old
section?


Hugh Guthrie: Under the old section, not under this. The law as it has been on the statute book is merely extended now to include the mounted police.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I beg to move an amendment, after the words "be ex-officio game officers":
In districts and territories where the federal government has full jurisdiction in such matters.


Mr. BOWMAN:: That does not add anything to the section, because the authority is there now.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Well it is there and it is not there. I have seen in my own district, provincial authorities in conflict with federal. We will have the same thing here. That applies to northern Ontario and northern Quebec where you have the provincial police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Charles A. Stewart: May I point out to my hon. friend that this act is based on an international agreement for the protection of migratory birds that inhabit both countries. Our difficulty in the past-I do not know what difficulty the present minister has-was that in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the maritime provinces the local authorities were only interested in the administration of the local game laws. Take the case of spring shooting, which illustrates it best; you could not get a conviction for spring shooting before the local authorities on a bet. Throughout Canada we have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under the control and jurisdiction of the federal authorities, which authorities have given their promise to the American government that the provisions of this act would be carried out. It was simply for the purpose of getting the administration properly carried out that it was thought advisable to appoint the mounted police as game wardens. The fact that the minister also took authority to appoint the magistrates is perhaps a doubtful feature. On the other hand the difficulty was, even when a man was apprehended, to get a conviction when he had infringed the law. If the administration of the act were handed over to the provincial authorities I fear we would be in trouble in connection with our agreement with the United States to enforce the provisions of the act.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I would like to add a word to what has been said by the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Brad-ette). I think this act should be limited to those provinces where the mounted police are also in charge as provincial police. In the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick that have been mentioned by the exminister I am under the impression that the law has been changed, that the provincial governments have been asked to change their law to comply with the federal law, and that



Migratory Birds Convention Act
the spring shooting season has been fixed to accord with the federal law. Therefore there is no need for this change. There is the danger of conflict between the mounted police and the local authorities. In Quebec there is a close season for killing migratory birds in the spring, and we have game wardens in every part of the province, and if we are going to have added to those the mounted police right amongst our own population we are bound bo have conflict.


Hugh Guthrie: This proposal does not
change the present law. Under the present law members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are nominated and appointed.


Eugène Fiset: They are specially
selected and named.


Hugh Guthrie: They are named now.
This only provides that instead of naming them individually, all members shall be exofficio game officers.


Eugène Fiset: That is exactly
what I object to. At present you could not name mounted police officers as game wardens in Quebec, at least without consulting the provincial government. Let us say down in Rimouski there are ten or fifteen mounted police, who are interfering enough, Heaven knows, in our provincial law, we do not want them to go any further. I think the law as it stands today is quite enough.


Charles Murphy: This act was passed by this government to enable the government of Canada to enforce the provisions of an international treaty, consequently I take it, although 1 am not a lawyer, any provincial legislation must conform to the provisions of this act. It rests with the government of this country to see that the provisions of this act are carried out. Therefore of necessity the provincial legislation must conform to the provisions of the dominion act.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister has said thait the Dominion government has to see that the provisions of itlie treaty shall be respected by those concerned. It will be necessary to seed the Royal Canadian Mounted policemen to the universities to study the laws of the provinces if they are to know whether those laws conform with the federal law. I fully agree with what my hon. friend from Rimouski has said; we have a good deal of trouble in the province of Quebec owing to the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The minister laughs. He should stay in Quebec for some time; it would do 'him good. These men are supposed to be quite busy with their duties as customs and excise officers. Suppose fSir Eugene Fleet.]
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were notified of smugglers five miles away and at the same time they were informed that there were people shooting game at a distance of ten miles in the other direction. In this event which act will prevail-this one or the Customs and Excise legislation? These men have not the gift of ubiquity; they cannot be in two places at the same time. If, therefore, you charge them with too many duties they will fan! to carry out any of them properly. We find that the same thing happens in connection with the officers of the Quebec Liquor Commission who sometimes are obliged to charter boats. There is a boat that belongs to the mounted police or to some other department in Ottawa. The officers are notified that a seizure has to be made somewhere and the officials of the Quebec Liquor Commission have to charter a boat because these people will not undertake the work. I know one who was afraid of seasickness and for that reason he left his boat at the wharf all the time. If the United States authorities knew how these people were looking after the enforcement of the law I am sure that the American guns would be directed at the minister. They would ask him at the point of a gun why he does not get better men to look alter the execution of the treaty. These people might be appointed if they were personally known to the minister as men with the gift of ubiquity, as I say; otherwise the law should be enforced by those who are responsible and who have been doing it quite well. They are just as good citizens as the hon. member for Pictou. Perhaps they have not as wide a game experience but they are all right just the same. We have too much legislation in this house; wie have to legislate about this and about that. The treaty was passed and legislation was enacted in accordance with it a long time ago, and now we are wasting the time of the house splitting hairs, while people are unemployed and agriculture is in a very serious position. Let us look alter the more important business of the country and satisfy the general cry of the people who are asking for employment, and the farmers who are in distress.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There is a good deal of merit in the suggestion of the hon. member for Rimouski and the hon. member for Temiscouata. I am afraid that if the officials are made game wardens there may be a conflict with the functions of the officials in the province of Quebec. There are at the present time on the river St. Lawrence certain game officers appointed every year by the Department of the Interior to see to the proper administration of the law. Are these officials

Migratory Birds Convention Act
of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police intended to supersede the other men, or is it the intention of the government to do away with the officers who are appointed every year? There is a staff that goes down there every year, selecting certain people at different places and hiring motor boats to look after the administration of the law. I know there are also officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the district. Who will have jurisdiction? Who will be the superior of the other? I should like to have an answer to that question from the minister.


Charles Murphy: It had been the practice
in past years to employ temporary assistant migratory bird wardens at certain seasons of the year, but these assistant bird wardens will not be appointed in the future. The duties which they formerly performed will now be discharged by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In the province of Quebec, where the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have not been accepted by the provincial government, we shall have them functioning to see to the proper observance of this law. I do not think that is good for the province of Quebec, and as a representative of that province I wish to protest against this sort of legislation going through this house. We are going to have men under the control of the federal government coming there to carry out a particular law and see to its administration, whereas formerly it was under the control of a responsible department. Mr. Lewis is a highly qualified official and I have nothing but praise for his services, and I do not see any reason why the government should dispense with such a valuable man. He has rendered excellent service in the enforcement of the act.


Charles Murphy: The hon. member is in
error when he states that the services of Mr. Lewis have been dispensed with; they have not.


Mr. MALCOLM:: The minister is increasing the expense of administering the law. If I understand it, the provinces of Quebec and Ontario have brought their acts into conformity with the dominion act so far as the flight of migratory birds is concerned and the season in which they may be shot. Under section 5, if any difficulty does exist in any province, or if the act is not in conformity with the federal law, the minister has all the powers he needs to name members of the Royal Northwest Mounted 53719-112i
Police to take care of the provisions of the act. But why should we duplicate services? Ontario and Quebec have their own officials, their own provincial police and their own game wardens, and such additional men as may be necessary in different seasons may be appointed to carry out the provisions of the act. Why add the whole mounted police automatically to the service in all the provinces? The provinces already have their services. There is one point that is in the minds of the people, and that is duplication of expenses.	. *_ v


Hugh Guthrie: This is the other way
around.


James Malcolm: Not at all; you are not abolishing the provincial police or the game wardens. You are giving the mounted police an over-riding authority-


Hugh Guthrie: At no expense.


James Malcolm: I do not see how they
will police Ontario or Quebec without additional expense, because they must put on extra men.


Hugh Guthrie: There are inspectors now appointed by this government. The mounted police have now taken over our obligations under the treaty in regard to migratory birds. They have heretofore been appointed annually to carry out work along with civilians in various parts of Canada, to discharge the obligation which was entered into by the preceding government. Now we propose to allow the mounted police as a body to be game wardens. They get their pay whether they do this or other work, so that there is no increase involved but on the contrary a saving. As a result of this legislation a number of the men now employed will not be required. The saving will be in the salaries of the men who are now employed by the Department of the Interior, as they have been for years, which men will not be required in future.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Let me give a typical example of what is being done. In Cochrane today we have machinery for taking care of the migratory bird law. There we have provincial game wardens and provincial police, and we have our police magistrates who have complete jurisdiction in such matters. If the government goes ahead and appoints a member of the mounted police as a magistrate, Toronto will say, and quite rightly, that they have no right to do so. The law will become ultra vires.

Migratory Birds Convention Act


Hugh Guthrie: We have the right to enforce treaties made by this government with foreign governments and to impose our will upon the provinces for that purpose.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No matter what this government may do in appointing a man in a district as a magistrate, that appointment will become ultra vires. The province of Ontario will be the first one to protest, and I believe that we should do away with this evil. I have seen it done repeatedly and that is why I am so keen in seeing a remedy provided at this time. Not even the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) can deny that these appointments would be ultra vires the moment Toronto protested.


Charles Murphy: The sub-section reads as follows:
The minister may appoint game officers for carrying out this act and the regulations, and may authorize such game officers to exercise the powers of a justice of the peace or the powers of a police constable.
The minister has had that power ever since the treaty went into effect; he could have exercised it at any time and he could have designated a police officer to carry out these duties.


Mr. RALSTON:: Not as a police officer but as an individual.


Charles Murphy: In answer to the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) I may say that instead of adding to the expense, this action will decrease the expense. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police will perform duties formerly performed by temporary employees, and we will save the salaries of those men. The mounted police will carry out the provisions of this act the same as they enforce the provisions of other acts.


James Malcolm: How many men will be dismissed as a result of this amendment, and what are their salaries?


Charles Murphy: These men were simply seasonal employees. I am not sure of the number, but I think it is something like twelve to fifteen, perhaps a few more.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is one of these officers in my city. He was appointed by the Civil Service Commission and apparently he is going to be let out. I have been trying to help him by having him appointed by the mounted police to perform these duties. I know a substantial saving will be effected by letting out the temporary officers, but this man happens to be a per-

manent appointee. He has reached the age of sixty years and has been in this office a long time. It seems to me that the mounted police being so active in connection with the customs and excise act, will not give the attention to this act which is desired. I think this would be very true of the south shore, and perhaps the north shore of the St. Lawrence river and the bay of Chaleur. This is just one more thing being loaded upon the mounted police, and I understand it is something they are not very keen to take over. However, the matter of policy has been settled and the thing is done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would look as though this were an effort to increase the number of members of the mounted police force. If ten or twelve officials were required to enforce this act, some addition to the mounted police will be required in order to carry on the work, provided, of course, that today the mounted police are not too numerous for the duties they are being called upon to perform.
Mr. MURPH1 : There seems to be some confusion in regard to this matter which I hope I can clear up. The hon. member for r ork-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) stated that as a result of the non-employment of these temporary assistant migratory bird wardens, certain officers have been let out and he thought I was in error in making my statement. There were temporary assistant migratory bird officers who were appointed for a short period each year. \\ hen the season was over they were out of the service and might not be employed the following year. The class of official to which the hon. member has referred was not known as temporary assistant migratory bird wardens; they were known as assistant migratory bird wardens and are still in the service. By order in council they have been transferred to the Department of Justice.


James Malcolm: Then there is no saving.


Charles Murphy: The saving has resulted from the fact that the temporary assistant migratory bird wardens will not now be employed, their duties will be performed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Because of the reasons stated by the minister, I think we are safe in opposing this legislation. In my county there are five or six of these men who work under Mr. Lewis. They work from April to October only but are able to earn a certain amount of money which helps them through the rest of the year. In connection with this service

Migratory Birds Convention Act
there are also guardians of bird sanctuaries who are appointed' every year to be stationed at certain places to look after the administration of the act. The stretch of land from the Saguenay down to the Labrador coast is divided into three or four districts, and these men are stationed at various places and have certain territory to patrol. Mr. Lewis supervises their work and the administration of the act is carried on in an efficient manner. I cannot see how it would be possible for the government to have mounted police officers do this work. It would require nearly the same number of constables and the force would have to be increased. The constables would have to hire boats and perform the same duties as these other men. There would be no saving and yet a certain number of people would be deprived of considerable remuneration. The mounted police is being used in connection with the inland revenue and excise acts, as well as in connection with other a-cts, and it would seem that the government has gone mounted police mad. These officers are gradually displacing the officials of many departments. I think we should adhere to the administration as carried on formerly as I cannot see that any bad results have resulted from such administration.


James Malcolm: I do not see where any saving will be effected. If five or six temporary wardens are necessary in any district, it is quite evident that five or six mounted police will be required to perform the same duties. The present system under which the minister has been administering the act provides that he may pay temporaries for the time the migratory season is on, that is, from spring to fall. If he has to put on mounted police he has to increase the mounted police force and will therefore have a number of policemen idle between seasons. We cannot save money by administering the act in that way. The Minister of Justice says he has transferred the administration to the Department of Justice and he is going to substitute mounted police for temporary wardens. In other words, he is to put on full-time policemen to do what part-time civilians are doing now.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If I am wrong, the minister will correct me, but to me the main reason for the change is quite evident; it is the conflict of jurisdiction between the federal and the provincial governments and lack of cooperation on the part of the provinces in applying the migratory birds law. I mean by that what the Minister of Justice, and also the Minister of the Interior, said a few
minutes ago, that apparently the international law has not been applied by the older provinces at least. Is that so?


Charles Murphy: We do not compel the provincial governments to pass their legislation, but I may say there has been cooperation between the various provinces and the dominion, and to the best of my knowledge the provisions of the provincial gets conform to those of the dominion act.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have under my hand a document in which there is an appendix to the Ontario game and fish law in which is incorporated international provisions applicable to the whole of Canada, and also instructions to the game wardens. It seems to me that we should define the jurisdiction of the federal authorities. I do not see why we should be discussing that matter for such a long time, because in this act there is an anomaly in that a certain provision cannot apply to Ontario. Ontario will never allow any such jurisdiction in the whole of that province and I suppose the same thing applies to Quebec as well as to any other province. In my section of Ontario it cannot be applied. Therefore obviously my amendment should be passed now because the federal government should prevent overlapping of jurisdiction.


Charles Murphy: The answer, to my mind, is very simple: the dominion has complete jurisdiction.


James Layton Ralston: How many game officers, not police officers, are there in Nova Scotia, within the meaning of this section?


Charles Murphy: The number of temporary migratory bird wardens in Nova Scotia would usually, I think, be in the neighbourhood of nine or ten. In addition to them there are permanent assistant migratory bird wardens. There are two in the province who have been transferred to the Department of Justice.


James Layton Ralston: How many of those nine or ten has the minister appointed as officers?


Charles Murphy: They were appointed for the season.


James Layton Ralston: But appointed under this section. It states that the minister may appoint game officers for carrying out this act. Those nine or ten were appointed by him under this section.


Charles Murphy: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Did my hon. friend
appoint any members of the mounted police in addition to those nine or ten?

Migratory Birds Convention Act


Charles Murphy: No.


James Layton Ralston: Is the situation not this? Let us consider the province of Nova Scotia. At the present time there are nine or ten officers appointed by the minister. The minister has power also to authorize those nine or ten to perform the duties of justices of the peace. If this amendment were passed, I suppose about 150 men will be added to that strength. These last 150 men are responsible to the Minister of Justice. The first nine or ten are responsible to the Minister of the Interior. Immediately a conflict of responsibility arises, and there is also a conflict in the exercise of jurisdiction. Who is going to proceed with it? Is it to be the nine or ten?


Hugh Guthrie: The nine or ten will be
dropped.


Charles Murphy: The nine or ten will not be appointed.


James Layton Ralston: Then there is no objection to my hon. friend dropping the nine or ten.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the idea.


James Layton Ralston: Is there any intention of dropping that provision from the statute?


Charles Murphy: There would be an objection to that, bemuse I might want to appoint some in the Northwest Territories or at some particular point where the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police might not be available, and I think the minister should have that power; but it is not the intention to reappoint those men in districts where their duties can be efficiently performed by the mounted police.


James Layton Ralston: Are the mounted police
acting as ex-officio game officers under this
amendment, responsible to the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of Justice?


Hugh Guthrie: The administration of
the Migratory Birds Convention Act is being transferred under that special act which permits the transfer from one department to another, and I assume in the future the Department of Justice, being the department in control of the mounted police, will have the administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act. The idea is as far as possible to use the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and our belief is that this will not in any way increase but will lessen the expense. We have the men now; they are supposed to be a very valuable force of trained investigators and we think their ser-

vices ought to be utilized. I believe the original object was to save money, and I am satisfied, if this bill passes, we shall succeed in that. There may be points where at odd times it may be necessary to name some special officers for a particular district for certain seasons of the year. I do not, however, anticipate that will be necessary.


James Layton Ralston: What minister will do
that?


Hugh Guthrie: That will be the mounted
police.


James Layton Ralston: The minister?


Hugh Guthrie: It would be the Minister of Justice after the transfer is completed, but it is not anticipated that will be a power that will be utilized at all. I see, however, no objection to leaving it there in case the necessity Should arise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the fact
not really that the government is gradually doing away with the Department of the Interior and this is one step in that direction?


Hugh Guthrie: Possibly there is something in that. The suggestion did not come from the mounted police. It came from the Department of the Interior. The mounted police as now constituted is, I think, the proper force to handle such a matter. If we can utilize the services of trained men and thereby save money, we should do so.


James Layton Ralston: I would point out to my hon. friend I am afraid he is not quite correct with regard to the power to appoint those officers as justices of the peace.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps I made a slip
in my former statement, because I notice the language of the amendment is:
All members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall, for the purpose of this act, be ex officio game officers.
Now they are appointed under this act; they are not appointed by the minister and it is only those who are appointed by the minister who could be made magistrates.


James Layton Ralston: Notwithstanding what
has already been said, I want to protest against the idea of an administrative officer being given the power of a justice of the peace. I am glad the Minister of Justice assures us that under this amendment as it stands the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police do not become justices of the peace by reason of having been included as ex officio game officers. They would have to

Migratory Birds Convention Act
be specially appointed. Let me say one thing more, and that is, I sincerely hope that power will not be exercised and that the magistracy of the country will be utilized instead of these officers who are responsible for making arrests and enforcing the law and who would naturally be zealous in prosecuting, being charged also with the administration of justice.


Hugh Guthrie: I fully agree with the
observations of my hon. friend in that respect.
It is a very doubtful practice that men who lay the information should also try the case.
I would discourage that in every way possible.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: On December 17, 1932, an order in council was passed, P.C. 2744, which authorized the transfer of five officers of the Migratory Bird Service with their positions to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Up to the present I understand that these men have not been given employment although they were transferred with their positions under this order in council, and money was -voted to continue their services. These men had been in the service for quite a long time, and they were permanent civil servants. I would ask the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of Justice to look into this matter and see whether these permanent officials who have been transferred by order in council cannot be given employment. It seems hardly fair for the mounted police to take new men into their service and at the same time dispense with the services of these migratory bird officers who had been in the service for many years. Some of them had splendid war records, and it does seem strange to me that they should be let out and new men taken on to replace them, especially in view of the order in council transferring them to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I trust that the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice will give attention to that order in council and endeavour to see that justice is done to these men. Up to the present I do not believe that they have been given any assurance that their services will be continued. I think they were given leave of absence with pay, and perhaps they are still in that position. I would like a reply from the ministry.


Charles Murphy: There are certain permanent officers engaged in carrying out the provisions of this act who are known as migratory bird officers. There is one in the four western provinces, Mr. Munroe; one at Ottawa, Mr. Lewis; one in the maritime provinces, Mr. Tufts, and in the maritimes there have been five other permanent officers, who .are known as assistants to the migratory bird
officer. It is these five officers who have just been brought to my attention by the hon. member. No other part of Canada has such officials, but these five were carrying on in the maritimes as assistants to Mr. Tufts, and when the move was made to transfer to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the duties which they had been performing, these five were transferred by order in council to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Whether it will be necessary to retain their services now that their duties are being performed by the mounted police will be a matter for the Department of Justice to determine.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I thank the minister for
his explanation, but it seems to me hardly fair to let out permanent civil servants and fill their places with new men. I think it is generally admitted as a fair principle to retain throughout the service men whose services have been satisfactory rather than to take on new men.


James Layton Ralston: Might I suggest that the ridiculousness of this whole proposition is shown by the illustration I have given? Nova Scotia could be covered by nine or ten officers who understand their work, but now it is to be done by 150 or 160 men. It is absolutely ridiculous. If the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of Justice wants this work done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, why not designate seven or eight or nine officers to do the work? The mounted police are being given entirely too much authority in this country, and too many things are being handed over to them. But if the government are determined to have this work turned over to the mounted police, why not designate seven or eight or nine or ten officers who would have power to act, and not have 150 or 160 take the place of the nine men who are doing the work ini Nova Scotia? That would obviate this blanketing in' of the whole force, and you would be able to carry out exactly the same idea, you have in mind if you want to transfer this work to the mounted police. Personally I think the idea is all wrong, and that the work should remain where it is, namely, under the responsible officers of the department which is administering the act.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not at all wedded to the suggestion contained in the act, and if my hon. friend is serious in his suggestion. I should be prepared to let this clause stand and discuss the matter with the officials of the mounted police. I think, however, there is a good deal to be said in favour of empowering all the members of the force to do

Migratory Birds Convention Act
particular acts or administer particular laws, and that is now done in respect of other laws. While my bon. friend says that the duties of the mounted police are becoming altogether too extended, in every case in, which their duties or the areas in which they operate have been extended it has been done at the request of the provinces themselves.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Not of Quebec.


Hugh Guthrie: We have not extended
their duties there, or in Ontario, but in all the other provinces it has been done at the request of the provincial authorities. The force is now in Nova Scotia. I do not know, from memory, just how many men are there, but under this provision all these men would be ex officio game wardens and would have the right to administer the provisions of the act. If my hon. friend thinks there is merit in the suggestion that only a specific number be designated instead of the whole force, I am willing to consider it. I do not disfavour it at all. There is of course the principle that all members of the force should have equal powers. I will ask that the clause stand and we can discuss the matter further.


Charles A. Stewart: I also doubt the advisability of this transfer. I am not questioning the ability of the officers to enforce the act, but it does seem to me that the Department of Justice is not the proper place for the administration of an act of this kind. The mounted police officers are undoubtedly zealous in performing their duties; I have always admitted that. But I do think the government are making a mistake in this transfer, as will be disclosed as time goes on. My experience with the act was that it was sometimes difficult to reconcile domestic and local difficulties with the international questions raised. The officials now in charge have had some training in this work; I think we have met the situation fairly well up to the present and are beginning to reconcile many of these difficulties. Therefore I question the wisdom of transferring the whole administration of this act to the mounted police, who are obligated to perform other duties, and who while performing those duties zealously, undoubtedly, have not had the experience in this particular work of the local men who are to be dismissed.


Charles Murphy: They are not being dismissed.


Charles A. Stewart: I found that they did their duty fairly well, and the only difficulty I encountered was in getting con-

wictions. I do not think this is a step in the right direction, or that it will make for as efficient administration as before.
Sections 2 and 3 stand.
On section 4-No one to buy, sell or possess bird, nest or egg in prohibited time.


Mr. HOWDEN:: Some years ago what
used to 'be the Kirchoffer's hunting preserve around the southern end of lake Manitoba was acquired) by a number of well-to-do American gentlemen. They shot over it for a number of years, and as game had become rather scarce in that locality, last year they made it their business, doubtless with the knowledge and sanction of either the provincial or the federal authorities, to breed many thousands of wild ducks. They gathered the eggs and set them under hens and tame ducks, and consequently in the hunting season of 1932 there were more wild ducks than there had been in that district for many years. Certainly it was a great benefit to the duck hunting fraternity of Manitoba. But if the collection of wild ducks eggs for such a purpose is not permitted, it seems to me the province of Manitoba would be the poorer. It could not be done again if this clause obtains.


Hugh Guthrie: This clause is the same
as it was before, except for the matter of a few words.


John Power Howden: Ducks were bred in great abundance, and last year there were more ducks around the south end of lake Manitoba than had been seen for many years.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why not discuss the
whole thing at a lame duck session?


Charles Murphy: There is nothing to prevent the continuation of that plan, which I understand was carried out under licence.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: In connection with
section 6 I may say that I am a migratory bird officer, have been for ten years, without remuneration, and I think I know something about migratory birds. But there is one thing here I do not quite understand and would like to be enlightened upon. Section 6 says:
No person, without lawful excuse, the proof whereof shall He on such person, shall buy, sell or have in his possession any migratory game bird

Will the minister state what he considers a lawful excuse? I am a prospector; my work takes me sometimes far afield, as much as two, three or four hundred miles from my

Supply-Trade and Commerce
base. I carry in my grub pack the usual bannock and bacon, no more than I can help, because we sometimes have many portages and we get tired; besides it sometimes becomes rancid and not very palatable. I want to know if I should be considered as breaking the law if I killed a duck and boiled it. If so, there is about a thousand years coming to me right now.


Charles Murphy: I would say that the only person who could answer that question would be the magistrate who is trying the case.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I would be trying
myself, as it stands at present, being a migratory bird officer and ex officio magistrate. I think I would let myself off.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would ask the Minister of Justice: this act we are dealing with being an international matter, is there anything in the constitution machinery which will allow the federal government to ask the provincial governments to apply this act?


Hugh Guthrie: There is a provision in
our constitution that in regard to international treaties the federal government can enact laws imposing upon a province whatever is necessary to carry out an international obligation. This being an international obligation, a matter of treaty between Canada and the United States, the federal government is empowered to pass such laws as are necessary to put it into force in the various provinces of Canada.
Progress reported.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Salaries, $524,790; contingencies, $40,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This item raises the whole question of civil service salaries. I think it should stand.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If there is objection to
proceeding with the civil service list we will let that stand.
Item stands.
An act to place Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron or steel on a basis of equality with imported coal, administration of, $1,000.


James Layton Ralston: May I ask the minister
who in his department has charge of this particular matter?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does my hon. friend mean the officer in Ottawa?


James Layton Ralston: No, I mean the officer to whom any part of that $1,000 is paid-I presume an officer in the plant.


Henry Herbert Stevens: John MacLean.


James Layton Ralston: In the plant?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: What is his salary?


Henry Herbert Stevens: He gets $3,600 a year, but the Dominion government pay $1,000 and the company pays the balance.


James Layton Ralston: Can the minister state the amount paid last year under this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Up to December 31, 1932, only $780; but I apprehend that the accounts for the year are not all in. For the preceding year it was $62,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Hemp Bounties Act, 1923, administration of $500.
James Malcolm: What was paid under
the Hemp Bounties Act last year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The answer will have to
be the same, a very small sum so far, the year not being complete. The year previous the amount was $2,189.


James Malcolm: The administration of
the act costs 25 per cent of all the money paid.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, we do not pay anything out. As a matter of fact, this is provided for travelling expenses and is used only in ease of necessity. Nothing was used last year or the year before.


Mr. SANDERSON:: When does the act
expire?


Henry Herbert Stevens: At the end of the calendar year 1933.


Frederick George Sanderson: I hope the minister
will seriously consider the question of renewing it. I am of the opinion that this is money wasted. I said so when the late administration was across the floor, I said so last year, and I repeat it now. It does not serve any good purpose at all. It was the intention of the act to give some assistance to the farmer in growing hemp but it does not assist the farmer. It never has done so and it never will. What money is paid out is paid to the manufacturers of hemp, and I think the minister and the government would be well advised not to renew it.
177S	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is an occasion on which I can say to my hon. friend that his advice is welcome, and we will certainly give it careful consideration, because I have somewhat sympathetic views myself although I am not prepared to make any definite pronouncement now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Commercial intelligence service, including miscellaneous expenditure in connection with Canada's trade, and also to provide for the appointment of L. D. Wilgress, as director of the commercial intelligence service, Department of Trade and Commerce, at $7,800 per annum, effective April 1, 1933, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, $693,487.30.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This includes salaries
abroad. Does the leader of the opposition object to going on with it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it is understood that a bill will be introduced it will be all right to proceed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is understood that the opposition reserve their full rights with respect to discussion.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Does this item include expenditures in connection with advertising?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, that is under another item.


James Malcolm: What increases have been made in the number of trade commissioners abroad to justify the increase in this vote in face of the fact that general salaries are down 10 per cent?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Covering the last two-year period there have been six new assistant trade commissioners appointed and there are some slight adjustments. Beyond that I do not think there is any increase.


Mr. SPENCER:: Has the minister noticed any particular increase in trade from those countries where we have trade commissioners?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Under the very difficult circumstances we have been passing through in connection with external trade I am proud to say that very definite benefits are resulting from the services of our trade commissioners abroad, and I welcome this opportunity of paying tribute to the devotion and efficiency of these officers.


James Malcolm: In 1928 we got along with, in round figures, $425,000, and in the previous year $375,000. Now we are asked to vote $693,000, practically $700,000. I think

the minister should give some further explanation than merely to inform the committee that there are six more junior trade commissioners. This is a large increase; in fact it is double the amount voted in 1927-28.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In 1927-28 the amount was, in round figures, $413,000; in 1928-29, $495,000; in 1929-30, $663,000; in 1930-31, $749,000; in 1931-32, $690,000, and the present provision is $693,000. It is of course clearly understood that the total vote does not go for salaries. There are statutory increases accounting for a considerable amount. There is a variation in the matter of travelling. We have cut that down, our aim being to reduce it to a minimum. Rentals are up to what they were in 1928-29, although down this year as compared with a year ago, and sundry expenditures amounted to $107,000 last year.


James Layton Ralston: The minister has compared the amount of this estimate with the amounts in previous years, but the house and the country will remember that the situation with regard to revenues in previous years was far different from that which the Minister of Finance will experience this year, and I do not think the country will be satisfied with the alleged paring-down which has been shown in the estimates as announced by the Minister of Finance the other day. It is of course difficult to pick out items; the government knows better what items to pick out. I submit, however, that my hon. friend, in bringing down an estimate which is somewhat larger than the estimate of last year and larger than the estimates in 1927-28 and 1928-29, years when there were expanding revenues, is not doing justice to his colleague the Minister of Finance. In my opinion this amount is too large. My hon. friend suggests that an expansion has been made in appointing more junior trade commissioners. May I suggest to him that he is going ahead a good deal more quickly than the fisoal policy of the government of which he is a member would justify. There is not much use appoint-six more trade commissioners while you maintain the fiscal policy of this government. We can pretty well abandon the idea of selling abroad until we decide to change radically the tariff policies of this government. I submit to my hon. friend in the first place that it is not an evidence of economy, it does not help very much, and it will not receive the approval of the country, to find in this vote $7,800 for a director of commercial intelligence. I do not know Mr. Wilgress at all but it seems to me that in these times when,

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
as the Prime Minister suggests, we are almost on the brink of a precipice so far as national finance is concerned, this is not the opportunity to appoint an officer of this kind; rather some adjustment should be made in the department to render the appointment unnecessary. While I criticize this estimate on the ground of expenditure, I criticize it also from the point of view of the method adopted. It has been done in the past, for this is not the first time that officers have been voted in through estimates. It is in direct contravention of the Civil Service Act, which provides a preference for returned men. This deliberately outs them out of the preference. A high salaried position is given to a man whose appointment in this manner, although he may be entirely qualified, contravenes the principle which parliament has laid down governing the matter. My hon. friend should give the committee a full explanation as to why it is proposed to blanket in a man at a salary of $7,800 in the face of the financial conditions which exist to-day and in view of the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am very glad my hon. friend invites an explanation, because I feel sure that I can make a satisfactory response to his query. In connection with the office of director of commercial intelligence service, we brought to Ottawa a man whom we considered one of the most efficient in the service, and who, having been in the service for nineteen years, has served this country abroad most effectively in important fields. He was brought to Ottawa for the express purpose of lending to the service in Ottawa his wide and- practical experience in trade matters abroad. Not only have I no apologies to make; I am distinctly proud of having made this move. Mr. Wilgress has not only proven himself to be efficient in this regard, but during the recent economic conference he was one of the most valuable officers that Canada had in Ottawa, dealing as he did with the complicated matters of trade abroad. I trust that this will prove to be sufficient justification for the move.
In connection with the maintaining of these services, I do not think it was ever more necessary to study the question of foreign trade and markets in an endeavour to open up and extend markets abroad than it is at the present time. I am not going to be drawn into a discussion on the merits or demerits of protection or free trade. Perhaps the best place to do that is when the budget is before us-it is the time honoured occasion for such a discussion. I will say, however,
that there is evidence that in our trade this particular service abroad has shown excellent results. Let me illustrate by a reference to Australia. It will be recalled that our trade with that country was very seriously disturbed because of the fact that Australia depreciated her currency, and put into effect severe import regulations and prohibitions, for the very laudable purpose of attempting to balance her budget and correct her internal financial situation. Of course we have no complaint to make with all that; we have no right even to make observations, but the fact is that it seriously interfered with our trade with that country as well as with her trade with other countries. Subsequent to the consummation of the agreement-


James Layton Ralston: To what agreement does my hon. friend refer?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am referring to the
Canada-Australia treaty. For the nine months ended December of the present fiscal year, our exports amounted to $5,489,000 as compared with $3,744,000 for the same period in 1931. This increase took place in spite of the fact that there was a considerable drop in commodity prices generally during the intervening period. I should like to give some quantity increases in various products exported to Australia. For instance, canned fish increased from 67,000 hundredweight to
69.000	hundredweight; canned salmon from
60.000	to 61,000 hundredweight; cotton fabrics from 131,000 yards to 1,130,000 yards; oilcloths from 150 yards, practically nothing, to 102,700 yards; other textiles and fabrics from $967, virtually nothing, to $51,248. The exports of logs increased from 1,5100,000 feet board measure to over five million feet; planks and boards, from 37,000,000 feet to
66,000,000 feet and squared timbers from just under 4,000,000 feet to 29,000,000 feet. The increase in paper was from $1,456,000 to $1,565,000 and in wallboard from 2,100 hundredweight to 3,600 hundredweight. Newsprint increased from 456,000 to 591,000 hundredweight while wall paper increased from 87,000 rolls to 121,000 rolls. The figures in connection with automobiles are very interesting. Last year we exported just one automobile while this year the exports numbered 1,581. The value of parts exported last year was $46,000 as compared to $147,000 this year. These figures show a marked increase in our business with Australia.


James Layton Ralston: Why not give the total
trade?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Unfortunately I have not the figures.
1780	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence


Mr. DUFF:: Do those figures include trade with New Zealand?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. Unfortunately I
have not those figures under my hand, but there has been an increase during the past seven or eight months.


James Malcolm: From what point?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The trade has dropped
considerably. I think the figures giving the quantities illustrate my point more clearly than the totals. There is no question that the total figures will show a serious decline. I think they were published in this morning's papers.
Commodity-
Wheat	
Bran and shorts	
Flour	
Vermicelli and macaroni
As regards some of these commodities in particular, taking for instance, the last one that I have mentioned, we have made special efforts through the agency of the commercial
Oil cake and meal	
Tobacco, unmanufactured
And I believe before the end of the season
11,000,000 pounds exported to Great Britain.
Honey	
Bacon and hams	
Canned meats	
Poultry	
Condensed milk	
Oils, fats, greases and waxes Fish oil


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Would
the minister be good enough to obtain (the figures for the last three years and bring them down later?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, I can do that. Our exports of canned fruit to Great Britain during the last nine months were 7,138,000 pounds as compared with 3,980,000 in 1931. The increase in syrups was from 138,000 gallons to
343,000	gallons. The exports of oats increased from 4,800,000 bushels to 7,194,000 bushels. I will give the figures in connection with wheat, not for the purposes of my argument but rather to provide information for the house. Other figures of exports are as follows:
1931	1932
For nine months ending	For nine months ending
December 31	December 31
Bushels	Bushels
96,000,000	125,000,000
Cwt.	Cwt.
156,000	1.411,000
Bbls.	Bbls.
1,658,000	1.878,000
Lbs.	Lbs.
684,000	1,471,000
intelligence service to increase our exports in	
such things as we are	well able to produce,
and are meeting with excellent results.	
Cwt.	Cwt.
43,000	75,000
Lbs.	Lbs.
2,708,000	5,842,000
that will be increased	to approximately
Lbs.	Lbs.
1.715,000	1,929,000
Cwt.	Cwt.
93,000	250,000
Lbs.	Lbs.
14,500	372,600
Lbs.	Lbs.
48,400	983,000
Cwt.	Cwt.
57,000	131,000
Gals.	Gals.
88	17,533
16,500	170,100

Supplymi
-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
Then there are a number of smaller items.
Doz. pairs
Stockings and socks	 2 442
w [DOT]	C^-
Wrappmg paper	 11,900
Kt
Planks and boards	 92 000 000
Typewriters	'	394
Automobiles, passenger	 211
Copper bars, rods, sheets, etc	 130,600
Lead in pigs, refined lead, etc	 70L000
Abrasives, artificial, crude	 3i>/100
Coal tar and pitch.. . Cobalt oxides and salts
Doz. pairs 18,226 Cwt. 16,800 Ft.
147,000,000
9,536
1,511
Cwt.
776,400
963.000 55,500
Gals.
962.000 Lbs.
238.000
There are other items, but these, I think, will indicate the increase at least in certain commodities of our exports by weight or quantity.
Mr. \OUNG: Will the minister tell us from what countries we are capturing this trade?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is always, I think, inadvisable on the floor of the house to speak about "capturing" trade from -this or that country. We do not wish to stir up the jealousies of competing countries. Perhaps I can say that in many of these items we are capturing trade from the United States, and on some of the items I could name we are capturing trade from some European countries, but I would not care to be too specific in that connection.


Mr. HANBURY:: May I ask the minister to repeat the figures he gave in relation to the export of cottons to Australia?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is for the nine months ended December:
1931	1932
Yds.	Yds.
Cotton, fabrics. . .	131,796	1,130,497


Wilfred Hanbury: Could the minister explain why there is such an increase?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Because of the advantages given to us under the treaty we made with Australia a year and a half ago.


James Malcolm: They gave us the same rate as Great Britain?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not quite, I think. I am speaking from memory, but I do not think it was quite the same rate.


James Malcolm: It was only on cotton
goods we were able to compete in Australia on not quite as good a rate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: On certain lines, that is
true. As regards cotton goods, one must remember there are literally scores, and, I presume, almost hundreds of different kinds of cotton goods manufactured, but I am told that our cotton factories are exceptionally well equipped in the way of machinery and so forth for the manufacture of certain classes of cottons.


Wilfred Hanbury: That suggests the observation that it would seem unnecessary for our manufacturers, when they are able so to compete in the world markets, to have protection against cotton coming into Canada,


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think any manufacturer would reply to that argument by saying that if they were denied the protection which is commonly afforded, for instance in this country and all countries now including Great Britain, so that they might have the mass production created by the home market, they would not be able to compete in the foreign market. Therefore with the fact of the protection and the access to the home market, the quantity enables them to have a surplus for export at reasonable prices through the lowering of the overhead costs in mass as compared with restricted production.


Wilfred Hanbury: If they have the unrestricted home market, that better enables them to dump the surplus in foreign markets.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend can put
the case in that way, but I prefer not to agree.


William Duff: The minister read a number
of interesting figures, but in my opinion he failed to tell us what part the personnel of the commercial intelligence service played in getting any of that business. Perhaps he might be good enough to explain to the committee what part the officers of that service played in getting any of that trade with Australia and Great Britain.
1782	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is quite
reasonable in his request, but to give a complete or even a moderately complete story of that would occupy a very long time, and I did not come prepared with detailed illustrations. There comes to my mind one illustration. For instance, let us take Australia and the movement of timber. Our trade commissioner in Australia is Mr. Ross, and I think my predecessor in office who now sits on the other side would agree with me when I say that Mr. Ross is a man of exceptional ability and knowledge.


William Duff: He is from Nova Scotia.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and that ought to commend him to the high opinion of almost anyone, even myself. Mr. Ross, by his intense efforts in regard to the market, conditions of sale, and so forth, as well as by making connection between Canadian exporters and Australian importers, was able to increase our sales tremendously. It was not alone through his efforts, because, as my hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard will recall, representatives of the timber industry went over there; but had it not been for the local knowledge of our representative on the ground, business men going to these countries abroad would have had great difficulty in sensing the local atmosphere and becoming acquainted with the personnel doing business over there. Our files are charged daily with letters from the business men of Canada expressing appreciation of the services rendered to them by our various trade agents abroad. I have no hesitation in saying to the committee that we have in the personnel at the thirty-four or thirty-five stations where they are located a body of trade commissioners of whom Canada can justly be proud and who are rendering a great service to this country. If hon. gentlemen opposite were interested enough to inquire from any of the larger business concerns engaged in the export business, they would find one and all bearing testimony to the splendid services rendered.
We have also in our department a foreign tariffs branch, through which we are able to give to the business men of Canada, from whom we receive inquiries every day, the fullest possible and most up to date information regarding tariffs and other technical conditions in every countiy of the world. These are the services that are being rendered, and I think they are of very great value to the country.


James Layton Ralston: My criticism was that the minister was sending these men to do an impossible task, that he was voting this money

to pay them and then tying their hands. I submit that that is the position. I am not entering into the argument of free trade versus protection, but I am touching upon the question which has frequently been raised in this house, during the last two years at least, as to whether Canada can extend her export trade so long as she imposes prohibitory tariffs against almost every other country of the world, and irritating exchange dumping duties and other import restrictions which make it impossible for importers to know just how much they are going to pay for their goods. However hard these men are trying to do their job, I say it is not much use to vote this money and then make it impossible for these men to do their work because of the policies put in force by the government. I know Mr. Ross personally, and I know he is an excellent man and that he has done good work in Australia. My hon. friend selects Australia. I happen to have here the figures for all the empire countries, and while we may have gained something with Australia, we must have lost something somewhere else, because for the nine months ending December 31, 1932, our exports to empire countries totalled
8176,834,000	as compared with 8178,633,000 in the same period of 1931. I doubt if my hon. friend will find a single increase in our exports to countries other than empire countries, and I say that he is not giving his trade commissioners very much chance when his government put into force the tariff policies they do. In what countries are these six new trade commissioners? Are they in Australia, or where ?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend misunderstood me. I did not say six new trade commissioners, but six assistant trade commissioners.


James Layton Ralston: Well, six assistant trade commissioners.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I take time to explain the system which has been established, and very wisely, I think, maintained in Canada? After the original group of trade commissioners was set up, each year a small number, six or seven or eight young men are chosen after a very stiff competitive examination, one of the most exacting I believe in the service generally, to be trained for the position of trade commissioner. They start in as junior or student trade commissioners here in Ottawa, where they are trained for one year at headquarters, and brought into contact with business people. Then they are sent out as assistant trade commissioners to our various offices throughout the world, and

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
are gradually advanced until ultimately they become, after many years abroad, full fledged trade commissioners. We have thirty-five trade commissioners stationed in various parts of the world, most of whom have an assistant, and some in the larger offices have two. In this way the service has been built tup. We did open one new office last year in northern China. It was our intention to open an office at Tientsin and at Dairen. We did open an office in Dairen, but owing to the disturbed conditions in Manchuria transferred it to Tientsin.


James Layton Ralston: Where are the six new
assistants?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They have been sent out in the last fewr months to Bristol, Liverpool, Brussels, Port of Spain, and Hamburg, and there is one more who has not yet been assigned, but will be shortly.


James Layton Ralston: I know some of these
trade commissioners and the work they are trying to do, and the enthusiasm they show. I do not think my hon. friend himself can express any higher appreciation than I have of what they are trying to do, but I am trying to point out that their hands are tied by the policies of this government. I know Mr. Croft in New Zealand. He had done excellent work. I also know Mr. Scott in Liverpool.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He has been moved to
the Argentine.


James Layton Ralston: I also know Mr. Palmer, our representative in the Scandinavian countries. But with regard to the point I was raising with respect to this appointment which is being blanketed in under the act, while I am not suggesting that the gentleman is not an admirable man-I do not know him at all-he is being blanketed in at a time when economy is supposed to be the watchword. What amount was paid the director of commercial intelligence previously? Is this the usual salary?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will
turn to the civil government details, he will find that the previous occupant of that office received $4,800. It will foe recalled that the director of commercial intelligence was changed some years ago, and Mr. Poussette, who was an experienced trade commissioner, was sent out into the field and an officer from the department who had not been abroad at all, and was not trained in the service other than in the office mentioned, was put
in as director of commercial intelligence at the reduced salary.


James Layton Ralston: Who was that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Payne. After a year or more of that system I felt it was highly desirable to 'have one of the best trained men we had in 'the service, who fully understood the problems, brought to the head office. It was with that idea, and distinctly for the purpose of improving the service generally, that I chose 'the man whom I considered to be the most experienced and efficient man we had in the service. We brought Mr. Wilgress to Ottawa.


James Layton Ralston: Where was he?


Henry Herbert Stevens: He was at that time located in Hamburg. It was done at my request, as a result of a decision I arrived at after most caneful study of the whole situation. Mr. Wilgress is not receiving any larger salary than he received abroad, including his allowances; in fact I think it is a little less. So there is no question as fair as he is concerned of increase in remuneration. It is a question of putting in charge of a very important service a man who is trained and experienced in the technique of the service. I consider it was a very wise and proper move.


James Layton Ralston: I assume, of course, that the gentleman who replaced him in Hamburg got the salary that he did, and that therefore there is an' increase of $3,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the gentleman who replaced him got precisely the same salary he was getting before.


James Layton Ralston: That is what I say. Therefore there is an increase of $3,000, because under the previous arrangement the incumbent had been receiving $4,800, which now becomes $7,800 and that ait ta time when we are cutting salaries. I commend 'that to my hon. friend and members of the house who are looking for eoonomy in these times and who see newspapers containing headlines showing that this government has succeeded in reducing the estimates some $10,000,000 below last year.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Camouflage.


James Layton Ralston: Yet we find here an increase of $3,000 in the salary of one officer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know my hon. friend does not want to give a wrong impression. There is not an increase of $3,000 in the salarj- of one officer.


James Layton Ralston: One office, then.
1784	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not even agree to that.


James Layton Ralston: The increase is in regard to the position of director of commercial intelligence service. The person who was occupying that office was getting $4,800; the person who occupies it now is getting $7,800, at a time when the salaries of civil servants are cut ten per cent and the cost of living is down, I assume 'the minister made the best bargain possible, but I doubt whether the gentleman, no matter how good, in view of the situation in the commercial world, could not have been obtained for less money than the salary proposed to be paid, which was practically the salary of a deputy minister three years ago.
The second point is that the minister has taken upon himself, and makes no apology for it-if I had done a thing of that kind I would make no apology either; that is the proper attitude, I suppose-he has taken upon himself to override the provisions of the Civil Service Act and to say he is going to make the appointment and come to parliament for approval. The Civil Service Act provides for examination of junior members of the commercial intelligence service. If Mr. Wilgress was to be regarded as such an important officer he should have been taken out of the Civil Service Act. That was not done. Without regard to the fact that returned soldiers are given preference or that the Civil Service Commission are supposed to hold an examination of candidates, the minister makes the appointment himself, and says, "I have made the selection and that is all there is to it." That has been done before, as I say, but in very exceptional oases. I have never approved of it. I do not believe it is the proper thing; it is an ingenious way of getting rid of the act. If it were found by the Civil Service Commission that no returned soldier was qualified for the job-and my hon. friend himself could specify the qualifications; it is his department, then of course under the qualification he prepares this gentleman would get the job. Why not comply with the act instead of asking parliament to rubber stamp an appointment made in contravention of the Civil Service Act?
I criticize the item first on the ground that it is not in accordance with the principle of economy which should be practised at this time; second that there is an increase in the salary of $3,000, and third, that it is a contravention of the Civil Service Act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I fear I cannot allow the observations my hon. friend has made to go without an answer. In the first place there is not an increase. The situation is this; Mr. Wilgress was at Hamburg. I have stated the reasons he was brought to Ottawa. There was no increase in his remuneration. We took the trade commissioner from Athens, leaving the Athens office in charge of the assistant who, we felt, was competent to carry on. Thus we saved one salary at Athens, so there is a saving as far as this particular move is concerned of about half the salary of a trade commissioner.


James Layton Ralston: There is an increase in
the amount paid the director of commercial intelligence service.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, there is no increase
in the amount paid to the official who occupies that office. There is an increase in the amount that is paid to the office, I will agree. But in order to fill that office we bring a man who was already receiving the salary from Athens to Hamburg and leave the Athens office vacant. So the net result is an actual saving. Then my hon. friend says we have brought a man in in contravention of the Civil Service Act, Again I differ from him. We are not seeking to evade the act; the very fact that my hon. friend is discussing it here so freely shows there is no evasion. We bring it frankly before parliament and ask parliament to sanction it. It is true that under a strict interpretation of the Civil Service Act we would have to call for applications by and large, but I submit to my hon. friend-he has occupied the post of a minister-that there are occasions in some of the higher offices of the crown where a minister should have the liberty of exercising some judgment, particularly when in doing so he brings it before the house, states frankly what he has done and justifies to the best of his ability the action he has taken.


James Layton Ralston: He cannot help doing
that.
Mr. STEVENS; When I said I had no apology to make it was not with any desire to affront the house, but rather to assure the house of my conviction of the rightness of the course I had taken and that I am quite willing to take full responsibility for it. I am convinced that it is a strengthening of a service which I think is of great value to the country. We must not forget, either, that the appointee to this office had passed the civil service examinations, was fuliy qualified

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
i	___________________________
under the Civil Sendee Act to hold the positions that he held; and it is to be remembered that he is not being taken from the commercial intelligence service into some other branch but is simply being transferred to a position at Ottawa where, shall I say, bis extraordinary experience qualifies him to direct that service. I do not wish to say a word of a derogatory character in regard to the previous occupant of the office, but the fact remains that the gentleman had no experience in commercial life and no experience abroad in this service. He was put into that service a few years ago, as my hon. friend knows, direct from the position of private secretary to a minister.


James Malcolm: He had been secretary of the commercial intelligence department and was promoted on the recommendation of the deputy minister, owing to his long years of experience.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He was a man who had spent all his time in Ottawa. I would rather not say anything derogatory with regard to his occupancy of the office but I did believe, and I say it frankly, .that it was desirable to have at the head of the service a man who had had experience in this particular branch.


James Layton Ralston: So far as experience is
concerned, I test a man by results. Looking at the trade returns for 1928, and 1929 and 1930 and the present returns, I do not think there is much comfort for the minister in the figures there given.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No one is getting much
comfort these days out of anything.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has not
met the point which I must keep before the committee, and that is that if the Civil Service Act procedure had been followed, an exservice man with qualifications would have had the preference. By proceeding in the way adopted here, you have done away with the provisions of the act so that a qualified exservice man is given no chance. My hon. friend is ingenious with regard to figures and he can argue as much as he pleases that the situation is the same as it was before. The fact is however that in his own estimates of last year, at page 98, the director of commercial intelligence received $4,800, while in his estimates this year, the item with which we are dealing, the director is to receive 87,800, a difference of $3,000. The fact that there is an assistant in Athens who is able to take charge of the office does not alter the situation in Ottawa, where you increase the salary. If the man in Athens had been quali-53719-113
fled he would have been shifted anyway, and the fact that this gentleman came from Hamburg would have made no difference. The fact of the matter is that we are paying $3,000 more owing to the minister's feeling that he, instead of the Civil Service Commission, should fix the salary and make the appointment.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Did his predecessors always follow the rule and leave it to the commission?


James Layton Ralston: I have said that there
have been cases in which it has not been followed-


James Dew Chaplin: Many of them.


James Layton Ralston: -and it was criticized most bitterly by my hon. friends who are now on the other side of the house. I remember particularly an instance in which there was a position in the Speaker's estimates and it was criticized bitterly by the present Prime Minister. I do not find him here this afternoon criticizing this item.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I wish to ask a question with regard to the distribution of the Commercial Intelligence Journal. I pointed out to the manager of a large glass factory that there was a notice in this journal one day about a market in another country for a product he manufactured. He stated that he never saw a copy of the j ournal and that the department had no idea of the line of goods he made. Can the minister state how information of :his kind is collected?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That comes up under another item.


Charles A. Stewart: If we are about through with this item I wish to congratulate the minister on enlarging the service, because I am fully aware of the difficulties he is facing and I sympathize with him to the fullest extent. I sympathize with both him and the Minister of Finance. If they are to increase Canadian trade they will need a tremendous staff abroad and in the empire, because this government has never failed to place barriers in the way of trade. Indeed, I am amazed that my friends in the corner have forgotten that fact in their arguments with regard to currency. I am in favour of increasing sales agency staffs because if we do not increase them trade will disappear altogether and the minister will find himself in the unhappy position of having to admit that Canadian trade has entirely vanished. I was rather amused-and I do get amused once in a while at the minister's efforts-to see a sort of camouflage in his citing innumerable

17S6	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligencet
instances in which he has increased trade since 1931. If we had not, there would be no trade at all now, and in consequence the treasury would have suffered much more severely than it has. Surely after three years of an attempt to increase trade in Canada by means of the policies which my hon. friends opposite have put into force, it is nearly time now there was a right about face. If they made a right about face they would give the intelligence service a chance to do something for Canadian trade and help it to expand in the empire and in foreign countries. Until they do so I am in accord with the minister in increasing his staff because he will need to work day and night if we are to dispose of some of our produce, so long as the government refuses to receive the goods of countries to whom it is attempting to sell.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Has the minister considered the desirability of raising the trade commissioners to the position of consul in countries where they represent Canada? I understand that our trade commissioners are in an inferior position in other countries where they have the position virtually of consuls.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have given a great deal of thought to that suggestion. Quite a number of prominent and competent persons in Canada have made the suggestion and after giving it a good deal of consideration I came to the conclusion that it would not be wise. In saying that I am expressing my own opinion. Of course, such a change would necessitate action on the part of the government and I am now speaking not the opinion of the Prime Minister but merely my own as head of this department. The reason I came to that conclusion was this. The primary object of a trade commissioner abroad is trade, business, making contacts between Canadian business houses and prospective customers, the compilation of information on trade and all matters appertaining to trade; and the danger is that if you make the trade commissioner a diplomatic officer he will become obsessed with a glorified idea of his position, and I do not say this at all offensively.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: A superiority complex.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; he might develop a diplomatic complex and might pay more attention to the diplomatic than to the trade side of his duties. The only objection is that the trade commissioner in a foreign country, in approaching the government, has more difficulty achieving that objective, that is to say, getting direct contact with the minister than has the consul of another country. That is true; but we must bear in mind that the 
major part of the trade commissioner's duties consists not in contacts with the government, negotiating between one government and the other, but in contacts between business men in Canada and business men in the country in which he is stationed. While, therefore, I am not adamant on this, I came to the conclusion that it would be better for our trade commissioners to retain the status of purely commercial rather than diplomatic agents.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I always understood
that a consul's occupation had relation more to trade. Diplomacy is represented by ministers or ambassadors, but the consul's function relates more to trade. Coming down to the business side of it, on looking over the list of Canadian trade agents I find very few French names. I state openly at this time that I do not think a man should be appointed to any position because of his nationality; qualification should come first, but he should not be kept out of any position because of his French descent. In many countries in South America, in Europe and in Africa the qualification for a foreign trade agent is that he shall be able to speak the language of the particular country, or French. I could name forty-two countries where that qualification is necessary. I am wondering just how many of our thirty-five agents are familiar with the French language and are therefore able adequately to represent this country in trade matters. In many countries French is the language which replaces the language of the country when that is not known to the individual. I am sure that outside of the agents at Brussels, Paris and Cairo, very few of our trade representatives abroad are familiar with the French language. I understand that in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Peru where a trade agent does not speak Spanish, he conducts his negotiations in the French language. Knowledge of French is a qualification which should be necessary in the appointment of our trade agents.


James Malcolm: I might say to my hon. friend that I feel just as responsible for these trade commissioners as does the minister. I think my hon. friend is making a mistake when he assumes that our trade commissioners do not know the languages of the countries in which they are located. That is one of the first requirements of a man to be sent to a foreign field. I am not saying that Mr. Langley can speak Japanese, or that Mr. Cosgrave can speak Chinese, as they might be the exceptions. I should like to support what the minister has said against giving diplomatic status to our trade commissioners.

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
Where there is a minister in the country the trade commissioner could be attached to his office as a commercial attache and obtain entree through the minister. It is a very serious matter to recommend that all trade commissioners be given diplomatic status, as that would place them under the Department of External Affairs rather than the Department of Trade and Commerce. While I do not agree that should these commissioners be given diplomatic status they would immediately acquire a superiority complex and neglect their business. I do say that their purpose primarily is to make contacts with commercial houses on behalf of Canadian firms desiring to export. They are able to make all the necessary contacts through their memberships in the various clubs, and I do not think anything would be gained by giving them diplomatic status.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I understand that
foreign countries carry on trade matters through their consuls.


James Malcolm: I cannot give my hon.
friend any information as to what foreign countries do here, but I may say that while I was in charge of the department I never found that we lost any business because we had not put gold braid upon our commissioners. I support the minister in not being too anxious to give them diplomatic status.


William Duff: In giving the figures in connection with the increase in trade, the minister mentioned an increase in cod oil from 16,000 gallons to about 100,000 gallons. These figures show the ridiculousness and stupidity of interfering with trade. I do not want to be regarded as paying a compliment to the recent Imperial economic conference; I am simply referring to one of the results therefrom. Great Britain and Europe, up to the time Great Britain put a tax of one shilling four pence per gallon upon cod oil, were the natural markets for Norwegian and Swedish oil, but since that tax was put on very little of this oil has gone into Great Britain and the other countries of Europe. Canadian cod oil found a natural market in the United States, but due to this policy of interfering with trade, the Norwegians immediately looked for other markets. They came to the United States, and to-day we find Norwegian cod oil coming to Boston and New York while Canadian cod oil crosses the Atlantic to Great Britain.


Mr. OOOTE:: I should like to make one or two suggestions to the Minister in connection with our trade services abroad. I think we
53719-113J
are neglecting a great market in not having trade agents in Russia. Lately we have heard a great deal about the negotiation of what is termed the cattle deal with Russia, the bartering of Canadian cattle and hides for Russian oil. One of the objections urged against the transaction is that the syndicate which has attempted to negotiate this trade has been asking too much for its services. If we had a trade agent in Russia it is possible that he could negotiate such deals. It may be that because of the high tariffs put on by this government and the fluctuating exchange rates we shall have to resort to bartering one class of goods for another, and from what I have heard of conditions in Russia I rather imagine that a trade commissioner might be able to barter some of our wheat which we are unable to sell for some of their kerosene, gasoline and lubricating oil, of which Russia has a surplus. The petroleum products which we might obtain for our wheat could be used by the farmers who grow the wheat. This would be a very sensible thing for a trade commissioner to endeavour to accomplish. We should make every endeavour to obtain trade in every place it is possible to obtain it. '
Another suggestion I should like to make is that this service should be enlarged by placing a grain milling chemist in Europe in order to push the sale of Canadian wheat. I mean a man who would be familiar with the milling of our wheat and who could go into the mills in Europe and the old country and demonstrate the superiority of Canadian wheat over other wheats which the miller might be using. I heard a short time ago that the Argentine, Australia and Russia all have such men located in Europe, and I have no doubt that Canada is losing the sale of a considerable amount of wheat through not using similar expert salesmen. We cannot afford to miss any of these opportunities. If such a man could assist in the sale of our wheat, there is no better way in which we could spend some of the money voted to the commercial intelligence service than to employ a well qualified man in that position.
I should like to point, out to the minister and also to hon. members that one of the greatest obstacles to trade within the British Empire, trade which the recent imperial conference was supposed to foster, is that the currencies of all the other countries within the British Empire are discounted in Canada all the way from twenty-five to fifty per cent. This is a very serious matter. In about every third issue of the Commercial Intelligence Journal will be found some trade commissioner stating that this is a great handicap to Can-
1788	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
ada's endeavour to sell our goods in other parts of the empire. I remember particularly, I think it was in the issue of October 15, our trade commissioner in Australia points this out as one of the greatest obstacles to Canada selling her goods to Australia. It is something we cannot overlook. I should like to suggest to. the minister that in the Commercial Intelligence Journal, on the page where the exchange quotations for the currencies of different countries are given, the old parity should be given in the table. Last year that was done; at least it used to be done, and for quite a long time it has not been included. It is something that would be appreciated by a good many who are securing copies of the Commercial Intelligence Journal.
Before I sit down I should like to ask the minister just what the Australian pound is quoted at in Canada in the last issue which he may have available, and also the rate of exchange for the New Zealand pound.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
George Gibson Coote: I am just wondering what the Australian pound is worth in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Montreal quotation for January 23 last was $3.09 and for January 30, $3.1849. As regards some of the observations made by my hon. friend, I happen to have under way now steps which I hope, though perhaps not in precisely the way suggested by my hon. friend, will achieve the idea he has in mind, namely, that in wheat and flour purchasing countries, particularly in Europe, our trade commissioners will be peculiarly well informed on the technique of, let us say, the flour content and wheat content. We have considered the question of a special man to be sent around for that purpose. We question for the moment whether this would be as effective as the process we are working on at the present time, and that is to have a highly qualified and scientific person prepare the data which will be placed in the hands of each of the trade commissioners who will be instructed and informed technically as commercial agents.
My hon. friend spoke about bartering with Russia. It must of course be borne in mind that the Russian government handles all the trade of that country, both imports and exports, and the question there is not one of

salesmanship but of their government control. I would prefer at the moment not to enter into a discussion of the alleged sale to Russia of a certain quantity of cattle. That was dealt with by the Prime Minister in his statement the other day.


James Malcolm: When the minister looks over the cost of our foreign business, he has to go beyond the cost of administering the commercial intelligence service and to turn t-o the amount of money Canada votes for subventions to steamships plying between. Canada and foreign countries in order that our trade may be carried. In 1929-30 steamship subventions and the commercial intelligence service cost this country $1,000,000. This year under the estimates which the minister is presenting he is asking the people to pay $2,250,000 in taxes for those two services combined.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I interrupt my hon. friend, so that he will not be in error on one point? It must be borne in mind that steamship services include a very large amount for the carriage of mail.


James Malcolm: There are being subsidized new services which have not been subsidized before. We will discuss those when the items come up. I see the minister has a new sendee for $059,000 between Canada, China and Japan, and a new one for $535,&00, the second one being to Great Britain, a service which did not exist, in the old days. These two amount to nearly a million and a quarter dollars. Some explanation will have to be given why so much of the taxpayers' money is needed to help steamships which are lying around ports looking for cargoes. Will the minister after eight o'clock kindly give the figures as to the trade of Canada for the years from 1926 to 1932 and the cost of the commercial intelligence service and steamship subsidies for the same period?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall try to have that for my hon. friend.
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



SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF SASKATOON

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prince Albert) moved the second reading of Bill No. 16, respecting the synod of the

Private Bills
diocese of Saskatchewan and to change its name to "Synod of the Diocese of Saskatoon".
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
bill is to change the name of the Synod of the Diocese of Saskatchewan to the Synod of the Diocese of Saskatoon, and to provide that all existing rights are not affected.
The Synod of the Diocese of Saskatchewan was incorporated by dominion statute in 1882, that is before the province of Saskatchewan was established in 1905. The Diocese of Saskatchewan so incorporated is to be divided into the Diocese of Saskatchewan and the Diocese of Saskatoon. All matters relating to the division of property come within the competence of the local legislature, and will be dealt with by an act of the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan at its present session.
The southern part of the present Diocese of Saskatchewan will become the Diocese of Saskatoon, and the northern part will become the Diocese of Saskatchewan under the act of the local legislature. The Diocese of Saskatoon will function under the charter of the Diocese of Saskatchewan, which necessitates the change of name from "Saskatchewan" to "Saskatoon" in the dominion act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
was to give some information, I think, to the ex-minister.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, I shall be glad to do that in a moment.


William Richard Motherwell: In the meantime,
referring to the figures which the minister quoted this afternoon showing a greater export of wheat this year as compared with former years, an export of over 100 million bushels this year as compared with about 90 million bushels last year, I should like to know to what particular policies of the government the minister attributes that increased shipment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the hon. gentleman had been listening to me he would have noted that I said when I interpolated those figures that they had no particular reference to the point I was then discussing, and that I gave theim
merely for information. The figures I gave showed an export of wheat for the nine months ending December 31, 1931, of 96,000,000 bushels, in round figures, as compared with 125,000,000 bushels in 1932. The hon. gentleman now asks to what particular policy of the government we attribute that increase. It is not attributed to any particular policy. There has been an increased purchase of Canadian wheat by Great Britain; no doubt the six cents a bushel preference had some influence during the latter part of last year, but we are not arguing that that accounts for the whole increase.


William Richard Motherwell: I am glad that my hon. friend can see it that way, because the preference has been in effect only a very short time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have already said that.


William Richard Motherwell: The minister will
not mind my repeating it. I think a much more likely explanation of the increased export is, first, the large crop last year, secondly, the high quality of the wheat, and thirdly, its extremely low price, all of which tended to bring about a larger export to Great Britain. I think those are much more likely reasons than the one assigned by the minister.


William Duff: The minister was good enough this afternoon to give some figures of the export of lumber from Canada to Australia. I noticed in answer to a question asked by myself and which the minister answered that
8268,000,	in round figures, was paid in subsidies to steamers carrying lumber from this country. Would the minister be good enough to say if the same treatment was meted out to lumber interests on the Atlantic coast in connection with shipments to Australia as was meted out in other parts of Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The matter to which the hon. gentleman refers was dealt with in a question the other day. I am not quite certain how he arrives at the figure he quoted. I have not the figures in mind in detail at the moment. There are certain subsidies paid to shipping on the Atlantic as on the Pacific. Up to the present the steamship service between our eastern ports and Australia and New Zealand has been carried on by the Canadian National Steamship service, which, of course, receives no subsidy. There are other sendees from our Atlantic ports, one to South Africa, which for the last thirty years has been carried on with an annual subsidy of between 8100,000 and $125,000. That is a regular service and one of the oldest subsidized services that we have. Then we have
1790	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
a subsidized service to China at the present time which is finding a market for a class of lumber which is very difficult to market in Canada or Great Britain-in fact cannot be marketed there-that known as common. That service is very successful, carrying a great deal of lumber to that market.
There is at present no subsidy for the service to Australia. There was a subsidy under a contract entered into about four or five years ago to Australia, but that contract expired last year. In the latter three years it was designated in the estimates as "Canada to Australia and /'or China," and it was optional whether it be to Australia or China. For the last three years the subsidy was paid for a service to China, not to Australia; but during the past year the increase of lumber shipments to which my hon. friend refers was largely, or entirely due, to the additional preference secured under the trade agreement with Australia.


William Duff: With all d'ue regpect I think I am quite in order in referring to the fact that some $268,950 was paid from August, 1929, to December, 1932, to ships carrying lumber from Canada. My reason for saying I am in order is that the minister this afternoon was good enough to give full particulars regarding exports of lumber from this country. In my question which appears on page 1686 of Hansard I asked:
1. What amount has been paid by the Dominion of Canada to ships carrying lumber from British Columbia ports?
And the answer given was, $268,950. I have no objection to the shipments of lumber being increased, but I say that every port of this country' should be treated alike. If it is thought advisable that steamships should be subsidized to carry' lumber from British Columbia ports to Australia, then it seems to me that Atlantic ports and Atlantic shippers of lumber should be put in the same position. It is not quite fair if no money has been paid by this government for subsidies to encourage the lumber trade from Atlantic coast ports. The government should seriously consider this matter and put all our ports on the same basis.


Mr. DONNELLY:: We all recognize these days the difficulties in the w.ay of international trade, on account of the high tariffs different countries have put into effect and the barriers of extreme nationalism. We recognize that it is necessary' for this country and all countries that are endeavouring to trade with one another to have agents, ambassadors, consuls in the different countries to promote trade. I hold in my hand a clipping from a newspaper which purports to lay before the people the new deal which the president-elect of the

United States proposes to put into effect. His program is arranged under seven heads, and I notice that the seventh is: "Restoring foreign trade by' general debt-tariff adjustments, and by Business with Russia." Arising out of that I would like to ask the minister what steps his government is taking to promote trade with Russia. Llave we any agents there? Are we doing anything at all to promote trade? Russia seems to be the one country in the world that many nations are looking to for trade. Are we doing anything at all along those lines?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The document presented to the house by the Prime Minister the other day I think covers the situation. There is little I can add to what was said by him in that official statement. However, my hon. friend and others who have made reference to Russian trade should bear in mind certain facts. The first is that all exports and imports of Russia are under the direct control of the government of Russia. The second is that during the past five years Russian purchases have almost invariably been based on long term credits, or what in ordinary trade would be considered long term, that is, from say eighteen months to as much as three years. The question of the extending of credits to Russia by the countries from which these goods are exported, either by a private exporter or a private exporter assisted or guaranteed by the government, is a matter of grave importance. Up to the present time this government has not considered it advisable or desirable that we should place this country's resources or credit behind the financing of the sale of goods to Russia. I grant that the subject is one for discussion; much may be said upon it. But I do not think that at the moment, and under existing circumstances, much can be said strongly in support of it. It is not my desire to reflect in any sense upon Russian methods; those are of their own choice. It is equally clear, however, that the question whether or not the government of Canada shall place its resources behind goods that leave this country to go to Russia is one that we ourselves must decide, and up to the present we have not decided in favour of it.


James J. Donnelly: I thank the minister for his pronouncement. When he says that the government of Russia does all the trading in that country, we recognize that fact, and that makes it all the easier. We have not to travel all over the country to see various individuals; we go to the government. We have only to interview them; we do not need a band of agents throughout the country. But I understand that in many cases Russia is willing to

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
barter, in the purchase of steel rails and cattle, for example, to barter oil. Is the government willing that we shall trade on a fair basis with those people? Will it give anyone who wants to trade with them a clear bill so that they may be allowed to do it? No one wants to trade with Russia in steel rails and then find when they get the oil on the ocean that the government is going to put on an embargo or prohibitive duty and prevent it from landing. A year ago when we were investigating the oil situation there was an offer of oil from Roumania. We went to the trade department and tried to get them to tell us what duty they would put on, and they would not tell us. Under those conditions you do not know whether when you got a boat load of oil to Montreal they would put on a prohibitive duty. No one can trade under those conditions. If the government will give a written guarantee to people bringing goods from that country that prohibitive measures will not be enforced against them and they are at liberty to trade, they will know whether you are willing to allow these goods from that country to come in.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps I may take advantage of the observations of my hon. friend to clear up a point which apparently is obscure in the minds of many. My hon. friend, in his concluding remarks, said something to this effect-he will correct me if I am wrong-that if the government would guarantee that, when the goods arrived here, they would be treated in a given manner there would be an opportunity of trading; and he suggested that this was one of the essentials of trading. I see he nods his head in concurrence. Let me point out that in no item of our trade, and with no one in Canada, do we do that. Let us get that clear in our minds. In all our business, to no one do we give any such guarantee. Surely we should not be expected, in trading with Russia, to do anything different from, what we do with others. Instead of putting it negatively let me state it in a positive form. There is nothing in the world, nothing in this country that prevents anyone who wishes to buy from or sell goods to Russia from doing so, with certain limited exceptions, those exceptions being coal, pulpwood, furs and lumber. I believe these are the four items, and with the exception of these items anyone in Canada can sell to or buy from Russia or barter anything he wishes to. He can do so within the ambit of the law. We say to everyone: There is the statute law of the country; we have no desire to interfere with it and you
can trade so long as you remain within that law.
My hon. friend mentioned oil. He said that no one knew, if he bought oil, whether he would get it into the country. Anyone who wants to bring in a cargo of oil can do so if he keeps within the terms of the statute; in conformity with the terms of the statute he can do so at any time without let or hindrance. But here is the difficulty. There are some who desire to bring into Canada, under the guise-I use this term not offensively but for convenience-under the guise of crude oil, an oil that is partly refined. Apart from Russia we have had some experience in that regard. There was a desire to bring in what was called skimmed oil; and though it does not come within my official knowledge, I may observe by way of illustration that I have been told there are those who desire to take a refined gasoline which has been mixed, after refinement, with fuel oil to a certain extent to disguise the nature of it, seeking to enter that as a semi-refined oil. If you will turn to the statutes you will find there the schedule fully set forth in technical terms -a certain specific gravity, certain degrees, 60 degrees, 2,700 and so on, the usual description peculiar to that class of goods. It is all specifically set forth, some being free and some dutiable according to the nature of the commodity. Now, if there is anyone in Canada who desires to do so, he can bring in a cargo of oil to-morrow in conformity with the laws of the country. People can buy or sell anything they like provided they comply with our laws. The only thing this government has refused to do is to use the credit of the country, either on its own part or behind individuals, in a movement of goods from this country to any other country or the reverse as the case may be.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not including wheat?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, including wheat. We are not putting the resources of the country behind the sale of goods to other countries, and this includes Russia.
Let us look at the items in the order in council. First there is coal. Why did we take the action we did in that regard? Well, there was an opportunity of giving to Great Britain a very substantial market for Welsh coal. We were buying large quantities of anthracite and it was thought desirable to let Great Britain have a substantial share of that market, so we put on a small duty of 40 cents a ton, which had a tendency to turn the business to Great Britain. Had we not put on an embargo against Russian coal, mined
1792	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
under conditions which are not compatible with the normal ethics of business and labour in any other country, then Russian coal would have come in and Great Britain would have had virtually none of that market. We are consciously giving that business to Great Britain.
Next there was the question of pulpwood. It started out, as a matter of fact, with a shipment of pulpwood which came up the St. Lawrence-hon. members from Quebec will probably recall this better than I do-and was shipped down into the States through one of the short routes south from the St. Lawrence river, and the intention was that that pulpwood was to come to Canada. Now, here we had a pulp and paper industry not in a flourishing condition, to put it mildly, with thousands of settlers and small farmers who were selling pulpwood to the industry and whose business was threatened by the importation of Russian pulpwood again, I say, produced at costs and under conditions which we in this country did not consider a desirable type of economic production to promote.


Thomas Cantley: Produced by penal labour.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am putting it as mildly as I can; at any rate, under conditions that we do not wish to encourage. We therefore put an embargo on pulpwood. The same applies to furs, although that item was modified later. At the time it was put on it was known that Russia had vast quantities of furs which they were willing to part with at almost any price, and we felt that the fur industry of this country, which is very important, was entitled to consideration. The same applies to lumber.
Let this also be borne in mind, that the main object behind Russian exports is the securing of foreign credit, not necessarily to get for the product a price that will pay a legitimate cost of production with profit internally, but simply to create a foreign credit. That is the object of their export and it did not matter to them, by and large, whether they got a profit on the particular individual export, because in their main operations, their large operations as a government, they were able to absorb losses on exports by some other manipulation internally. Anyone who studies their financial statements, their budgets, will see that clearly provided for. Let us turn to the experience we had two years ago last fall, in 1930. We were trying to ship wheat to Great Britain. I myself, my colleague the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and other members who were in London at the time saw ships with cargoes of

seven, eight and nine thousand tons of Russian wheat, in my mind's eye I can see a cargo of 7,000 tons of wheat which arrived ait Bristol on consignment. The broker to whom it was sent was standing beside me when the hatches w-ere broken open and he told me that he had instructions to sell the wheat at any price he could get. That wheat was offered throughout the country at any price and as a result the Liverpool market broke six cents per bushel. It is impossible to compete with articles sold under such conditions. My hon. friend speaks of selling wheat to Russia. I have looked into this matter with some care, and at the present time there does not appear to be any official or reliable information to the effect that there is a market for wheat in Russia. We know that in some sections of Russia there is need of wheat for food purposes, but we have no authentic information that that country purposes buying wheat. Last year we sold about 3,000,000 bushels which were imported through the Siberian ports mostly for seed purposes, although I think some was used for food. There is nothing before us at the present time to indicate that the Russian government has any intention of buying this commodity. If there are any other questions with which hon. gentlemen would like me to deal, I shall be glad to do so. In these few brief remarks I have endeavoured to outline the situation which exists in connection with this sort of business.


Thomas Cantley: I should like to inquire
of the hon, member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) what authority he has for the statement lie made that Russia wants to buy steel rails from Canada


James J. Donnelly: I do not know that
Russia wants to buy steel rails. I simply asked what the government would do if Russia wanted to buy steel rails.


Thomas Cantley: You say that they did.


James J. Donnelly: We have been told
that we are at liberty to trade with other couinitries, but I can remember in 1932 when the banking and commerce committee was investigating the price of gasoline I went to the Department of National Revenue, and had another man go two or three times, in order to try tio find out what would be the duty upon gasoline coming in from Roumania. They said that they would have to find out the price of gasoline in Roumania and the value of Roumanian money, and would let us know the duty later. I know of an importer

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
who was offered a tanker of gasoline laid down in Montreal at six cents a gallon, but he was unable to find out how much duty be would have to pay. He would not import any gasoline because he was afraid that when the boat was on the ocean he would be informed that there was a duty of ten cents peir gallon against his gasoline. We want to know what the duty will be on commodities coming from Russia or if any other restrictions will be imposed. As I said, apparently the president-elect of the United States is ready to assist trade with Russia, and I want to know if this government is going to assist or prevent such trade.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before dinner the hon.
member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) asked for certain information,, which I am now prepared to give him. The figures he asked for are as follows:
Fiscal year ending March 31	Value of imports into Canada	Value of exports from Canada	Expenditure on commercial intelligence service	Expenditure on foreign steamship services	Expenditure on local steamship services	Total expenditure on steamship services$	s	$	%	*	$1926	927,328,732	1,328,700,137	320,837	547,7G8	507,874	1,055,6431927	1,030,892,505	1,267,573,142	357,415	395,717	613,281	1,008,9981928	1,108,939,466	1,250,598,034	413,294	223,999	620,593	844,5931929	1,265,679,091	1,388,896,075	495,184	328,183	698,191	1,026,3751930	1,248,273,582	1.144,938,070	663,378	445,175	669,971	1,115,0471931	906,612,695	817,028,048	749,634	582,216	740,528	1,322,7441932	..578,503,904	587,565,517	690,609 669,068 693,487	2,322,038 1.482.850 1.582.850	671,687	2,993.725602,852	2,085,7021934-Estimated	590,080	2,172,930
It is impossible to give the trade figures for 1933 and 1934, and it will be noted also that the other figures for those years are estimated.


Mr. IRVINE:: I am not very clear as to
the reasons given by the minister for not encouraging the proposal made to barter Canadian cattle for Russian oil and other products, nor do I know that such proposal had the official sanction of the Russian government. The rumours going about are that such a proposal was made to the government, the suggestion being that the government put up sufficient credit to enable those engaged in the business to pay the Canadian people for their cattle which would in turn be exchanged for the Russian products. I cannot see how such a transaction could be considered as dangerous to the government, as apparently the Russian government would not enter into the picture. Their products would come in here and1 our products would go to Russia in exchange; the government would merely have to wait until our Canadian firms sold the Russian products in this country in order to reimburse the government. In what way could such a deal be financially dangerous for the government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I thought the statement
which the Prime Minister made the other day completely covered the case.


William Irvine: I am sorry I did not hear
it and I did not read it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I certainly recommend that my hon. friend read it with care.


William Irvine: The statement just made
by the minister was the basis of my question, regardless of what the Prime Minister may have said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall deal with the
matter again. The hon. gentleman asks: Why should the government not have sanctioned and supported-and I presume he means financial support-and backed the proposal made by Mr. Serkau in regard to the exchange of 100,000 head of cattle. I think I can put the case clearly and concisely by saying this:	In the first place, the proposal
by Mr. Serkau contemplated, according to his own written word, a sum amounting to $8,000,000. That is his own estimate. In other words, he says that the total amount, including freight, payable by the Russian government for 100,000 head of cattle will be in the neighbourhood of $8,000,000. Let us keep that fact in mind, because later on in his letter he states that he hopes the transaction will not involve more than perhaps $1,000,000. The fact, however, remains that the total amount involved is $8,000,000. The second fact to bear in mind is this: it is clear, according to this written proposal, that
1794	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
they do not expect the Russian government to pay completely for those cattle until June, 1935. That is quite in harmony with what I said a moment ago was the common practice. The point is this: The sum of $8,000,000 is involved, and payment will be, presumably in a progression of payments, between now and June, 1935. The third point to keep in mind is that we are asked to accept Russian 7 per cent bonds, payable in June, 1935, for whatever sum may be outstanding. The fourth fact is that Mr. Serkau says, also in writing, that those cattle ought to be shipped before November next, so that the total liability would be incurred before that time. Another fact is that Mr. Serkau asks us, in addition to assuming responsibility for this liability, to guarantee them against any possible breach of agreement by the Russian government. These are things we felt we were not warranted in doing. First we did not think we were warranted in using $8,000,000 of this country's credit, or money, as the case might be, for the export of live stock to Russia. In the second place we did not think we were warranted in guaranteeing those involved in the transaction against the possibility of any breach of contract by the Russian government.
Then we come to the question of exchange of commodities, to which my hon. friend has referred. The suggested exchange of commodities consists of a number of items: petrol in its various forms, lubricating oil, anthracite coal. I have already made it clear that we do not consider it advisable to sacrifice to the Russians the British coal markets in this country, and that is the reason we imposed an embargo. We do not think it advisable to change that. This eliminates anthracite coal. In so far as kerosene, lubricating oil and petrol are concerned, if any private person desires to purchase these commodities, they may be brought into this country now under the regular tariff under which anybody else can import them. But we do not think it advisable for this government to offer to Russia or any other country, such as Roumania, if you like, any particular guarantee that we are not going, at any time within the next few years, to make any changes in the tariff or any such changes as that. Obviously no government could pursue that course. We say to them: There is the *statute law; you are at liberty to import *goods within the confines of that law just the same as is being done to-day from South America and other parts of the world. I do not think anything is to be gained by labouring the point, but that is our conclusion.

Furthermore, let me make this abundantly *clear. There is not one syllable in this document to show that the Russian government is even cognizant of this proposal. We are told orally that they saw officials of the Russian government, but there is not a scrape of a pen or any credential to show that the Russian government is a party to this transaction.


Miss MACPHAIL:: This is a question I
want to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it not true that farming in Canada is actually threatened? Farming in this country has been seriously injured, not only by uncertainty as to what the cost of products would be when brought in from Roumania or Russia, as wrell by the uncertain cost of goods from Great Britain. This uncertainty is one of the things that has caused real suffering in the last two years. On the export of farm products from Canada to Great Britain, we were quite sure we would lose in exchange because our money was dearer than British money, but when the goods that the farmers might have bought with that money in Liverpool should have come into this country much cheaper because of the cheaper money of Great Britain, it is true-and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce must acknowledge this at any rate in his heart-importers here in attempting to bring in British goods, to say nothing of Russian, were never sure what the taxes against those goods would be. There was always uncertainty. There were some very grave injustices, such as valuation of goods at a parity with the pound, then the superimposing of the tariff on that, adding to that three per cent on the excise duty paid value plus six per cent on that and then plus a dumping duty that varied from time to time. Quite apart from trade between Canada and Russia, trade between Canada and Great Britain has been very greatly injured by the uncertainty of the importers' position.
As regards the question of the government not caring to make guarantees or advance moneys, some years ago the government of this country sold goods to Roumania, and in that case they were not protecting the farmer or seeking to alleviate his difficulties. At any rate they did advance a very large sum of money for the purchase of goods in this country. Is it not also true that very recently money was advanced for the relief of Newfoundland? The Minister of Trade and Commerce will know whether or not that is true. It is true, at all events, that the government of this country by order in council

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
saw fit to come to the aid of the distressed furniture industry in this country and of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Personally my way of approaching this subject is simple. The agricultural people of Canada are suffering in a way that is not good for this country. Apart from the fact that it is bad for the farmer himself, it is having a very ill effect on the whole dominion; the trade and commerce of the whole country is being very seriously injured by lack of purchasing power on the part of the farmers. If there is a possibility-may I say to the minister?-if there is a possibility that Russia will take cattle and hides from us at prices as good as or better than they can now be sold for or exchanged for oil or any other product, then I think it is the business of the government to do what they can to promote such a bargain. What is the use of having trade commissioners and whatever other names you call these people who go out to drum up trade throughout the world if we are not going to make the greatest possible use of a potential market? Because whether or not we make a trade with Russia of our cattle and hides for oil and other Russian products, undoubtedly there is a potential market in Russia for Canadian products, and I think we should do all we can to make use of a market which we very greatly need.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Following the argument of the hon. member for Southeast Grey, I recall that we had two very definite illustrations of what is being done when we were putting through the economic conference agreements last year. It will be recalled that at that time, when we were dealing with barbed wire, the Prime Minister said that a certain quantity of barbed wire was offered to Canada from Holland, and he proposed to place an arbitrary valuation on that product to shut it out. The same with cream separators; a duty of twenty-five per cent was imposed against foreign separators, and we found from the statistics that cream separators were coming into Canada from three sources, Sweden, Finland and the United States. I myself put this question to the government at that time: If it wrere possible for Sweden to pay the twenty-five per cent duty on cream separators and ship them into this country, would the government allow them to come in at the valuation placed on them, plus twenty-five per cent? No answer was forthcoming, and naturally not, because we knew that the government would not let them come in.
As regards the cattle deal, the minister knows, or at least I think he knows, that unless Canada is able to deliver 100,000 head of cattle before the first of November, 1933, it will do no good to the industry. The syndicate which has been negotiating through the Minister of Agriculture is prepared and able to-day to deliver from one thousand to two thousand head a month to Russia, or at the most twenty-four thousand head a year, which is only a drop in the bucket in the cattle trade of Canada. In order to get any benefit there should be some means whereby it would be possible for us to deliver 100,000 head of cattle now. That would relieve the cattle market, and would probably raise the price of cattle, as is suggested in the memorandum, from 21 or 2-|- cents up to four or five cents a pound. I am sorry the whole discussion of this cattle and oil deal has come up to-night because the Prime Minister promised that there would be a specified time fixed when we could discuss it. There are some angles of it on which we wish to obtain more definite information, because we believe that the government have further communications than they have yet revealed, and we propose to ask for them. The Prime Minister when he was reading the memorandum the other day said that subsequent to December 23 there had been no communication with him by Mr. Serkau, but some of us have been led to believe that further information can be given, and the hon. member for West Edmonton has already made the suggestion to the Prime Minister that certain documents and correspondence be tabled. We propose definitely to ask for further information, because we believe that there is a great deal more to be known than has already been revealed with regard to this cattle deal. The Minister of Trade and Commerce shakes his head, indicating that there is nothing further. I would ask him one question:	If he will read
the statement of the Prime Minister the other day, he will see that it was stated that after Mr. Serkau had the interview with the Minister of Agriculture he proceeded on two occasions to New York. Why did he go to New York? Did he go because of the fact that he received some suggestion that it might be beneficial to Canada if he went there and saw what he could do? According to the statement of the Prime Minister, there was no such suggestion made to him. In support of what the hon. member for Southeast Grey has said, I believe the government should do srmething to help put this cattle deal through.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that I can make clear that there is no mystery so far as the government is concerned about this cattle and oil deal, so-called. The only
1796	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
thing before the government in regard to this deal is the document read by the Prime Minister the other day. If there be other correspondence, I do not know. Certainly there is none with me. But I do know that this is the sum total of the proposals. Mr. Serkau came to see me on January 4, of this year.


Mr. MacMILLAN:: What nationality is he?


Wilfred Hanbury: What does it matter?


John Vallance: He is a Canadian, born in Manitoba.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Serkau gave me a
copy of this letter written to my colleague, and also a copy of the memorandum. He laid the memorandum on my desk, and it is headed, as hon. gentlemen will recall; "Suggested conditions of a trade transaction between the U.S.S.R.", hereinafter referred to as the "Union," and so forth. I said to Mr. Serkau the first thing, as I turned over this memorandum and saw there was no signature, "This is not a signed agreement." "No," he said. Then I asked, "Is it an official agreement with the Russian government?" "No," he replied. Then after further conversation which I shall not go into, Mr. Serkau frankly admitted that it was a memorandum of the conversations which he had had with the Russian officials of Moscow. Who they were I do not know. Mr. Serkau also mentioned something similar to what my hon. friend has said, that he was anxious to serve the cattle interests of Canada, and I suggested to him that it would probably be better to be perfectly frank about the matter and say that his chief interest was, as is disclosed in the memorandum, "the price of live stock to be cost plus cost of purchasing, maintenance, freight, insurance, etc., plus one cent per pound." I have no quarrel with that, and I told him frankly that I quite understood and in a measure perhaps respected anyone who would make whatever profit he could. But I did say this, that certainly no government with any regard for the taxpayer's money would guarantee bonds in a transaction up to $8,000,000 or would guarantee against the government of Russia making a breach of its contract, and pay brokerage of one cent a pound on the purchase of live stock at the figures suggested by my hon. friend, two and a half to three cents a pound.


John Vallance: No, four or five cents.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All right, say five cents. We would not be justified in putting the taxpayer's money behind it. On 100,000 head of cattle it means about $600,000.


John Vallance: Does Mr. Serkau suggest in his memorandum that the government pay that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, Mr. Serkau says the commission will be paid by the Russian government. But almost any person knows perfectly well that whether you get your commission from the one who buys or the one who sells, it is part of the transaction. To me that was a meaningless statement.


James J. Donnelly: What difference does
that make?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know that it makes any.


James J. Donnelly: Then why bring it up?


Henry Herbert Stevens: For this reason; if we were going into a transaction and putting $8,000,000 of the taxpayers' money behind it we would do it ourselves; we would not retain someone else at one cent a pound.


James J. Donnelly: Do you not do it every day in government business?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, not at all. Certainly we do not do that sort of thing. I trust my hon. friend will at least understand that there is no mystery behind this. Anyone is at perfect liberty to do it; we say we do not wish to do it, certainly not under these circumstances.


William Irvine: I should like to ask the minister if the government has taken any steps whatsoever to find out from the Russian government, apart altogether from Mr. Serkau's proposal, whether they would be prepared to exchange oil for cattle; or made any inquiry to see whether there are firms in Canada who would take the oil from Russia, whether we cannot make an arrangement by which we would give cows for gallons, and let the Russians land their oil first and ship our cows later.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I may say to my hon. friend and to the house, very clearly, that this government has not entered into negotiations with Russia or any other country for the barter of cows for oil or gallons for hoofs or anything of that character.


Thomas Cantley: I want to refer to a remark made by the minister in regard to the embargo on anthracite coal from Russia being due to a desire to assist the British coal industry. I would remind him, with all deference, that the original embargo was placed in consequence of the fact that the Russian government were shipping to Canada, both to Montreal and to Nova Scotia, very consider-

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
able quantities of rewashed slack, the accumulation of a considerable time. That coal was mined by practically forced labour. When air-washed as it was it gave a type of fuel better than anything we could then or now produce because it was anthracite, absolutely [DOT]clean, with a very high fixed carbon and low ash content, and was offered at a price less than that at which we can produce bituminous coal in Nova Scotia. That was the reason the original embargo was put on. I think it advisable to have that clearly stated, because that was antecedent to any consideration in favour of the old country coal miners.


Charles A. Stewart: I would also like to have a word in connection with coal. I supposed, from the statement of the Prime Miister, that we would have an opportunity to discuss the cattle deal at some later day; I did not know it was coming up to-night. Before addressing myself to the question of coal I want to congratulate my good friend from Southeast Grey-I am sorry to see she has left the chamber-upon realizing that duties have something to do with trade, and that embargoes are having a very severe effect upon the farming community of this country. I would ask some of my other friends also to take note of the fact that excessive duties are crippling that industry almost completely. Finance amd currency may play some part, but after all the fundamental difficulty lies in the tariff.
Let me say this with respect to Russian coal, especially to my good friend with whom I have had many controversies. When Mr. Thomas came to Canada with a view to inducing us to take more British coal he was not greatly interested in selling anthracite in Canada. What he wanted to sell was bituminous coal. I know perfectly well that my good friend, who was so very mild in his remarks to-night, would not be quite so mild with me if I were to agree to anything of the kind, because if ever an attempt was made to bring British bituminous coal to Canada we would certainly hear from the hon. member for Pictou. I heard from him when an attempt was made to encourage the importation of anthracite. Mr. Thomas stated very frankly on that occasion that they had a market for nearly all their anthracite production. I urged him to get into our market. We were: importing about three and a half million tons from the United States at that time. The amount had been reduced considerably owing to the fact that use had been found in furnaces for the product of the mines of Nova Scotia, or the Canadian product, but we were still importing three and a half
million tons. The British shippers gradually came in, as fast as they were able to provide the necessary coal, and took their share of this market, until to-day I am glad to know that they are shipping in something like 1,300,000 tons of anthracite coal. At the same time cargoes of Russian coal began to come in, the kind of coal that my hon. friend has described. And a holy row was raised, because this coal was mimed, they said, in some cases by convict labour and in some cases by women. But I notice they did not sell it at any lower price in Montreal in competition with the British and American coal, notwithstanding the fact that it was stated that the dealers were making a tremendous profit.
What did my hon. friends do when they came into office? Did they seek to get the price lowered of this very important fuel in Canada? No, they immediately put on a duty against American coal, in order, they said, to encourage the importation of British coal. But I am sure it was not necessary for that purpose; the British anthracite would get the Canadian market as fast as they could supply it up to at least three million tons. They could meet the competition of the American. There was not one ton of British coal supplanted by the Russian product that came in; it was the American product that lost out. And we were not very anxious to have the American product come into Canada if we could get the coal from some country with whom we could do some business in exchange for it.
That is the situation. There was no necessity for the consumers of this country being charged that additional forty cents a ton on a commodity so important for a cold country like Canada. It does not help the importation of British coal by so much as half a ton. That is my statement in connection with the matter, and I have gone into it very thoroughly. But when this government put on a duty, when they force the consumers of Canada to pay more for products they must have, the excuse always is that it is to help someone, in this case the British coal miner. The Prime Minister made a great deal of that the other day. I can say to him without much fear of contradiction that he need not worry about the British coal miners; they can take care of themselves in competition with Russian or American anthracite. My hon. friend shakes his head, but they did so before; when my hon. friend came into office, coal was at about the same price as it is to-day. When the government that preceded this came in, anthracite coal was selling at $17 or $18 a ton; it was reduced to $14 and it has been
1798	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
hanging around $14 ever since. So I say without any fear of contradiction that there was no occasion for the action this government took except the desire to raise the price to the Canadian consumer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot allow the hon. gentleman's statement to pass without expressing my view, which is held by all those who have studied1 the question in government circles recently. My view is that to lift the embargo on Russian coal would virtually result in the complete 'displacement of British anthracite in this market. That is our firm conviction, based on knowledge and accurate information.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not raise the point because I admit it is mot proper to bring it up while an investigation is going on, but the government have seen fit, owing to the price which the Canadian consumer has to pay for anthracite, to institute an investigation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no objection to that.


Charles A. Stewart: No, but it is the result of this government's action.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The investigation is the result of the government's action.


Thomas Cantley: I understood my hon. friend opposite to say that the coal to which I referred was not offered in Montreal at that time at much if any less than the cost of American anthracite. I want to tell him that the coal I refer to and the coal that did come in at that time was Russian anthracite and was offered in Montreal, to my own knowledge, at less than $6 a ton. It was sold at Halifax at $5.25 a ton and I took a carload to New Glasgow to see whaJt it really was like and have an analysis of it made. There is n-o use suggesting to the house that that Russian anthracite coal was sold at prices equivalent to the prices of American' anthracite at that time, because it is not so.


Charles A. Stewart: I am speaking of Russian niut coal.


Thomas Cantley: So was I. It was then
one-third the cost of the American anthracite. As regards English anthracite now coming in,
I am quite pleased that this is so because it has displaced' about a million and a half tons of American anthracite and it does not conflict with our bituminous coal from the maritimes. That is the situation in a nutshell so far as I am concerned. The facts are as I have stated them.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend would not suggest for a moment that 
the importation of both English and American anthracite does not out in on his opportunity to make coke and sell in competition.


Thomas Cantley: That is another story.


Charles A. Stewart: It is the story you were telling.


Thomas Cantley: Yes, at that time, but the people who control the proposition at the moment have not enough get-up to them to do what they ought to do. I am not responsible for that, however.


John Vallance: Is any bituminous coal coming into Canada today from any source?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


John Vallance: How do you like that?


Mr. YOUNG:: As I understand the situation, Mr. Serkau and his friends discovered that there was a market in Russia for 100,000 head of Canadian cattle, and they also discovered that there was a market in Canada for vast quantities of Russian coal and oil. Mr. Serkau saw an opportunity to dispose of a portion of our surplus cattle and thereby help the farmers of this country, and an opportunity to bring into this country coal and oil, which are needed by our people, and in that way to help our own consumers and at the same time the people of Russia, as well as, incidentally, making some money, perhaps a considerable amount of money, for himself and his associates. But they could not put the deal through because they could not finance it. They asked this government to guarantee certain bonds in order that they might be able to finance the deal and the government refused to do so. I want to ask the government this question: If Mr. Serkau and his friends or any other syndicate or group of men could find a way of financing such a deal, would the government be prepared to permit them to bring in these commodities from Russia?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. gentleman is
putting a hypothetical question-*


Edward James Young: No, it is a practical and very vital question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He asks whether, if this
and that happens, we will guarantee to do this, that or the other. We are not doing business that way and we are not going to give to any syndicate, Canadians or anyone else, something to go out and peddle to other countries or peoples or interests. We are not going to give to any syndicate in Canada or elsewhere some governmental guarantees that they can take to New York and peddle to New York financiers, incidentally protecting

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
themselves and securing handsome profits. We are not doing that sort of thing, and there is no proposal of a hypothetical kind that we will entertain. We have nothing before us of a concrete or official character at all.


Edward James Young: According to the figures
given the other day by the Prime Minister, there is a possibility of marketing Canadian cattle in Russia and of marketing Russian coal and oil in Canada, and of the syndicate doing so making some money for themselves *-I understood the Prime Minister to say a considerable amount of money. That being the case, there is not the slightest doubt in the world that a syndicate will arise that will be able to finance that deal, and the only thing that will stop them from putting it through successfully, to the benefit of the people of this country, of the people of Russia and of themselves, will be the possibility or probability that this government will step in and refuse to allow them to bring the goods in. Will the government lift the embargo and allow them to bring the goods into the country if they succeed in putting the deal through?


Mr. RYCICMAN:: I should like to be
allowed to answer the hon. gentleman. There are members on the other side in whose judgment I have a great deal of confidence, but I do not think there is a member opposite who could ever seriously give one moment's consideration to this Russian deal as it was put to the government. The hon. member for Weyburn was not quite fair in that he did not go on and announce the last condition of the deal before he asked his question. What was that last condition? These gentlemen made it a part of their proposition that the Dominion of Canada should not only establish them in credit, as the hon. member has said, but that the government should guarantee them against any default on the part of Russia. That is to say, if one party to the deal would not carry it out, they asked us to come forward and settle with them. Did anyone ever hear of such a proposition? Can anyone on either side of the house tell me when a deal of that kind was ever supported by anyone who had one atom of common sense? First of all they are buying from us, and they say, "Although we are buying from you we want you to put up the money to enable us to do so. We are buying from you to sell to Russia and we have doubts about Russia, so after we have borrowed money from you we want you to give us a guarantee that we shall get every cent even if the deal is not satisfactory".


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not the proposition at all.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is a new proposition.


William Duff: Rip van Winkle.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is what the proposition is. If any hon. gentlemen can tell me of any one who would listen to that proposition for a moment, I should like to hear from him. I want to say something to the hon. member for Willow Bunch. I happened to be behind the curtain and I heard him say that he came to the Department of National Revenue himself, and had sent two or three others also to find out what would happen to Roumanian oil or gasoline.
I believe I have had some slight connection with the Department of National Revenue;
I am always glad to see members of parliament, but the hon. member for Willow Bunch never came to see me. Apparently he was not very keen to find out what would happen to the Roumanian oil, but I will tell him what would have happened. If that oil had been sent here upon terms such as one honest man would have used in transacting business with another it would have been permitted to come in under the tariff which this parliament has ordained. That is a simple answer to a simple question. If the hon. member for Willow Bunch or his friends had some oil in Rou-mania and thought the time favourable to dump that oil upon Canada's market to the detriment of the business men of Canada, then the department would have taken care of that situation.


James J. Donnelly: Can the minister tell
me the present duty on Roumanian gasoline?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: There is also Persia
which produces-


James J. Donnelly: I am talking about
Roumaniia; never mind about Persia.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I will admit that the
hon. member has me there; at the moment I cannot tell him the duty. I would first like to know what his cargo is.


James J. Donnelly: Gasoline.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The hon. member for
Southeast Grey (Miss Maephail) complained that there was a handicap being placed against the admission of goods from England. I submit that that handicap is more in thought and in newspaper publicity than in actual
1S00	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
fact. Every hon. member who is engaged in business knows that because of the depreciation which has occurred in the pound sterling, the protection which it was intended by this parliament should be given to certain classes of goods has been entirely wiped out. In order to carry out the intentions of parliament and to give this measure of protection, very moderate in some cases, it has been found necessary to value the pound at $4.40 for special duty purposes. I might say that those in England who were concerned with this trade agreed at the time this valuation was made that it was reasonable. Complaints have been made that the $4.40 valuation should be reduced, but at the same time others say that this valuation gives them no protection at all and that the importer and British exporter is given a preference to which they are not entitled. It is quite true that the special excise tax of three per cent is added to any duty imposed; the hon, member for Southeast [DOT]Grey added a total of six per cent, but she evidently forgot that this is added to all sales with the exception of those included in schedule three of the act. It is unfair to *count that six per cent as an additional protection because that is paid on all goods sold in this country. In discussing these matters I think it only right that we should take the facts as they actually are and not attempt to distort them and seek a result which is not warranted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister *of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) evidently feels that he should speak on behalf of the *government, but he has not answered the *question.
Mr. RYiCKMAN: I was just speaking on behalf of myself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister did not answer the question asked by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). All that the minister has said refers to the past, to something which has long since been discussed by the house and which is, I think, understood by all, but the hon. member's question refers to the present and to the future. Perhaps the minister, now that he is speaking for the government, can answer the question,. It was: If at the present time a syndicate could be found which was prepared to say to the government that it could ship *cattle to Russia, provided the government of Canada would allow it in exchange to bring in coal and oil from that country, would the government permit coal and oil to be imported from Russia?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If a business proposition is made to the government, the government will give a quick answer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We on this side of the chamber are asking this question on behalf of the people of Canada who are most affected. The farmers of this country want to sell their cattle in whatever part of the world they can be sold. We should be in a position to tell them, if such is the case, that the reason their cattle cannot be sold is that the government of Canada will not permit them to effect an exchange for Russian products upon a barter basis. If the government is willing to permit Russian coal and oil to be brought in and exchanged for cattle, we should be in a position to say so. If the government is willing to permit such an exchange I do not imagine there will be any difficulty in some syndicate finding a way to bring about the exchange. They have a right to know what action the government will take.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Surely my right hon. friend is not one of those who would pass upon a contract without knowing its terms?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not a question of contract; it is a question of a syndicate wishing to effect an exchange, which they might find it possible to effect if the government would so permit.


James J. Donnelly: I think the whole difficulty confronting this trade with Russia is the feeling which has been left in the minds of the people by no one else than the Minister of National Revenue. In 1930 when the Cockshutt people were attempting to make a deal with Russia, the minister came out and said: This is communism, its creed and its fruits which we as a nation cannot countenance by an interchange of trade. Has the government changed its views? Is it willing to let us trade with Russia? England is trading with Russia and, as I said before, the president-elect of the United States has laid down as one of the points in his new deal the permission of trade with Russia. The people of this country want to know whether or not they are to be permitted to trade with Russia. We do not care what Serkau is going to make; all the farmers are interested in is the fact that he may get $4 or $5 per hundredweight for his cattle instead of the present price of $2.75.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think we have answered this question several times.


Edward James Young: No, you have not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The question has been answered several times, but I will answer it

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
again. There is nothing in the world to hinder anyone in Canada who so desires from selling goods to Russia. That is quite clear. There is nothing to hinder anyone in Canada who so desires from bringing goods from Russia provided they are not those goods referred to in an order in council which has been before this house ever since it was passed, namely-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Since the present government came into power.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Ever since it was passed, in February, 1931,-namely, coal wood pulp, pulpwood, lumber and timber of all kinds, asbestos, crude.


Wilfred Hanbury: All that they have for sale.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very good, but I am frankly telling my hon. friends just the situation.


Wilfred Hanbury: In other words, we cannot do the business.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have already stated quite clearly that in our opinion the embargo on coal is important because of the fact that a market is provided thereby for British coal. The hon. member for West Edmonton holds a different view. I am not quarrelling with him at all, but I am telling him and also the hon. member for Willow Bunch precisely our position in that regard. In so far as importing goods is concerned, they come in from Russia, as from any other country, under the terms of the statute, and we are not prepared to say to some person or syndicate or firm or corporation that if they at some time in the future attempt to bring in goods, they will be treated in some specific way. They will be treated just as the statute indicates that they should be treated.


Edward James Young: The statute or the order in council?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have made it clear that the order in council refers to certain specific items and the statute refers to all of them.


James Malcolm: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the minister's explanation, and I think he has made a fairly frank explanation why the particular Russian deal submitted to him was not accepted. On the other hand, I believe he has been very unfair in making the remarks that he made just before taking his seat. How is trade or barter to be carried on if the business men of a country do not know the terms of entry into the countries in which they want to sell goods? How can a man proceed to make any deal .*53719-114
unless there is some stability and some known factor under which the trade is to be made? The minister says that there are four items under an order in council which has become a part of the customs tariff of this country and which states that certain goods may not be imported. We are not going to deal with hypothetical cases. The minister knows quite well he was approached by the fur merchants on the item of fur and he changed the order in council to allow furs to come into Canada because this was considered good business.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I stated that a little while ago.


James Malcolm: Quite so, but there is no use in thinking there is anything permanent about these four items if the government chooses to allow them to be brought in.
I should like to make one observation regarding coal. One would think there was something entirely new about Canada importing coal from Great Britain; because we are bringing in 1,300 tons of Scotch and Welsh anthracite one would think this all happened within the last year. We have been importing 800, 900 or 1,000 tons of this anthracite for the last six or seven years. It is true there is an increase. We are, however, taking all the British anthracite-and the minister knows this just as well as I do-that Britain can give us; and we are still taking almost 3,000,000 tons of anthracite from the United States. This statement of the minister that Welsh anthracite is going to be injured by the importation of 1,000,000 tons of Russian coal is not, I think, founded on fact. The importation of United States anthracite is going to be decidedly injured, but I also believe consumers of coal in Canada, if they are given a fair chance, will get a good deal better and cheaper coal. I feel like the hon. member for West Edmonton, one really should not discuss this coal question because it is under investigation by the government, an investigation as to why we should be paying $14 and $15 a ton in this country for anthracite coal. Personally I hold very strong views that the profits being made by jobbers on Welsh and Scotch anthracite in the city of Montreal are entirely out of line with the services rendered to the Canadian people, and I hope the government investigation proves of benefit.
The minister very kindly gave me some figures for which I had asked him before dinner. These figures reveal a rather interesting situation, and the minister certainly has my sympathy in administering the commercial intelligence service and in trying to promote trade at the present time. I know

1802	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
how worried he is about $1.64 per bushel against Canadian wheat going into Germany or France. I know how worried he is about all the restrictive tariffs that are placed against merchandise being exported. We are faced with this situation: that in 1933-34 we are prepared to spend on foreign steamship services and on commercial intelligence service, $2,240,000, or about two and a quarter million dollars, to do a trade of about $900,000,000. In 1929-30 an expenditure of $1,000,000 was necessary for a trade of fully twice, probably two and a quarter times that amount.
The Minister of National Revenue gave us a very fine lecture to-night about how those things came about and how we could protect Canadian trade with dumping duties and so forth. Let me say to him that if he wants to help the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the commercial intelligence service, he will have to be prepared to let some goods in from countries that can buy our wheat. Unless the government has made up its mind that it 'has some religious scruples with regard to trading with Russia, scruples which it has not entertained against the Hindu or the Confueian or the Buddhist; unless it has some religious or other scruples about the Russian method of operating, it will find that before very long it will have to follow the lead of Great Britain and do business with Russia.
I am not going to say to the government that it ought to finance Russian trade deals. Far from it. We did finance a deal with Roumania and we have not yet been paid for it; the bonds are still held by this Dominion. But there are commodities which we can use and there are commodities which we can sell. At the present time Russia is buying from the United States-and the hon. member for Pictou knows this-very substantial quantities of steel rails; she is buying very substantial quantities of electrical equipment; very substantial quantities of agricultural implements; very substantial quantities of boots and shoes, running into millions of dozens of pairs. I do not know why Canada, which has the second largest, if not the largest per capita foreign trade of any countiy in the world, should set herself upon such a high pedestal, so much higher than the United States of America, than Great Britain, than France, than Germany, than Italy, in her refusal to do business with the Soviet republic. I have no criticism of the recent action of the Italian government in refusing to trade on credit. I believe any firm trading with

Russia has a perfect right to finance its own trade. I do not think the minister is at all to blame in saying that he should not be asked to carry this business of $8,000,000, especially when the promoter was to make $1,500,000 in commission. The minister is quite sound in his stand in that regard, but I submit to him that the hon. member for Weyburn asked him a very simple question. He asked him: If the deal could be financed, would he permit the entry of the commodities to which reference was made. The minister has not yet answered that question. The house must come to a decision on it. The country wants to know; business men have a right to know. It is not only the farmers of the country who have a right to know, the manufacturers of agricultural implements have a right to know; the manufacturers of rubber goods are asking the question. Every industry in Canada is looking for foreign business. Foreign industrial business is being done in Russia to-day. Are w-e going to take advantage of this or not? That is a question that is being put to the minister. The Minister of National Revenue will not answer it although he purported to speak for the government to-night. The Prime Minister has not answered it. The country wants to know. When the question is answered, business men will proceed to do business. Perhaps the answer is given when the minister states business can be done with Russia except on those four commodities against which an embargo exists. Unfortunately the four commodities on which an embargo has been placed, include two which we could import to advantage to ourselves. I think the hon. member for Weyburn is entitled to a frank answer from the minister on these questions.


William Richard Motherwell: I would like to take a little whack at this, Mr. Chairman, if I may. I find by to-day's Montreal Gazette that Mr. Serkau has been making some statements regarding this matter that do not leave it as a hypothetical case at all. I thought my hon. friend from Weyburn was going to read this, but as he did not, I will. It is headed, "SeTkau hopeful of barter scheme. Will furnish government with evidence of readiness of Soviet authorities." It goes on to say:
Mr. Serkau's statement follows a review of the situation made by Premier R. B. Bennett in the House of Commons yesterday. The syndicate has been strengthened. Mr. Serkau states, by the inclusion of a number of men of financial substance in the cattle industry. Guarantees from the government may not be necessary.

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
That alters the situation altogether. I presume that Mr. Serkau has made the same statement to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Agriculture. Then follows the statement in Mr. Serkau's own words:
There appears to be a misunderstanding with respect to evidence indicating the readiness of the government of the U.S.S.R. to trade with our syndicate on the basis of the memorandum as submitted to the government of Canada. Subsequent to the Hon. Mr. Weir's letter of December 23 last, I made two return trips to New York and had several interviews with Mr. Weir and I was not under the impression that any further evidence was wanted or awaited by' the government. However, we are in constant communication with the U.S.S.R. foreign trade authorities and will promptly furnish the government any further evidence required.
Our syndicate will be strengthened by the inclusion of a number of men of financial substance in the cattle industry who have expressed their willingness to join the syndicate. We expect to be able to carry out the project without guarantees as alternatively requested of the government or perhaps on a somewhat niodified scale, but the market for cattle so important at this time will still be available to the Canadian live stock industry.
There is the government's bluff about this being a hypothetical case called right away. I could hardly make out the mumblings of the Minister of National Revenue, but I understood that he was putting up a straw man, saying that it was simply a question of dealing with something that really did not exist. Does not the Minister of Trade and Commerce consider that this statement of Mr. Serkau's puts a different aspect on the matter? Does he not admit that the hon. member for Weyburn asked a perfectly legitimate question even without this statement of Mr. Serkau? As a matter of fact, the government do not want to trade with anymne, not even with Old Nick or St. Peter. That is the trouble. Shut ourselves up in economic hermitage and trade with ourselves -that is the policy of this government, They won't come across on this. I make the prediction that not a hoof of our cattle will go to Russia under this deal.


Mr. SPENCE:: Join the syndicate and
make some money for yourself, and help put the deal through.


William Richard Motherwell: Let me commend
the Minister of Trade and Commerce for one sane thing he said. Rather than comply with all these conditions laid down by Mr. Serkau, he said, and I think he said rightly, that the government would rather do the work themselves. Then why does not the government do it? That is the point. Why don't they do it instead of monkeying around with these people for months, keeping 53719-114|
everybody on the string, and the people out in the country getting their cattle ready and wondering if this deal is going through, and needing the money as they never needed it before? But here the government stand idling away, fiddling and diddling, and the whole thing will wind up as ashes, gall and wormwood in the mouths of the farmers of Canada. Why not come along as the previous government did?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Hold on! We
were criticized for selling a bunch of small horses in southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta, locally unsaleable horses that were doing nothing but eating up good grass. The King government made a deal with Russia, and at that time Russian money was not worth anything. It was not quoted on any of the money exchanges of the world. But we sent out our own live stock men and veterinarians, bought the horses and paid for them, delivered them to Montreal, and sent them on their journey to Russia. It was criticized by those who then sat on this side of the house, including the present Minister of Justice, and criticized by the Toronto Globe on high moral grounds, that we should not provide Russia with horses of any kind, especially if they could be used for cavalry purposes. But we put that deal through and we got that money for our farmers, which proved to be all velvet, as the horses were really otherwise unsaleable. Russia is in an infinitely better position to trade with to-day than it was six or seven years ago, and yet the government are sitting on their haunches day after day, wearing their clothes out and making excuses why they cannot trade with Russia.


James Houston Spence: It is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that so much of the time of this house should be lost talking a lot of pure bunk. It is amusing to hear the ex-Minister of Agriculture and the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce defending this so-called barter with Russia when we know they do not believe in it themselves. No honest man believes in it. I wonder if the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce would like to send a carload of his beautiful furniture to Russia and wait till they paid for it.


James Malcolm: That is not the question.


James Houston Spence: It is about the same thing. Would it be fair for the hon. gentleman in such a case to come to the government and ask for a guarantee?
1804	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence


James Malcolm: The hon. gentleman must have been sound asleep when this whole discussion was going on, for such a thing was
never even suggested.


James Houston Spence: I wonder that a number of these people who are so favourable to trading with Russia do not join the syndicate and make some money for themselves. Who knows that Serkau ever had official instructions from Russia to go into a deal of this kind? Who knows that it is not simply propaganda of two or three yellow journals in this country, to create strife in this country between the party opposite and the government? It is political propaganda, the whole thing. There may be nothing in the whole deal at all, and why should we waste time talking about something that may not exist, and about cattle that Russia may not even want? I do not believe that Russia has ever asked for this deal. I have heard people of sound judgment say that this deal is nothing but propaganda by two or three yellow journals to make bad friends between the farmers of Canada and this government, to make the farmers of this country dissatisfied with the legislation that they are getting from this government.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That would be quite unnecessary; they are dissatisfied already.


James Houston Spence: You have never been to Russia and I have not, and you do not know any more about it than I do. I say that it is simply propaganda pure and simple to create strife in this country.


William Richard Motherwell: Has the hon. gentleman been asleep or down in the basement?


James Houston Spence: Neither, but you have been asleep for years.


William Richard Motherwell: I am sure if the Minister of Trade and Commerce were left alone he is sufficiently sane to see how this thing could be done. It could be done through the Department of Agriculture, through its live stock branch, to look after the selection of the animals, and through the health of animals branch, to look after their health.


Mr. ROWE:: Who will pay?


William Richard Motherwell: The government can look to that.


James Houston Spence: If you will guarantee the money I will do the job myself.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Serkau says, as read, that there is a good prospect now of the personnel of the syndicate being so much strengthened that they can handle it financially themselves. We will have to take that as their last will and testament until we hear
(Mr. Spence.]
something else. Now what is the government's last will and testament? It is their move.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Last Tuesday I asked
the minister a question in regard to wheat shipments to Greece, and he was kind enough to tell the house that a considerable quantity of Canadian wheat has been exported to Greece within the last few months. A press report in December said:
Canada Might Lose Million Dollar Trade Reported Greece to Form Pact to Buy Wheat from Argentina
Athens, December 23.-The Greek government is negotiating a treaty with Argentina for the importation of large quantities of wheat at advantageous terms. Officials said that with such a treaty, no importations of United States or Canadian wheat would be required.
Then the report goes on:
Ottawa Inquisitive Special to the Star
Ottawa, December 23.-The ministry oE Trade and Commerce is inquiring into reports that Greece will buy no wheat from Canada or the United States but will obtain her supplies from the Argentine. Officials of the department told the Star no advices had been received from the Canadian trade commissioners in Europe, and had such action been announced in Greece word rvould have been cabled to Canada.
Canada's sales of wheat to Greece in the last six months of last year totalled 2.180,503 bushels. . . . This wheat was sold in the usual way and not to the Greek government.
My question now will be: Did the Department of Trade and Commerce receive any news about the loss of such trade between Canada and Greece?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not hear all that
my hon. friend said, as there was quite a buzz in the house, but as far as I could gather his observations they were in regard to the importation of wheat into Greece. He will recall that Greece had a very high rate of duty -for the moment I cannot recall it-against wheat, under their maximum tariff. Within the last month, or it may be the last two months, Greece has placed Canada on the minimum tariff, and Argentine on the minimum tariff. Some sixty thousand tons of wheat have been shipped to Greece, or are under order for shipment now from Canada, and a similar quantity, as I understand, has been ordered and is on the way from the Argentine.


George Gibson Coote: When the Minister of National Revenue was replying to the member for Southeast Grey-who was since called out of the chamber-he said, as nearly as I remember, something to the effect that the fact that the

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
British pound has depreciated in Canada to such an extent made it absolutely necessary in the interests of Canadian manufacturers to place a dumping duty and fixed valuation of the British pound in connection with the importation of goods from Great Britain. If that is true, if the Canadian manufacturers need that protection, what is 'the position of the Canadian farmer to-day in regard to his exports of wheat in competition with Australia? -because the Australian pound is depreciated twenty five per cent in relation to the British pound.
I want to give the house a few figures regarding the export of wheat to the orient, to show
the serious effect on our export trade. This is one of the reasons why Canadian exports of wheat are falling off so badly. It is not the only one; I agree with practically all that has been said tonight in regard to how tariffs are interfering with trade. I point out that since my hon. friends have denounced the French treaty the French tariff against our wheat is double what it was before.
I have here a table showing the imports of wheat into Japan. It is taken from the Japanese customs returns. I will give the figures briefly, and with the permission of the house I will ask that the table be embodied in Hansard:
Canada	
United States. . Australia. . . . Other countries. .
Sales of Wheat to Japan (In tons of 2,000 pounds each)
Japanese Customs	Returns-Years Ending 31st	December	1928 Tons	%	1929 Tons	%	1930 Tons	%	1931 Tons	%	Jan. to May 1932	. 372,791	51	443.312	54	197,167	30	171,443	22	62,608	13. Ib3,/87	22	162,639	19	226.600	42	58,358	7	7,573	2. 91,502	12	160,172	19	113,754	21	564,583	71	389.328	84. 102,410	15	49,314	8	17	1	. 224	' 2	730,490	815,437	537,538	794,608	459,511	
_ I*1 1931 the Australian currency was depreciated; you will note the difference that started in that year. This return was secured from the Canadian legation in Tokio in May of 1932. I think it proves conclusively that we cannot get our fair share of wheat into the markets of the world while our currency is at such a high level compared with the currencies of all our competitors. May I point out again that our currency is the highest of that of any country in the British Empire, and we are losing out in world trade because of two things: the exchange situation, that is the high value of our .currency in relation to gold compared with most other countries and'-the other reason which has been emphasized by hon. members on my right-the very high tariffs and arbitrary rulings of the national revenue department since this government took office. The situation in regard to the exchange value of our dollar we can easily correct, if we make the pound worth $4.87 and if the Minister of National Revenue will remove the dumping duties against Great Britain. Let us have a measure of free trade with Great Britain so that we can get on a basis where we can compete reasonably with the other wheat exporting countries.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the tariff is lowered will there be any further necessity for inflation? If trade becomes normal will not our currency also return to normal?


George Gibson Coote: The more tariffs we remove the sooner our money will return to its proper level. I wish to stress for a moment the question of wheat exports, because after all wheat is the main item in our export trade, and it is important that we should obtain proper returns for our wheat. I have here a table I secured from the Department of Trade and Commerce in May last, giving the value of our exports of wheat and flour from 1924 on. I will not weary the house giving all the figures but I will go back to 1927. In 1927 our exports of wheat amounted in value to $421,000,000 in round figures; in 1928, $111,000,000; in 1929, $493,000,000; in 1930, $261,000,000; in 1931, $210,000,000, and in 1932, $134,000,000. In bushels, in 1927 our exports amounted to 294,000,000; in 1928, 309,000,000; in 1929, 421,000,000; in 1930, 212,000,000; in 1931, 249,000,000, and in 1932, 215.000.000. Our exports last, year were 3,000,000 bushels more than in 1930 and the value was $134,000,000 as compared with $261,000,000 in 1930. A final word I leave with the committee, and it is this. Can Canada afford to continue keeping her currency on such a high level as compared with the other trading nations of the world, and bankrupting our agriculture in doing so?


John Vallance: We have been dealing extensively to-night with the possibilities of trade with Russia. An hon. mlember behind
1806	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
me dealt with trade with Greece and we have been talking about trade with Japan. I turn to another oriental country in regard to which I want to ask a question. Was a deal proposed to the government on October 31 last for the purchase of 50,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat? If so, what happened?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot recall such an offer in any definite form. During the past two years there have been numerous suggestions with regard to the advancement of wheat to China, because that is what it amounted to. I myself looked into the matter with care and I had the officers of my department resident in China go into the whole situation thoroughly, and I can say that there are certain fundamental difficulties that present themselves in connection with any such transaction. For instance, a suggestion was made on several occasions that we should give some wheat in view of the privation that prevailed in some parts of the interior of China. We looked into the matter very carefully and with a good deal of sympathy but we found that the consensus of opinion of informed business men and authorities with whom we consulted was that practically none of that wheat would reach the stricken area. Many of the provinces being in the hands of brigands or military groups or bands, it was quite a common experience that goods never reached their destination. I want my hon. friend to understand that the matter was given very careful consideration and it was deemed not desirable to take the step proposed. The hon. gentleman will pardon me if from memory I am unable to give precise data, but there were one or two occasions when suggestions were made that we should advance credit for the sale of wheat to China, but I cannot recall any really definite proposal supported by persons whose responsibility was commensurate with the extent of the deal. I am not saying definitely that there was no such offer, but I cannot recall it. Such offers as we received, however, we found on examination did not warrant us in taking the risk of supporting the deal, one being for a period of three years. The periods of the others I have forgotten.


John Vallance: Perhaps I can refresh
the minister's memory, because the matter is quite vivid in my own mind to-night. Sunday was the 30th of the month, and on the Monday, October 31, a gentleman by the name of Webster interviewed this government and made an offer for the sale of
50,000,000 bushels of wheat to the Chinese government. The question I am asking is: Was that wheat sold, and if not, why not?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend makes
a definite assertion, and I confess that his knowledge in these matters and his confidence in the accuracy of his information are much greater than mine.


John Vallance: It is backed up by a
statement of the minister to myself, if I might refresh his memory further, although I did not wrant to do so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certain proposals were
made, but without having an opportunity of refreshing my memory, I will not make any further statement in regard to the matter.


John Vallance: I will not press it; we
will get it some other time.


William Richard Motherwell: Perhaps this is
hypothetical too.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I am sorry that the hon member for Parkdale has left the house. From what he said with regard to the suggested Russian cattle deal, he would appear to be much less informed on the matter than most members on this side. I am informed on good authority that Mr. Serkau, who was pushing the deal, was very closely in touch with the Minister of Agriculture the whole time he was trying to negotiate it, and that it was with the consent and on the suggestion of the minister that he went to New York to interview the Russian trade agent.


Mr. McGIBBON:: What is your authority?


Henry Elvins Spencer: It was also with the
consent of the minister that he went to Russia, and I understand further that the Minister of Agriculture was favourable to the deal. I say this because the hon. member for Parkdale tried to make the house believe that the suggestion was brought forward from political motives. As a matter of fact the deal was put forward by Mr. Serkau and his associates in good faith and the Minister of Agriculture or the department was kept informed all the time. Most hon. members, I believe, know that quite well.


Peter McGibbon: What is your authority?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I learned it at a public
meeting in Calgary.


Peter McGibbon: From whom?


Henry Elvins Spencer: From the syndicate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Electricity and gas inspection service, $213,715.
James J. Donnelly: What is the reason for this increase?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a small item in
connection with the replacement of some equipment for testing meters and so on.


James Malcolm: Has the work of the gas and electricity inspection service been transferred to the national research council?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. They are, however, housed in the same building, because there is quite a bit of common work, shall I say, between the two departments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	*
Exhibitions and fairs, $137,000.
Mr. LUCAS:: Will the minister explain this
item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: A substantial proportion of this vote is for the setting up and maintenance of displays of samples of Canadian goods, particularly agricultural products, in Great Britain and other countries. Displays are also set up in various British fairs and exhibitions, as well as in exhibitions in other countries. It is not intended at the present time to enter into any extensive expenditure in connection with exhibitions in other countries, but we do desire to maintain such permanent exhibits as we have in different parts of the old country.


William Richard Motherwell: I would like to convey to the minister the appreciation of the people of Saskatchewan and all through the west of the magnificent world's congress and exhibition building which was erected at Regina as a relief measure, and more particularly of the splendid manner in which the interior has been decorated. Mr. Turcotte is an artist at tills work and I think the minister should know that everyone who has seen these interior decorations are simply delighted with them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Thank you very much.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International customs tariffs bureau, $1,800.
James Malcolm: Is this the foreign tariffs division?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


James Malcolm: It is a very small vote for that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is really our fee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Motion picture bureau, $70,000.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: What has caused the increase in this vote?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If it is finally decided to do so, we intend to add the sound feature to
this bureau.


James Malcolm: I am glad to see that the minister has restored this bureau to its former state of importance. Last year the vote was reduced to $40,000, whereas previously about $75,000 per year was spent upon this department. I always felt that this department had great educational value, and if sound equipment is added I think its value will be still greater.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Printing of parliamentary and departmental publications, including the "Canada Year Book," $139,325.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hold in my hand a book entitled "Canada 1933. The Official Handbook of Present Conditions and Recent Progress." I should like to know if the printing of this publication is included in this vote.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, I understand it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I take exception to government money being spent in this fashion. According to the title this book is supposed to contain information with regard to present conditions and recent progress. There certainly are no statistics which will bear out anything in the shape of progress since the present administration came mto office. Just how the government can issue a handbook on recent progress to the people of this and other countries is a bit of a mystery to me. This book has been printed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and I should like to know whether the information contained therein has all been supplied by the bureau or whether some of the material has been furnished from sources outside of the bureau?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This book is the sixth issue of this particular publication, the first being published in 1927. All the information contained therein is compiled by the staff of the bureau. The original object in publishing this book was to put into handy form certain historic and other data as well as supplying up to date information with regard to matters of interest to industry and business. The firet issue was welcomed by the country as providing a handy and appropriate form of getting such information before the public, and its publication has been continued year by year. When I took office we continued to publish the book in the same manner as it had been published previously, and in so far as its compilation is concerned', that has been oar-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
ried on in the same way as it was before I took offioe. Wherever possible we attempt to collect the small fee of twenty-five cents per copy. There has been a wide demand for this book and I think, generally speaking, it has received the approval of the public.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as this handbook provides reliable information I have no exception to take; it is the kind of publication which I think is very useful. However, in this particular number a very considerable part is devoted not to authentic information on matters of general interest but to what purports to be an account of the recent Imperial economic conference held at Ottawa. There is given what purports to be a story of the conditions which led up to the conference, what took place and what achievements were attained. I must say very frankly that the greater portion of What has been added in this way this year is in the nature of Tory propaganda; it is ini no sense of the word reliable statistical information and should not be published and circulated at government expense. In addition, I say that it should not have been written at government expense. I would point out that there is material in this book which has not been written by anyone connected with the bureau of statistics, and I make that statement without fear of contradiction by the minister.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am afraid my right hon. friend will have to face my contradiction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I shall read the minister a statement from the book itself which shows that what he is now saying is wrong.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This book was compiled by the bureau and was then submitted and discussed with the Department of External Affairs in so far as the imperial conference references are concerned. If the right hon. gentleman will refer to something specific to which he takes exception, I shall be very glad to pay attention to what he has to say. I am simply asserting that this book has been compiled in a manner similar to all the preceding issues.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will draw the minister's attention to a note which the Dominion Statistician evidently felt it important to insert in this book. It is signed by Mr. R. H. Coats, and reads:
This handbook has been prepared in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics from material which has, in the main, been obtained from tile different branches of the bureau.
In certain special fields information has been kindly contributed by other branches of the government service.

I venture to say that none of the material relating to the conference has been supplied by the bureau; as the minister says, it has been contributed by the Department of External Affairs.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My right hon. friend is wrong. It was written by the officers of the bureau and then submitted to the Department of External Affairs for verification or such comments as they chose to make.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The statement of the Dominion Statistician is this:
This handbook has been prepared in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics from material which has, in the main, been obtained from the different branches of the bureau.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Necessarily, in this book
there must be information which is not drawn immediately from the bureau of statistics. For instance, I open it at random. Take life insurance: obviously, such information on that subject as is purely statistical would be in the bureau and other parts would come from Mr. Findayson, superintendent of insurance. As regards the Post Office Department, such information as there is in this book regarding, post offices would be compiled from the bureau in part but would include information secured from the Post Office Department. So one can take other portions of the book. As regards the water powers of Canada, the bureau would have such information as is purely statistical, but where there are historic references or matters of interest of a literary character pertaining to water powers, that would be furnished by the water power branch. There is nothing sinister about the introduction. I venture to say it is the same as is used in all others. It is simply a routine introduction that has always been used.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would draw
the minister's attention to what is clearly an insertion in the book, undoubtedly inserted after the whole book was finally prepared. I think the minister can see there are four pages that are largely in the nature of illustration, that clearly have been added to the book and that do not form a part of it as it was originally prepared, dealing entirely with the Imperial economic conference of 1932. I have no objection, if the government so wishes, to the reproduction of pictures and the like, of the Imperial economic conference, but surely there has been enough of that at the public expense without perpetuating it indefinitely in government publications. May I draw attention to the very first page. I would ask by what authority the government.
FEBRUARY 3, 1933	ip	1809
Supply-Trade and Commerce
inserts this kind of thing in a handbook which purports to be authoritative as to existing conditions in Canada?
The agreement signed to-day constitutes a definite advance towards closer empire economic association. Because of this, we may fairly lay claim to an achievement greater than that of which any other conference can boast.
All this is, as is stated at the end:
Excerpt from the speech of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, Chairman of the Imperial economic conference, at the plenary session, Ottawa, August 20, 1932.
It goes on:
We have commonly acknowledged that empire association can be based advantageously upon the principle of reciprocal preferences, and by our several agreements have evidenced our belief that these preferences ensure the greatest benefits when they are predicated upon a general empire tariff plan.
. . . but this propitious beginning must not blind us to the fact that it is but a beginning, and that if this scheme of closer empire association is to endure and bring to each one of us the benefits we hope for, further action must be taken at a not too distant date.
How does that- find a rightful place in an official handbook of present conditions in Canada? It is a reproduction of a part of a speech made by the Prime Minister at the Imperial economic conference and contains a number of statements that are highly controversial. There is not in this house agreement that a general empire tariff plan is what is desired. I venture to say that bon. gentlemen opposite are very much in doubt about the wisdom of a general empire tariff plan, and certainly everyone on this side of the house is decidedly opposed to anything of the kind. Why should we and those whom we represent be called upon to authorize an expenditure from the federal treasury for the spread of that sort of political propaganda? There is an introduction by the minister, with a very nice portrait of himself, which is quite appropriate, but a little further on another portrait of the minister also appears. I have not any objection to any number of portraits of the minister being published, but if he intends to circulate them, let him circulate two different ones, and not the same one in two different places and sizes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where are they? I have not seen them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one
on page 7 and another on page 179, the same portrait but a little smaller.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We do that to save
expense.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That, however, is a minor affair and I do not wish to more
than mention it. I want however, to draw attention to the minister's review at the beginning. The greater part of it was taken up with the imperial and international situation. It is in large part simply one of the minister's speeches on the Imperial economic conference and its effects. I have no objection to the circulation of the minister's speeches in as large numbers as he chooses so long as this is not done at the public expense.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is my right bon.
friend referring to now?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The introduction on page 7, what the minister has to say there and on the following pages about the imperial conference, why it was called, what it did, and so forth.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not any speech at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the same sort of material the minister is using in his speeches.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The same tone.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the same tone. I thought my hon. friend said "the same dope," and so it is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It shows that I take my
speeches from the material of the bureau.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it shows
that the minister is prepared to use the bureau to further political propaganda, and that is what I object to.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am going to read to the house some of this stuff and to allow hon. gentlemen to see whether we are justified in paying for this sort of thing, On page 15 there appears the following heading for chapter one, the first chapter of the book, which deals with imperial conditions.
The Imperial economic conference, 1932, and intra-empire trade.
Then there is a little introduction, and this heading follows:
Conditions leading up to the Imperial economic conference in 1932.
It runs away back to the " industrial revolution " of the later part of the eighteenth century and Adam Smith's teachings. Then it comes down to the Napoleonic wars and the corn laws. What business has the government in an official publication on Canadian conditions spending money on a review of that kind and trying to relate its incidents
Supply-Trade and Commerce

to the imperial conference? It goes on to describe the campaign of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, and it says:
The severest threat to free trade was Joseph Chamberlain's tariff reform campaign, ably outlined in an historic speech delivered in Glasgow, where Adam Smith had taught, in 1993. Chamberlain foresaw an empire slowly disintegrating unless a closer economic union founded on preferences granted reciprocally between the United Kingdom and her overseas possessions were brought about before the dominions had rounded out their economy for themselves by establishing local manufactures on a large scale.
What has that to do with a recital of Canadian conditions either past, present or future-a campaign of Joseph Chamberlain against free trade many years ago in Great Britain? The effort is to make it appear that a greater than Joseph Chamberlain has arisen who has brought about an economic union which Chamberlain had striven in vain to accomplish. May I point out, from the viewpoint of historical accuracy, that what was accomplished at the recent imperial conference in Ottawa was diametrically the opposite of what Joseph Chamberlain fought for. He fought for a system of preferences that would bring about free trade within the British Empire.
This conference in its tariff arrangements has been of a character to restrict trade between different parts of the empire, preserving only a semblance of some preference to Great Britain and some other parts of the empire effected by the extra high tariffs which have been raised against all other countries.
The handbook deals, as I have said, with Chamberlain's campaign in England; then it takes up the McKenna duties. The Napoleonic wars were brought in I assume to show the relation between them and what took place here last summer. Then we come to this:
It was at the Imperial conference in 1930. when the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, reemmciated the policy of reciprocal tariff' preferences, that the stage w-as set for the wholesale retirement of the United Kingdom from her free trade position.
It was at the conference of 1930 that British ministers themselves described the so-called Canadian offer as being "humbug." That is the conference we are here told at which the stage was set for getting Britain off a free trade position. What is the next sentence?
At the time, a Labour government was in power, and was not disposed to regard with favour the offer held out by Canada.
What business have we in an official handbook on Canada to make a recital of this

kind, which has to do purely and entirely with domestic politics in Britain, and why should the Canadian taxpayer have to pay for the circulation of that sort of inaccurate and misleading information? It is information that will be taken exception to in Great Britain as well as here. It is not accurate, and as one reads it, it is seen to be equivalent to saying that the government of Canada went overseas and interfered with politics in Great Britain to the extent of being responsible for the overthrow of a Labour government in Great Britain, the change in British fiscal policy, and for the introduction of something that is now going to bring about a vast change in world affairs. I submit that if anything of the kind has happened, it was all quite wrong. We in this country have no business to try to interfere with the fiscal policies of other countries or in order to ensure their defeat to put up propositions which we know other governments will find it impossible to accept.
What else does this publication say?
The economic section of the conference was not able to reach satisfactory conclusions in the time available and, on the invitation of the Canadian Prime Minister, it was arranged that it should convene later in Ottawa. On the formation of a strong National government and after the election of the following year, it was admitted that the British people had expressed themselves definitely in favour of the principle of imperial preferences.
That is wholly untrue; it has never been so admitted. As a matter of fact, as hon. members well know, there is a very large portion of the public in Great Britain which believes it was grossly deceived when, after a National government had been returned to power, that government undertook to deal with the tariff, when, as is asserted, the people were told in advance the tariff would not be a matter for the coalition. For the Canadian government to send this sort of thing broadcast to the different countries of the world at the expense of the Canadian public, is wholly indefensible. It continues:
The National government acted at once and there folio-wed a gesture on the part of the United Kingdom which was of the greatest importance in relation to the 1932 conference, for the passing of the Abnormal Importations Act of November, 1931 (a temporary measure later supplemented by -the Import Duties Act of March, 1932), marked Britain's abandonment of her historic position. But her retirement was made conditional on the receipt of compensating trade privileges from the dominions at the conference, and the preferences then extended to the dominions were, therefore, to cease automatically on November 15,	1932,
unless arrangements were made at the conference for their continuance.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
If that is true, this parliament has been deceived. We have never been told, until this document came into our hands, that there were conditions and understandings with the British government of which this parliament had no knowledge before the conference was called.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my right hon. friend
will permit me, it is set forth in the legislation of Great Britain that on November 15, unless in the interim arrangements are made between the British government and the dominions, the preference would expire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Imperial
conference was not referred to in that legislation, but it is referred to here. No one reading this document could escape the impression that what was done in England in its legislation and what was done in our legislation here was a part of some secret understanding between the two governments.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No such inference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then what is the meaning of the words, "But her retirement was made conditional on the receipt of compensating trade privileges"? How can you have a conditional arrangement unless there has been some understanding?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Set forth in the statute.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I continue and give some further statements contained in this book?
In order to understand just what this change meant to the United Kingdom and her reason for making it conditional on the return of compensating privileges, it is necessary to recall that under free trade her policy of purchasing food and raw materials in the cheapest market had kept down the cost of living at home to a minimum and enabled her manufactures to compete in price with those of other nations abroad. This policy had, in its day, helped her to become the leading trader of the world, its financial centre and owner of a large part of its shipping.
What has this sort of special pleading to do with conditions in Canada? I need not go on and read the remainder nor the next
page. It is all intended to make it appear that Britain's tariff was made what it was as a result of some secret understanding, or that what was done at the imperial conference led to this country receiving certain rights of free entry into the British market which we all know she would have had even had there been no conference at all. When we were discussing the conference agreements, this was stated a dozen times here without any possibility of contradiction.
I turn to the next page, and here I find another illustration from the moving picture bureau, "The new colours of the Governor General's Footguards-One of the events to which the delegates to the imperial conference were invited while in Ottawa was the ceremony of the presentation of colours by His Excellency the Governor General to the regiment of which he is Honorary Colonel." Why circulate that sort of thing at public expense at this time? Surely there was enough advertising of its attendant features at the time of the conference itself, and before, without continuing them indefinitely and unnecessarily in the way in which it is done in this book.
I turn to page 19, and find another page devoted entirely to this subject. It deals with matters immediately preceding the conference and describes how busy the government were at that time. These are the words used:
As the preliminary and final reports of the various committees were turned in they were studied by a committee of the cabinet under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, and the broad lines of Canadian policy at the conference laid down. Frequently this required further information on a great variety of subjects so that the weeks preceding the opening of the conference were marked by a concentration of effort as great as any undertaken by the Canadian government since the close of tire great war.
What is the sense of or justification for publishing that sort of thing in an official handbook that is supposed to be dealing with present conditions? Then we have several pages dealing with inter-empire trade, all of which are supposed to relate to this conference, containing charts, and the like, but no information of a character which can be regarded as authentic in relation to the possible trends of Canada's trade as a whole. After occupying many pages in the earlier part of the book, the same sort of material appears again on pages 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44, which are devoted entirely to an account of what is described as the achievements of the conference.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask hon. gentlemen who say "hear, hear" in a very faint tone, to tell me what those achievements have been. There is not a man living who can point to any definite achievements as yet. And yet this book devotes pages of material on what is termed the achievements of the conference for circulation throughout the various countries of the world.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Tory propaganda.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Take this statement as an example:
The Canadian delegation succeeded in not only securing the continuance of the preferences for, in most cases, a period of five years, but in greatly widening their scope. The grain grower, the mixed farmer who raises cattle and hogs in addition to grain, the dairy farmer, the fruit grower, the tobacco grower, the rancher' and breeder of live stock will, as a result, enjoy a larger demand for their products.
If that is not pure political propaganda, and false propaganda, I should like to know what is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the figures prove it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It goes on to say:
As pointed out by the Prime Minister, on October 12, 1932, when tabling the agreements in the house, Canada will naturally benefit more than any other dominion from the preferences on manufactured goods.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Assuming that were true, it might be saying very little, but has a statement of that kind any place in a handbook purporting to be dealing with conditions in this country and published by a government bureau?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let hon. gentlemen be sincere. I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite how they, had they been sitting on this side, would have viewed publicity of this kind with reference to Liberal policies in a handbook put out by a Liberal government at the public expense. We all need official statistical data on Which to base what we have to say, and I would have had no objection whatever, so far as the conference is concerned, if the government had issued or published the agreements in this volume and let them speak for themselves. No exception could have been taken other than that it would have been an unnecessary expense. It at least would have been information, but the government has no right to draw its own partisan inferences, give its own partisan interpretations, and, above all, to make absolutely false assertions in regard to what have been the results and adopt this method of putting them into circulation.
Let me read another statement. On page 41 I find this:
It was provided, however, that the Canadian tariff board (the establishment was provided for last session but the personnel has not yet been appointed) should act as a judicial as well as a fact finding body.

Now I asked the Prime Minister himself, at the time we were discussing the functions of the tariff board in relation to the conference agreements, whether it was to act as a judicial body, and he gave me the assurance that it would not, but that it would be a fact finding body. If hon. gentlemen will look at Hansard, they will see that this very question was raised, and they will find the Prime Minister's statement denying that the tariff board was to be a judicial body and asserting that it was to be purely a fact finding body. Yet my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in this publication of his department, advertises to the world that we have in the personnel of this new tariff board which has not yet come into existence, a new judicial body in Canada. I would think that there would be time enough to make a record of the tariff board in an official publication when we had the board, but here the government is erroneously advertising the function of a board which has not yet been brought into existence. Then on page 42 I find this statement:
An empire policy has also been followed in respect of vegetable oils which Canada imported to the value of $7,000,000 even in the sub-normal fiscal year 1932.
An empire policy! I should like to know since when this parliament has taken upon itself the business of fashioning empire policies. Hon. gentlemen opposite used to talk about national policies, and when they were talking about protection, they said: This is the great national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald. But we have here in an official handbook of the government the statement that we have been enacting empire policies.


Henry Herbert Stevens: At the conference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If at the conference it was without authority from any parliament for so doing. How does my hon. friend justify printing in any government publication, which purports to be a record of facts, any such statement as that this parliament has lent itself to creating empire policies. It may be true, but most of our members will not be prepared to admit the fact. I quote further from the same page:
The above tariff changes along with those concerning miscellaneous industries announced on October 12, 1932, constitute the beginning of the revision of the Canadian preferential tariff.
This is information which parliament has not had before. We have never been told that this was the beginning of the revision of the tariff. We were led to assume, after having had three or four revisions in less than

Supply-Trade and Commerce
that number of years, that we had got pretty near to the end. Now we are told in this particular handbook that it is but the beginning.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will be the end of the Tories.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point this out as to the worth of what is set forth as a matter of historical record? I have read, I think, all that this publication has to say on empire preferences, and I do not find a single reference in this book to any preference having been given by Canada to Great Britain from 1896 to 1930-not one; and yet this work purports to give an accurate and complete historical record of what has taken place. Though the preference idea owes its existence in practice to the government which was in office in Canada in 1896, the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and though the governments of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, of Sir Robert Borden, or Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, as well as the late Liberal government all continued to give preferences to Britain, and all alike shared in supporting a policy of imperial preferences, no mention is made whatever in this record of what was done by way of granting preference to Britain by any one of them, albeit we are told a lot about Adam Smith, about the Napoleonic wars, the coim laws, and the like. I say, Mr. Chairman, that that is not fair play. It is not honest, decent, straightforward, nor is it a truthful record. It is the suppression of the most significant and important part of the whole. The whole thing is a miserable effort to spread Tory political propaganda at the expense of the public to print and publish and circulate an official handbook containing the false literature of the Tory party. I think that the item for this service ought in the circumstances to be reduced, and I would move that it be reduced by $12,575, which is the increase which we are being asked to make in the expenditure in the present year as against the expenditure of last year. No doubt the increase is due to this propagandist feature. Last year we had a very large expenditure. I think it had been increased on the score that the imperial conference was about to be held. Now it is being increased because the conference has been held and because the government wish to circulate this party literature in reference to it. Whatever other economies may be necessary at the present time, this one certainly ought to be effected, and an end put to the practice of a government using public funds for political propaganda. It is exactly the same thing as
took place the year before last when the minister published at government expense what he called a creed-Canada first.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a tremendous
demand for it still.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But in the
meantime another creed has found expression, not " Canada first," but " empire first," and not only " empire first " but " empire first, empire last and empire over all." That is the policy of the present government, and they are seeking, by means of this propaganda, to get abroad a lot of their literature before the campaign comes on, and to send it out at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. I say that is carrying government expenditure to a point absolutely unjustifiable. I move that the item be reduced by $12,575 on the score that the expenditure is unnecessary, that the information it is intended to circulate is historically inaccurate and false, and purely in the nature of political propaganda and cannot be justified on any public ground whatsoever.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The obvious mental disturbance of the right hon. gentleman is due to the fact that my right hon. leader the Prime Minister of Canada played an important part in the imperial conference. The right hon. gentleman has never forgiven my right hon. leader because he was Prime Minister during the past year. So the right hon. gentleman takes a handbook which was prepared in just the same way as all preceding ones, and because the editors of the handbook dared in the opening pages to honour the Prime Minister of Canada and to quote in the foreword a speech that the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada delivered at the imperial conference, they are subjected to this diatribe. The utterance of my right hon. friend was unworthy of him. It is simply a display of pitiful childish spleen because the right hon. gentleman who now leads the government was in this honoured position at. the imperial conference.


An hon. MEMBER:: .Answer the criticism.


Henry Herbert Stevens: So far as the matter in
this publication is concerned, as I have already intimated it was prepared in exactly the same way by the staff of the bureau, and I want to pay this tribute to them; there are in the bureau some of the most able men, not put there by me, but who got their positions years ago when the right hon. gentleman himself was the head of the government, able men who have discharged their duties year in and year out without fear and with-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
out favour. They were not dictated to, they were not interfered with in the slightest degree.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: None of this
was written by any of them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was produced by them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No sir.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my right hon. friend not take my word on it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I dispute absolutely that this was written as it appears in the bureau, and the minister knows it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I tell my right hon. friend this, that every word of it was produced in the bureau by the officers of the bureau without one word of intimation from me as to what should be written.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say
that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My right hon. friend must take my word for that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take my
hon. friend's word when he says he did not direct that these things should be written.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This publication was
written and produced in the same way as preceding publications.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say that
what I read to-night was not written by anyone who is a member of the bureau of statistics.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was written by an
official of the bureau of statistics. I give that on the authority of the head of the department who sits before me.


Mr. HEPBURN:: He should be fired, then.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He should not. I want
to say that the head of the bureau of statistics and the chief officers are gentlemen of whom this country may well be proud. I will say this to my young friend opposite who has just interjected, that the head of the bureau of statistics, is held in the highest esteem and respect in practically every leading country in Europe, as well as Great Britain, as one of the most outstanding statisticians in the world.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Did he write it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: He certainly did not. In
justification to him I say this further, that this country has every reason to be proud of the head of the bureau and of its staff. And I repeat that this is the product of the officers, but I am not taking any shelter

behind them as to what has been produced here. I am the head of the department, and I take responsibility for its production.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, February 6, 1933