1936-03-23

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Cahan be substituted for that of Mr. Beaubier on the special committee appointed to inquire into the operations of the Canadian Radio Commission and its administration of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act of 1932 and amendments, and the regulations made under authority thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I desire to lay on the table of the house the annual report of the Canadian National Railways for the year ended December 31, 1935, the annual report of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine Limited and the Canadian National West Indies Steamships Limited, for the year ended December 31, 1935, and the report to parliament of the firm of Messrs. Clarkson, Gordon, Dilworth & Nash, auditors of the accounts of the Canadian National railway system, for the year ended December 31, 1935.
These accounts are tabled in both languages, and the annual reports of the railways and the steamships are being distributed this afternoon through the post office to each member. These reports, together with the railway estimates, as well as the auditors' report, will be referred to the select standing committee on railways and shipping.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Questions

Mr. REID:: 1.	Did the government acquire any property or buildings for the use of the Kootenay Regiment, 1st Battalion, at Cranbrook, British Columbia, in 1935?
2.	If so, what property or buildings were purchased, what was the cost of each and the cost of fittings, etc.?
3.	What was the cost of rental of all
quarters previously used by the department of National Defence at Cranbrook?
4.	What was the cost of the rifle range at Cranbrook and the cost of the road constructed thereto in 1935?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	Prior to August 15, 1934, the regiment made its own arrangements for quarters at Cranbrook, paying for the same out of its care-of-arms allowance. Since August 15, 1934, the Department of National Defence has provided quarters at Cranbrook, at a rental of $1,200 a year.
4.	Total cost of the two-target rifle range at Cranbrook, including the access road, $5,102. Separate figures for the range and the road are not available, as this work was carried out as an unemployment relief project.


AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	How many automobiles were manufactured each year from and including 1929 to 1935 (a) in Canada; (b) in the United States?
2.	What was the total number of persons employed in the Canadian automobile industry and the total amount of salaries paid in each such year?
3.	What amount of capital was invested in the Canadian automobile industry and what dividends were paid annually during abovestated period?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Production of automobiles in Canada and the United States 1929-1935:
Canada ^United States Number Number
1929	
262,625	5,359,0901930	
153,372	3,356,8061931	
82,559	2,389,8001932	
60.789	1,370,6781933	
65,852	1,920,0571934	
116,852	2,753,1111935	
1172.934	13.977.066
* Including motor vehicles exported as "parts for assembly."
t Preliminary figures.
2.	Total number Total
of persons	salaries
employed and wages
1929	
16,435	$ 26,864,8081930	
12,541	19,473,7821931	
9,545	13,113,1921932	
8.810	11,435,7411933	
8,134	8,557,3311934	
9,674	12,938,9331935	
(Data not available)3.	Capita]invested	Dividends1929	
$98,378,3011930	
90,671,678	Complete1931	
59,638,057	data1932	
49,641,777	not1933	
40,000.559	available1934	
34,520,9381935	
(Data not
available)



DORCHESTER COUNTY, MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Did the Post Office department ask for tenders for the mail contract between St. JIalachie and St. Edward of Frampton, Dorchester county?
2.	If so, what are the names of those who submitted tenders?
3.	What was the amount of each tender?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded and at what price?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	Yes.
2,	3 and 4. Contract arrangements not having been completed it is not considered in the public interest to give this information until new contract has been executed.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD

Mr. REID:: 1.	What was the total amount subscribed by the province of British Columbia for capital stock in the Canadian Farm Loan Board?
2.	Was any interest allowed on the stock purchased, and. if so, what amount?
3.	Is it the intention of the government this year to redeem the stock purchased, and. if so, what will the cost of this be to the government?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	$63,891.
' 2. Stock does not bear interest.
3.	Under authority of section 5 (3) of the Canadian Farm Loan Act, the government is purchasing at par stock subscribed for by provincial governments.



EMPLOYMENT ON CANADIAN RAILWAYS

Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What is the total number of men now employed on railways in Canada?

Questions
2.	How many of these are aliens?
3.	What is the total number of men now employed on tracks, sectionmen, foremen, etc.?
4.	How many of these are aliens?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	Average for December, 1935.. ..	113,085
(Latest data available)
2.	Not available.
3.	Average for year 1934	 27,170
(Latest data available)
4.	Not available.



COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who is the comptroller of the treasury and what is his salary?
2.	What was his previous occupation and salary?
3.	Is he a chartered accountant?
4.	If so, where did he get his degree and when ?
5.	How many men and women work under him (a) in the central office, and (b) in the various departments?
6.	What was the total cost of central office and branches of the comptroller of the treasury since 1931?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Watson Sellar; $9,000.
2.	Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance; $6,300.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by 3.
5.	(a) 46 men and 32 women; (b) 581 men and 321 women.
6.	The Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, did not come into effect until April 1, 1932, but in the fiscal year 1931-32, $2,984.50 was spent for organizing purposes. Expenditures in the years since were: 1932-33, $1,612,268.76; 1933-34. $1,539,684.84; 1934-35, $1,544,251.26; 1935-36, $1,516,776.32 (to February 29, 1936).



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	What purchases of aircraft have been made during the period October 23, 1935, to the present date?
2.	If such purchases were made (a) what types were secured; (b) what prices were [DOT] paid?
3.	From what firms or agencies were such purchases made?
4.	Were tenders called for; if so (a) what firms tendered, and (b) what were the tenders submitted?
5.	For what purposes were such purchases made?
6.	Were all such purchases of aircraft approved by the officers of the department as fully modern in type and in a satisfactory flying condition at the time of purchase?
IMr. Hansel].1


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Return tabled herewith.


PRICE SPREADS INVESTIGATION-AUDITORS
Mr. GOLDING:: 1.	What are the names of the auditors or auditor used by the following auditing firms in the price spreads investigation conducted by the royal commission and parliamentary committee (a) Clarkson, Gordon, Dilworth, Guilfoyle & Nash; (b) Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Company; (c) Fred Page Higgins; (d) F. A. Nightingale; (e) Dunwoody; (f) Creak; (g) Richardson?
2.	How many days -were each of these auditors engaged in this investigation?
3.	What did each firm charge per day for the services of each of their auditors?
4.	What was the expense allowance for each of these auditors per day?
5.	What was the total amount paid each firm?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: For	a	copy	of	all	correspondence,	letters,
telegrams and other documents, respecting the dismissal of U'bald Laberge, as postmaster of I'Ange Gardien, province of Quebec, covering the period from October 1, 1935, to date.



B0I8CHATEL, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP

Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: For	a	copy	of	all	correspondence,	letters,
telegrams and other documents, respecting the dismissal of Laurent Vezina, as postmaster of the parish of Boischatel. province of Quebec, and covering the period from October 1, 1935, to date.



AVILA VEZINA

Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: For	a	copy	of	all	correspondence,	letters,telegrams, and other documents, respecting the dismissal of Avila Vezina, of Boischatel, province of Quebec, an employee in the Department	of	Marine,	covering the period from
October 1, 1935, to date.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say I answered a few days ago a question in reference to the motion referred to, but I have made search of the files, and there is no correspondence whatever. This man was temporarily employed, and I suppose he was dismissed in the ordinary course of events.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.



SOCKEYE SALMON TREATY

Mr. REID:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and correspondence between the provincial government of British Columbia or any of its ministers or officials or any other persons and the hon. the Prime Minister of Canada or the

Motions for Papers
Minister of Fisheries or the deputy minister, since January, 1936, in connection with or with reference to the Fraser river sockeye salmon treaty which was ratified by parliament in 1930.



COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY

Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of all orders in council passed since 1931 respecting the comptroller of the treasury.


Mr. DUNNING:: Return tabled herewith.



IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all orders in council and regulations actually in force respecting immigration to Canada.



SKIDEGATE, B.C., POST OFFICE

Mr. HANSON:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the Post Office department respecting the dismissal of Mrs. E. C. Stevens, postmistress at Skidegate (Queen Charlotte islands), Slceena riding, British Columbia, and in respect of the appointment of the present postmaster at the same place.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL SINCE OCTOBER 23, 1935

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) moved:: For a copy of all orders in council passed since the 23rd day of October, 1935, excepting appendices and treasury board minutes and excepting orders already tabled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I say to my right hon. friend that I am pleased to see him back in the house. I hope he has quite recovered from his slight indisposition of last week.
I wish I could agree to the motion he is asking to have accepted by the house. I submit however that it is a motion without precedent. As far as I can discover nothing of the kind has at any time been granted by any parliament of the British empire. The motion is for copies of all orders in council passed since the 23rd day of October, 1935. That is to say, it is a request for blanket authority to obtain all orders in council passed within the past six months, or, in other words, since the present administration assumed office. It does not specify the particular subject or subjects in relation to which my right hon. friend desires to have information. It makes no reference to any particular class of orders, it is simply an unlimited request for all orders in council that have been passed. As hon. members well know, there are orders in council and orders in council. There are some
which arise as matters of routine; there are others which relate to more important matters. To fill an order of this kind would involve considerable expense and a very great deal of labour on the part of the public service.	,
I hope my right hon. friend will be able to tell us his reasons for asking for this. It does seem to me an unreasonable request to make. I have asked the clerk of the privy council whether he is aware of anything of the kind ever having been granted at any time. He informs me that, of his knowledge and of the officers of the department, no such request, if it has been made, has ever been, granted. What my right hon. friend is asking now would establish a precedent which might, be a very serious one if it were followed on subsequent occasions. For example, there is no reason why some hon. member should not immediately give notice of a motion for copies of all orders in council passed while my right hon. friend was in office. That would be equivalent to the request the right hon. gentleman is making now, his request covers all orders in council passed by the present government up to the present time.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I have sought, by glancing at authorities on parliamentary procedure and practice, to discover anything which would throw light on the attitude to be adopted by the house towards a request of this kind. The fact that there appears to be no mention of anything of the kind by any authority I have been able to consult thus far, would indicate that nothing of the kind has ever been contemplated by writers on matters of parliamentary practice and procedure. I do find, however, the following *reference in Todd's Parliamentary Government in England, volume I, page 440:
Considerations of public policy, and a due regard to the interests of the state, occasionally demand, however, that information sought for by members of the legislature should be withheld, at the discretion and upon the general responsibility of ministers. This principle is systematically recognized in all parliamentary transactions: were it otherwise, it would be impossible to carry on the government with safety and honour. Whenever it is declared, by the responsible servants of the crown, that any information sought for in parliament could not be supplied without inconvenience to the public service, or for other sufficient reasons, the house refrains from insisting upon its production.
My right hon. friend will see at once that, if his request were granted, it would mean some minister of the crown would have to go over all the orders in council to see if, perchance, there was any single order, in the collection asked for by the right hon. gentleman, which it might not be in the public
Motions for Papers

interest to lay on the table of the house. I do say to the right hon. gentleman that I think his request goes too far. I remember that some years ago Sir Henry Drayton, then leader of the opposition, made a motion very similar to that which my right hon. friend is now proposing. It was for a return of all orders in council passed in the calendar year 1925. I shall read the answer I then made on behalf of the government:
I would ask my hon. friend if he really desires all that he is requesting here. As my hon, friend knows, there are a great many orders in council that are purely routine orders, having to do with regulations, promotions, transfers of land, property and so forth, and to bring down all that is asked for here I am afraid would mean a very large and quite unnecessary expense. If my hon. friend would indicate the orders he has in mind there would be no objection.
My answer to my right hon. friend's request to-day is just the same as that given to Sir Henry Drayton ten years ago. If my right hon. friend has any particular orders or class of orders in mind which he would like to have, the government will be only too ready to consider his request. I hope however he will not press a motion which is in the nature of seeking to obtain from this house a general warrant to search the files of the privy council with a view only of seeing if he cannot discover in them something which may serve for purposes of discussion later on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I make a few observations, Mr. Speaker? It is a strange thing indeed if we have reached the stage in Canada where parliament cannot be made aware of the orders in council passed by the executive.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have not
reached that stage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What has been said
by the right hon. gentleman is that we are not to have access to the orders in council passed since he came into power because, first, they might disclose something that should not be disclosed and, second, that considerable expense would be involved in their preparation.
As to the second point I took the trouble, I think it was in the month of November, to telephone the clerk of the privy council that probably I would make such an application to parliament, and I suggested that he prepare an extra copy of the orders in (Council when he was having them prepared. J think he accepted that suggestion in the spirit in which it was made; at least I asked

him if he had done so and he told me he had prepared them but that in some cases further copies had been asked for and there were some he would have to prepare over again.
Let us look at this thing fairly. I have no desire to press unduly for information to which I am not entitled, but for five long years we were charged with governing Canada by order in council. On every platform in the country we were charged with governing Canada by order in council. I now propose to ask that parliament be shown the orders in council that have been passed since October 23 last, to see the extent to which it was necessary for the executive to use its powers for the purpose of carrying on government.
Secondly, there can be no valid order in council that has not behind it some statutory authority, except it be an order in council authorized by the prerogative of the sovereign. Eliminating consideration of the second matter, it therefore follows that any order in council that is valid, that has been passed by the governor in council, must have behind it some statutory authority. I put that to the Minister of Justice some sessions ago and he admitted it to be a correct statement of the law. It has been decided by the court of highest authority in the British realm that there must be a statutory authority for the exercise of the executive power when passing orders in council, aside from trifling exceptions which have no application here. The extent to which the government of the day have found it necessary to utilize the powers which it is said were improperly exercised by the late administration I desire to know-that is, the extent to which the powers have been exercised since October last-and the only way I know of ascertaining that is by asking for a copy of the orders in council and from such copies ascertaining the extent, to which the authority conferred upon the government by this parliament has been utilized during the past six months. It is idle to say, in fact it concedes the correctness of my position when it is said, that nothing appears in the books about it, because it is always taken for granted that you get the orders in council anyway. This is the first time I have ever heard the suggestion that the House of Commons is not entitled to every order in council that is passed. There is nothing in the books for the simple and obvious reason that it is taken as a matter of course. In many cases it is provided that the orders in council shall be printed in the Canada Gazette. For instance, those which have to do with the authority conferred upon the executive under

Motions for Papers
peace, order and good government have to be published in the Gazette. A synopsis or precis of relief orders in council also has to be published in the Gazette, and when the house is in session they have to be tabled. That is why the motion reads "excepting orders already tabled."
But the final argument used by the right hon. gentleman himself is conclusive of the soundness of my request. He said: If you will indicate what orders in council you want, then of course the government will be happy to produce them. Suppose I divide my request and say I will make four or more applications: one, all under the Relief Act; two, all under the authority of the Department of National Defence; three, all under the Department of Agriculture; four, all under the Department of National Revenue; five, all under the Department of Railways and Canals and Marine; six, all under the Department of Public Works; seven, all under the Department of Justice, and so on. Now the right hon. gentleman says: That will be quite all right. I have specified what I want. But because I add them all together and say I want them all, the Prime Minister says that is an improper request and one he hopes I will not press. All I can say is that I regret to inform the house that I had a very definite purpose in putting this notice of motion on the order paper. I desire these orders in council for very many purposes, all of which I do not propose at the moment to communicate to the house, and I am greatly surprised that the right hon. gentleman should have taken the position that I am not entitled to them. I am not asking for them for myself; I am asking that they be brought down as a return so that we may ascertain to what extent the government has been conducted by the executive under the authority of statutes heretofore passed, or, if any, under the prerogative powers of the sovereign.
I have no desire to add to the amount of work to be done, and that is the reason I took the step I did early in the fall, to obviate unnecessary expense. I do not ask it as any personal accommodation at all, but in the exercise of my undoubted parliamentary right I have asked that a return be made to this house of the evidence of the exercise of its authority by the executive, in order that we may be able to see for ourselves what it discloses.
I desire to thank the right hon. gentleman for his kind reference to my health, and I greatly regret that after his courteous and friendly reference to myself I cannot accommodate him to the extent he has suggested.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion is of course not debatable, but perhaps the house will grant me the permission to say just a word in reply to my right hon. friend. He has spoken of "the correctness of the position"-I think he used that phrase-in asking for the production of documents in the House of Commons. I must say I was amazed when I heard my right hon. friend state that he had given directions to the clerk of the privy council-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I did not say "directions," I was very careful in that regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What did my right hon. friend say?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said I had telephoned to the clerk of the privy council intimating that I proposed to make such an application to the house and that he should keep that in mind when preparing his documents as it might save some expense.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The request thus made by my right hon. friend involved making additional copies of public documents, thereby adding to the expense of the records of the privy council. If he had wished anything of the kind he is an old enough parliamentarian to know that his communication should have been addressed to the president of the privy council wTho is the minister responsible, and not to the clerk of the privy council. My right hon. friend would have taken very strong exception if, when I was leader of the opposition, I had telephoned to the deputy ministers of the different departments and told them what I expected them to have ready when I came to speak in the House of Commons, especially when the matter involved public expense, and would involve, on the part of the deputy, either the embarrassment of bringing the matter to the attention of his chief or of being silent in the matter and seeking to meet the wishes of the leader of the opposition rather than of the ministry itself.
However, the motion involves a very important question of procedure, and I still take the position that this house cannot be expected to grant a general warrant for the production of all orders in council which may be passed. My right hon. friend, I am sure, must have been familiar with my reply to Sir Henry Drayton made ten years ago, to which I referred this afternoon-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I had not seen it, I was not in the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take- my right hon. friend's word for that. However,

Privileges and Elections
I do not think he is surprised that, in view of the responsibility I have with respect to the production of public documents, I do not accede to a request which involves creating a precedent as far-reaching as the one he proposes. May I say to my right hon. friend that, if he will indicate the particular subjects on which he wishes to get information, the government naturally will take his request under consideration and accept the responsibility for either refusing or granting it. We are anxious to accommodate him whenever it is in order so to do with the fullest information possible in regard to all proceedings of the government. But I must respectfully decline to grant the present request, which is in the nature of a resolution for omnibus authority to obtain access to pretty much everything which has been done by the privy council, since the present government came into power, and is of record in the offices of the privy council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government have been passing them every day this session.
Motion negatived.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the standing committee on privileges and elections be instructed to inquire into, study and report on, the usages, customs and practices respecting the status of the Speaker of the House of Commons during the period of time which may elapse between any dissolution of the House of Commons and the assembly of a new parliament, and in particular the rights, prerogatives, privileges, jurisdiction and duties ordinarily and customarily exercised by the Speaker under such circumstances in previous years in Canada;
And, also, the status of clerks, officers, messengers or other persons attendant on the House of Commons, distinguishing between such persons as are permanent officers and such as are temporary and those whose duties are of a sessional character;
And the right and proper procedure to be adopted with respect to the retention or dismissal of any such employees;
And that the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day, as may be ordered by the committee for the use of the committee and members of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, there are two matters to which I wish to direct the attention of the house in dealing with this resolution. First, it is the custom in the mother of

parliaments when a question of privilege is discussed to have the Prime Minister a member of the committee. For the time being he is supposed to have a greater interest than anybody else in the maintenance of the privileges of parliament, because he has control of the government of the day. It will be recalled perhaps by hon. members that when Mr. Churchill in the British house made a statement regarding the attitude taken by the Lancashire board of trade-at the instance, it was said, of Lord Derby-a committee was set up and Mr. MacDonald in fact presided over the deliberations of the committee on privileges in which the matter was investigated. That is the first question. I am not quite sure whether the Prime Minister is a member of the committee on privileges and elections.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At any rate, it is a large committee. Usually matters of this kind are set down for a committee on privileges smaller in number than the one we have here.
The second question is as to whether or not the motion is sufficiently comprehensive to permit an investigation regarding the dismissal of employees in the early part of this year, and the employment on a tentative basis of their successors. As I read the motion it is probably broad enough for that purpose. I have no objection to offer to the resolution; for I had proposed when the committee was organized to ask that it consider the matter, and I have taken certain preliminary steps for the purpose of getting information to enable me to do so, subject to what I have said as to whether or not the motion is sufficient. I take it that it is sufficient to enable all questions of that kind to be gone into. I see no objection to the matter being considered, remembering however that we have a statute which the committee cannot construe, but which must be interpreted ultimately by a court of law. Presumably some of those who were dismissed this spring will bring action against the Speaker to ascertain whether or not he had any such power as that which was exercised. That is a matter of interpretation of the statute, and one with which the committee cannot possibly deal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my right hon. friend for suggesting that I should be a member of the committee on privileges and elections. It is a standing committee of the house, and I notice in looking over past records my right hon. friend, while Prime

European Situation
Minister,, was not on that committee. I imagined I would be following a precedent which would appeal to him as a good one if I followed his example in not placing myself on the committee at the time it was constituted. If there should be something in what my right hon. friend has said as to the desirability of the Prime Minister being on the committee, in the event of some situation arising in the committee which might materially affect matters of procedure or authority with respect to the House of Commons I shall be glad to hold myself in readiness and, if the committee so desire later on become a member of it. However I have no doubt that in so far as I am able to limit the number of obligations I have to meet each day it will the better serve the interests of all others concerned, as well as my own interests.
As to my right hon. friend's observations to the effect that he is not sure whether the motion is broad enough to cover all points he may have in mind, or those which other hon. members may have in mind, I would direct the right hon. gentleman's attention to what I said on February 13, when I was giving the house an assurance as to the desire of the administration to make the reference as broad as might be desired by all parties. I am reported at page 179 of unrevised Hansard as follows:
If the reference is not broad enough when it is submitted by the administration, and if it appeals to the house as being desirable to make it any broader. I give every assurance that the desires of the house will be acceded to.
I doubt if it is possible to go farther than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is right. May I say a word in explanation of what I meant when I made the suggestion as to the Prime Minister being a member of the committee. The Prime Minister's duties are so onerous that ordinarily his being a member of the committee on privileges and elections would be out of the question, but when there is involved a point respecting the power and usages of the House of Commons itself, with relation to the Speaker and employees of the house, I think a distinction must be made. I believe it was in consequence of that view that Mr. MacDonald presided over the special committee on privileges which dealt with the case of Mr. Churchill. That action was taken because it was considered a matter of great importance to the house itself.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That when this house adjourns on Wednesday, 8th of April, it stand adjourned until Monday, 20t,h April, next.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct
a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers)? I have a communication from the building trades council of Winnipeg in which it is stated that men are being taken from the relief camps and are working at the Minto street barracks at very low wages. Some of them are doing mechanics' work for twenty cents a day. The complaint is made that in this procedure there is an evasion of the fair wages law of Manitoba. Has this matter been called to the attention of the minister, and if so what is the government's policy in connection therewith?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) :	Mr. Speaker, this matter had
not been brought to my attention previously. I thank the hon. member for placing it before me and I assure him that I shall look into it immediately. Possibly he would give me a precis of the lettergram he has just quoted.



EUROPEAN SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I sent a note
to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) indicating that when the orders of the day were called I would ask if he had any statement to make regarding the European situation. While I am on my feet may I say I think the Prime Minister is entirely right when he says I should have telephoned him, not the clerk of the privy council, with respect to the matter under discussion a few moments ago. So far as this matter is concerned, I did communicate with the Prime Minister himself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, as he has
just said, my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) was kind enough to send me a communication indicating that on the orders of the day he would ask whether the government might, wish to say something with regard to the present European situation. The fact that he
European Situation

communicated with me gave me an opportunity to examine the .procedure followed in the British House of Commons in regard to this very matter. Had he not given me notice I might not have had the opportunity so to do.
I believe I could not answer my right hon. friend better than by quoting from the statement made by the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Anthony Eden, in the House of Commons at Westminster on the 20th instant, that is to say on Friday of last week. The Hon. Mr. Eden said:
I must first thank all parties in this house for the forbearance they have shown since I last made a statement here, March 9. This forbearance, I can assure the members of the bouse, has been a real help to us in our negotiations and in the work upon which we have been engaged.
I recognize further that this willingness to refrain from pressing the representatives of the government for information, during admittedly very difficult negotiations, has not lessened the anxiety with which the whole house views the present situation and it is for that reason that I am taking the first opportunity to give the house as much information as I can.
I would point out that our house has all the information which it was thought advisable by the Foreign Secretary, speaking at Westminster, to be given the British house on the 20th instant. I question if there is anything we of this house could add which would be helpful to those who at the moment are involved in very critical and delicate negotiations on a matter of supreme concern to mankind. I hope, and I am sure, hon. members will feel that an attitude on their part similar to that which has governed in the British house towards the administration in requesting a statement is one which they will be prepared to take. The government has been kept informed by dispatches of the general trend of negotiations. I am not disclosing any fact which I should not disclose when I say that what has subsequently appeared in the public press has very closely parallelled the information which we have received. Here and there, there may have been some statements given to the government which have not been given to the public, but generally speaking the information we have received is very similar to that which has appeared in the public press and has been received at about the same time as it has appeared in the press.
I did point out, speaking in this house a few days ago, that Canada was not a party to the Locarno agreement, and that the negotiations arise out of the Locarno agreement. There has been no question, I think, on the

part of anyone as to the statement I made in that particular being a perfectly accurate statement of our position. In the circumstances I think it would be in every way preferable, having regard to the extremely critical nature of the negotiations and the fact that the situation keeps changing not only from day to day but sometimes from hour to hour, for hon. members of this house to forbear, if they can see their way so to do, from preferring any request which might provoke discussion in our country at this time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I may say so, I think the statement made by the right hon. gentleman has answered the very questions I had in mind. It was asserted that we were not being kept informed; that appeared recently in one of the newspapers. The right hon. gentleman has answered it and made it perfectly clear, first, that the government has been kept informed by the government of Great Britain as to what has been going on, and secondly, that, qua Locarno itself, this government was not a party to that treaty. The third matter has only been touched upon, and that, is the question of the position of Canada in the negotiations. I think perhaps the right hon. gentleman is quite correct when he says that that is covered by what he has already said, to the extent to which it goes; and it is certainly not my purpose, nor would it be the purpose of anyone associated with me, to precipitate a debate that might in any way lessen or limit or imperil the powers which the British authorities are exercising in their effort to bring about world peace in the face of very grave difficulties.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I say that while we
appreciate what the Prime Minister has said with regard to the information that is being furnished by Great Britain to this government and to the public, the Prime Minister has not indicated in any way whatever what the attitude of this government is under the circumstances. It is quite true that we are not a party to the Locarno treaty, but we are a member of the League of Nations, and, as I understand it, the recent action of Germany is an infringement of the covenant. What is the attitude of Canada, or have we expressed an attitude either to Great Britain or to the league with regard to what we consider that action of Germany might involve? It seems to me that we cannot go on indefinitely without having some indication from the government as to what the attitude of Canada is.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
my hon. friend that, in a word, the attitude of the government is to do nothing itself and if possible to prevent anything occurring which will precipitate one additional factor into the all important discussions which are now taking place in Europe. I believe that Canada's first duty to the league and to the British empire, with respect to all the great issues that come up, is, if possible, to keep this country united. I believe that can be more effectively accomplished at this stage if we wait until we are a little more fully informed, than we are at the moment, with respect to all the considerations of which we should have knowledge before attempting to pronounce too definitely upon the position which we are taking or shall take with regard to European affairs.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I notice that in a cablegram to the
New York Times it was said that a draft treaty had been prepared, to be called the London treaty of 1936, dealing with naval construction for a term of years, and it was said that it was proposed that Canada and other dominions should be signatories to that treaty. Perhaps at a later date the right hon. gentleman will give some information with respect to that proposal, if there is any truth in the report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I was leaving my office I learned that a dispatch had come from London with respect to the naval treaty to which the hon. gentleman has referred. It had just been deciphered, and I have not thus far had an opportunity of acquainting myself with the particulars of it.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 13, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America.
Hon. J. E. LAWSON (York South):: I
shall be very brief, but on the second reading of this bill I desire to put on record one or two matters. During the progress of the schedules through the committee information was sought from time to time with respect to exports from and imports into the United States since the treaty came into operation. These figures were not available. I have now before me figures issued by the United States department, as published in the New York Times, and I think they should be drawn to the attention of the house.
Though the total exports of the United States to all countries of the world for January were valued at $197,958,000 as compared with exports by them in December of $223,555,000, or a decrease in total exports of approximately $26,000,000, at the same time the United States exports to Canada in January, after this trade agreement came into operation, greatly increased in dollar value as compared with December, 1935. In January, 1936, the exports from the United States to Canada amounted to $26,990,000, and in December, 1935, their exports to Canada amounted to $21,760,000. The United States exports to Canada in the first month of the operation of this treaty showed an increase of $5,230,000 over the previous month. Canada's exports to the United States for the same period should likewise be interesting, as we are supposed to have obtained such material benefit under this agreement. In. the month of December, 1935, Canada's exports to the United States were valued at $26,937,000, in round figures, but for January, 1936, they were valued at only $22,934,000, a decrease of $4,003,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: From the previous
month?


James Earl Lawson: The previous month, December.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not from the same month in the previous year?


James Earl Lawson: No, I have taken the
month preceding the treaty coming into effect and the month succeeding its coming into effect. I merely invite the attention of the government and the country to the fact that whereas United States exports to Canada increased, Canadian exports to the United States decreased very materially during that period.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Sir Eugene Fiset in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Orders in council authorized.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This section provides an excellent illustration of the necessity of the executive having power to deal with questions which prior to 1930 it was said should be considered by parliament. The section reads:
The governor in council may, notwithstanding the provisions of any law in force in Canada, make such orders and regulations and do such acts and things as are deemed necessary to carry out the provisions and intent of the said trade agreement.
Any other law may be overridden by regulations having to do with the well being of

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
this treaty. This is another illustration of the necessity of having these powers vested in the executive. This section is exactly the same provision as will be found in all treaties that have been ratified by this house. When I was in another place the right hon. gentleman, in the days when he was in office, used this section as we are using it to-day, but there was much criticism and complaint. In my judgment this section is being very properly used, because otherwise it would be impossible in some cases to carry out the treaty itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Since my right hon. friend approves of my actions, I have nothing further to say.


Mr. F. C. BETTS (London):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word about this section of the bill. I speak for what I think I can fairly say is a typical industrial riding, the city of London. In order to lay the basis for that claim, I should like to detail briefly some of the manufactured products made, in my riding, most of which I feel will be very seriously affected by this section in particular and by the agreement in general. In the city of London we have two large steel plants. We have one of the largest establishments in the dominion turning out brassware, plumbing specialties, water softeners and so on. We have a cereal factory and four large hosiery mills. We have two boot and shoe factories % and one of the largest tanneries in Canada, and I believe the oldest. We have a large biscuit factory, a hat and cap factory and three large plants turning out paper and cardboard boxes and containers. We have one of the largest creameries in the dominion and four printing and lithographing plants. In addition, there are manufactured in London on an extensive scale electric refrigerators, radios, chemical products, agricultural implements, concrete mixing machinery, vulcanizing equipment, radiators, barrels and barrel staves, metal garages, metal doors and hardware specialties, soap and cleansing materials, poultry and stock feeds, poultry and stock remedies, chewing gum and candy. We also have a large iron moulding concern, and we have two large and excellent breweries. I do not think that any hon. member can seriously contest the statement that I speak for a very representative cross section of Canadian industrial life.
I do not agree with the remarks made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) when he was replying to the speech of my right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett) during the course of the debate on the resolution leading up to this bill. The minister is quoted on page 720 of Hansard as follows:

then I come to the effect on our factories. Meu are being released from employment, my right hon. friend says, in some of those branch factories to-day because it is cheaper to produce the goods in the central United States. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have made some inquiries. Some of the very few branch factories from which men are being released are branches of United States concerns which have been in existence m Canada in recent years with extremely high protection, achieved by means of arbitrary valuations, which had no economic justification for existence.
Taking my own riding as a criterion, I should like to say that the condition of affairs of which my right hon. leader complained is not confined to a very few factories. This condition is affecting very many factories and very many Canadian work people of both sexes. If what has occurred in the past month or two goes on progressively, it will be a matter of great seriousness to every artisan in this dominion. The minister then went on to say that these factories and the arbitrary valuations have no economic justification. I should like to invite the minister to my riding and have him extend the few inquiries which he says he has made. This condition is one of such tremendous importance to the country that it should not be dealt with on the strength of a few inquiries by anybody. I think I can promise the minister that if he will come to London and extend those few inquiries he will find that in that city, at all events, whatever he finds in the rest of the dominion, what I have said is perfectly true. I suggest that when he is there he interview some of my constituents and explain to them, in his convincing and charming way, that these factories which have given them employment at good wages during the past four years, and the arbitrary valuations which have made it possible for those factories to operate, have no economic justification whatever. If the minister is successful in convincing one single worker who has lost his or her employment as a result of the operation of the agreement now under consideration, and as a result of the reversal of the tariff policies of the past four years, I shall certainly be the first one to congratulate him heartily.
Speaking primarily for industry, I am unalterably opposed to this agreement, because I cannot see anything in it other than an increase in unemployment. To my way of thinking it is bound to have this result, by crippling industries already in operation in this country and by preventing the setting up of new ones. I will give two illustrations from plants in my own riding. One is the largest of its kind west of Toronto. During 1935 thirty per cent of that plant's total production consisted of items manufactured on

Canada-V. S. Trade Agreement
a royalty basis under licence from American concerns which could not get their goods intc this country because of the tariff policies ol the previous government, and which manufactured them through this company in London and in so doing enabled it to profit by the arrangement and to give employment tc a great many workmen and workwomen in London. This factory has already suffered from the effects of the present agreement, and there is no doubt that as time goes on it will suffer considerably more.
Let me take another example of the manner in which the tariff policies of the previous government have helped industry in my riding. There is another plant engaged in an entirely different line of products. It is the Canadian home of an American concern manufacturing the world's most popular breakfast food. Until the advent of the empire trade agreements the plant in question manufactured in London purely for domestic consumption. Following the passage of the empire trade agreements it started exporting to empire countries, and during most of the year 1935 it exported to those countries at the rate of 170 railway cars a month. Between 1932 and 1935 the company greatly increased the area of its plant by building an addition to it, and also more than doubled the number of its employees. I mention that in connection with this section 3 simply because I see in the present Canada-United States agreement a real obstacle to the continuance of the empire trade agreements, a threat to the success which we have enjoyed under those agreements, and a handicap in re-negotiating them in 1937. And while the empire trade agreements are being mentioned, I must deplore the diatribes that we have heard from the opposite side of the house since the house has been in session, and from supporters of the Liberal party in the course of the election, directed against the empire trade agreements on the ground that they were engendering an unfriendly attitude towards Canada on the part of the people of England. I submit that the evidence is all to the contrary, and I would refer to a debate that took place in the parliament at Westminster after the empire trade agreements had been in force for two years. The government which negotiated those agreements for the United Kingdom was returned to power in the fall of 1934 with a very substantial majority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Up to the present I have not interrupted my hon. friend, because, as he is a new member, I
did not like to raise a point of order which might perhaps affect what he has to say. I cannot see, however, that his remarks are relevant to the section we are discussing. The house having approved sections 1 and 2, is now dealing with the question of orders in council authorized, to which the hon. gentleman's leader has referred. What he is now saying in discussing the empire trade agreements is, it seems to me, quite beside the point.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: May I submit as to the point of order that I have made the statement that this agreement we are considering is going to make the renewal of the empire trade agreements extremely difficult, and therefore anything I say in support of the empire trade agreements and against allegations made against them should, I submit, be in order.


The CHAIRMAN (Sir Eugene Fise-t):: I listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. gentleman; I did not interrupt him, realizing that he is a new member, but this matter should not have been discussed under section 3, because section 3 deals specifically with orders in council.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: May I suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that you passed section 2 very quickly? I was not at all sure that it had been passed; he intended to speak on that section.


The CHAIRMAN:: I am in the hands of
the committee. Personally I am quite willing-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say, as I raised the point of order, that I was doing so only because I thought it was my duty to do so. I would point out to my hon. friend that there remains section 4. which I think is broad enough to cover what he is saying at the moment. I believe it would be more in keeping that it should be said on that section. I thought it desirable to draw the committee's attention to the fact that we were getting into a pretty wide field of discussion.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I am in the hands of the
chairman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the right hon.
gentleman was in the house during the last month and heard the discussions that took place. The hon. member (Mr. Betts) intimated to me that he desired td speak. The chairman passed section 2 with great rapidity, so that when it came to section 3 the hon. member took up the discussion and pro-
Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

ceeded to make under that section the remarks he proposed to make. The question of relevancy, if it had been raised in this house during the first three or four weeks of the session, would have served a very useful purpose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to preclude my hon. friend. Let him proceed.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: When this new parliament
assembled, with its fresh mandate, in the course of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne a Liberal amendment was introduced to the address in substantially these terms:
Resolved that the policy of the government is not conducive to the restoration of imperial and world trade.
That amendment was debated very fully on both sides, and in the course of the debate many very bitter attacks were made upon the empire trade agreements, in very much the terms, I may say, that we have heard in this house in the course of this session. When the vote was taken the amendment was defeated by 358 to 25. To put a fine point to the story the only people who supported the amendment were twenty-five Liberals of the Manchester school. The remainder of the house voted against it. the score being about fourteen to one. I submit to you, sir, that what the English people think about these trade agreements can be gathered better from their House of Commons-a very representative house if there ever was one, because I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that there was a very large percentage of labour votes in those 358 votes -than from what is said by, let us say, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) who made the statement that an unfriendly attitude was being engendered in England by these empire trade agreements.
Then let us bring the story down a little more to date. Within the past month, or to be exact five weeks, the British high commissioner, Sir Francis Floud, addressed a very large gathering at Hamilton on trade matters, and in the course of his remarks he spoke in an extremely kind way of these empire trade agreements. I remember that one statement he made was that thanks to these empire trade agreements and the export of apples to the United Kingdom resulting therefrom the standard of the British product had gone up. Surely if there is an unfriendly attitude towards these trade agreements in England their high commissioner would not come out here and speak kindly of them at a public gathering. It is true that at the same meeting Sir

Francis Floud urged on his audience that they buy more British goods, but that is what he is here for, and I sincerely hope the Hon. Vincent Massey is saying the same things to the audiences of England. The mere fact that Sir Francis Floud urges us to buy more British goods cannot possibly be construed as an indication of an unfriendly attitude towards these trade agreements.
Then, Mr. Chairman, let us bring this inquiry right down to date. I hold in my hand a copy of the United States weekly newspaper Time, of March 16. On page 23 I find this very interesting item:
The United Kingdom's motor industry is acutely sensitive to Canadian competition, has not hesitated to sneer in paid advertisements at "the American cars which are so conveniently brought in from Canada" under empire tariff agreements. At great advertising expense a feeling has been nurtured in the United Kingdom that to buy a Canadian car from beyond the seas is not really to "buy British."
The article goes on:
This notion was blasted and a page of empire business history turned ...
Than the article describes how last week a closed car was ordered from Oshawa, Ontario, for the use of a very great personage indeed, one who has been referred to as the best business man in the British empire, whose name I am not allowed to mention in this house but whom you, Mr. Chairman, will readily recognize. My submission is that if the gentleman to whom I refer buys a car from Canada-


Charles Avery Dunning: Order.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: -a car which he is enabled or tempted to purchase by virtue of these trade agreements, surely we have the most convincing evidence available that there is no feeling of hostility towards these agreements in England.
I quite realize, sir, that if we are to do our duty in this parliament we must legislate not for one section of the country or for one group of its workers; we must legislate for the dominion as a whole. I fully appreciate that in any comprehensive trade agreement with the United States certain interests must suffer, and as the representative of an industrial riding I was quite prepared to take with good grace certain minor sacrifices provided the compensation received by the country as a whole was adequate. But having sat in this chamber for the past month and having heard the various schedules discussed in detail I am forced to say that in my opinion this is an extremely lopsided agreement. I find scattered throughout the schedules, dotted here and there amongst the concessions given us, quotas

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
that to a very large extent destroy the utility of those concessions, and I find what appear to me to be extraordinary anomalies. As an example I find that the truck farmers, the vegetable growers of our country, who already struggle under a very severe climatic handicap, are now in the unfortunate position that most of the commodities they produce come into this country at lower rates than are granted their products entering the United States. It seems to me that there is no possible justification for anything of that sort. Then I go further; I look to the east and I find our fishermen dealt with in a very grudging way. It seems to me there has been nothing more than a gesture made to help the fishermen of the maritime provinces. I know there is a good deal of feeling along those lines in the maritimes and I cannot help wondering how it was that so many Liberal maritime members failed to record their votes on the resolution leading up to the introduction of this bill. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is some significance in that state of affairs.


Mr. ISNOR:: I should like to ask the hon. member how many maritime members did not record their votes.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I think possibly my hon. friend, as a maritime member, is in a better position to answer that question than I am; I simply say that many of them did not vote.
I should like to point out, pursuing what I was saying previously, that any adverse effect on one section of our community or on one particular class of workers is going to be felt right through our whole national life. My submission is that the effects of this trade agreement are going to work in a vicious and ever widening circle. To-day the industrial worker will suffer, to-morrow the farmer whose best customer the industrial worker has been will suffer, and the day after that the railway man who moves the products of both these classes will suffer.
In conclusion let me say that I am not opposed to the principle of trade with the United States. I do feel, however, that if we run the risk that a comprehensive trade agreement with a country twelve times our own size entails we should do it only if we are adequately compensated for the very real risk that attaches to such an experiment. I put it to you, sir, in the form of a homely illustration. I suggest to you that if you were attending one of the large enthusiastic political picnics that the good people of Rimouski stage in your honour from time to time, and the hour for sports had arrived and you saw one little fellow tying himself
up for the three-legged race with a man twelve times his size, you would be struck by the sight. Then if when the race started this ill-assorted couple were to pull into the lead, you would be tempted to remark: Why, that is a smart little fellow! But suppose a follower of this sport who was at your elbow said: Oh, I don't know about that, because those two have run together before. You might inquire how they made out, and suppose he were to say: They did all right for a while, but that big fellow has a nasty habit just when things are going best of pulling a knife out of bis pocket and, without any reason, cutting the ties that bind them, whereupon the little fellow falls down on the track and everyone tramples on him; you would be tempted to remark, "Oh, oh!" or words to that effect. And suppose it were carried a step further and your friend said: Furthermore, there is another big fellow, much bigger than that big chap there, who wants to run with the little fellow, who has-been running with him for the past four years; they have been keeping perfect step, they have been away in the lead, but now the little man is turning him down for this other fellow. I am sure you would say the little man was crazy. My submission is that in entering into this trade agreement for the very inadequate benefits we receive we are acting in a most ill advised way. Therefore I propose to vote against this section and against the bill and to work against it in this house and out of the house, and I say that in the fulness of time-and it may not be very long-my party will be supported in the action we are taking on this measure.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I was most interested in what the hon. member for London (Mr. Betts) has just said. He spoke about Rimouski; he knows the lower St. Lawrence because I know he spent his summers when he was younger on the north shore of the lower St. Lawrence, though it is quite a distance from Rimouski. The hon. member spoke about the big fellow, three times the size of the little fellow-


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Twelve times.


Jean-François Pouliot: So much the better, the big fellow being the American and the little fellow the Canadian; and he spoke of a race. But in this agreement there is no race; it is a matter of trade. And the hon. member should not forget that if the American is twelve times as big as the Canadian he requires twelve times as much clothing; he must eat twelve times as much; his shoes and socks must be twelve times as large, and even his

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
watch should be bigger-I do not see that such a big man would be contented with a small wrist watch-and so on. That is the point of view that I offer in reply to the hon. member for London.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Coming into force.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think this section is improper as it is now drawn. This agreement has been in force since January 1. Section 4 has been copied from the section used in connection with other treaties that came into force when proclaimed. If it were not for certain features of this agreement it would not be necessary for it to come before parliament at all. The intermediate tariff may be granted to the United States without coming to parliament, as it was granted to Germany and Austria, if compensation which in the opinion of the governor in council is adequate is obtained, as the Prime Minister pointed out the other day. This agreement is now in force by reason of the action taken by the executive; the executive has reduced the duties in accordance with the provisions of the law, I take it, to the point indicated in the schedules to the agreement. The schedules became effective on January 1 last. It is also true that the United States took similar action. But here we say the act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council. I think probably the draftsman responsible will consider it necessary to revise this section; for it certainly would mean that since last January this agreement has not been in force, when as a matter of fact it has been. And someone will have failed in the collection of duties if it goes in its present form; for if it does not come into effect until there is proclamation, obviously between January 1 last and some time before when the orders in council were passed there has been failure on the part of someone to collect the revenues called for in the schedules. I think this section will have to be amended to provide that the act shall be deemed to have been in force since January 1, 1936.
But that is hardly correct with respect to the whole of it, because part of it is not in force yet. For instance the binding of free goods on the part of the United States on the one hand and of Canada on the other is not in my judgment a matter that could be effected by executive action. That is one of the reasons why it is necessary to come to parliament. It is equally true that there are one or two other matters that stand in

the same position, but inasmuch as the agreement has been in effect in respect to duties, it struck me, looking at it the other day, that it would have been ample to say, "this act shall come into force on the day of assent thereto." That would make it effective with respect to all matters that cannot be covered by executive action. Obviously there are several matters that executive action could not deal with, but all that executive action had power to cover it is unnecessary to say anything about, because such matters stand in the same position as, for instance, the granting of intermediate tariffs to Austria or to Germany. In connection with the French treaty and the Brazilian and the New Zealand and the Polish treaties it was provided that they should come into force on proclamation. They did not come into force until proclamation was made. As these schedules are now in force and the revenues are being collected on that basis, it seems to me that all that is necessary is to say either, "This act shall be deemed to have been in force since January 1, 1936," or, "This act shall come into force on the day of assent thereto, except so far as it is already in force by virtue of the powers exercised by the governor in council under the appropriate statutes." I think the section requires amendment in that respect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point my right hon. friend has raised was carefully considered when the bill was drafted. It is not correct to say that the act is in force. It will not be in force until after there has been at Ottawa an exchange of the proclamation, and of the ratification of the agreement. Part of article 15 states:
The provisions of article 1 and of articles 3 and 4, respectively, shall, subject to the reservations and exceptions elsewhere provided for in this agreement, be applied by Canada and the United States of America on and after January 1, 1936, pending ratification of the agreement in respect of Canada as provided in the first paragraph of this article.
What it amounts to is that the schedules have been applied, pending the enactment of the measure itself. If the measure were not enacted there is no doubt that one country or the other would very speedily withdraw what has been granted by executive action. The one provision which will make these schedules binding until December 31, 1938, is the section the committee is now discussing, namely the one which fixes the time at which the act will come into force. I spoke of this matter when the agreement was in committee. My right hon. friend may not have noticed whait I said at that time. I assure him that

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
this phase of the enactment has been carefully considered by the law officers, and they say that the section as drafted is correct.


Mr. STEWART:: I have been considering the point raised by the leader of the opposition and to which the Prime Minister has spoken. Without taking up too much time in its consideration it seems to me that we might meet the situation by using the words: "This act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation by the governor in council, and when so proclaimed shall be deemed to have been in force from January 1, 1(136."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That covers it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
were it advisable to do so to accept what the hon. member has suggested. I must however say to him that the very point he has raised has been considered by those who have considered the provisions of the bill from a legal point of view. The government is advised that the additional words are unnecessary, and would I believe be misleading. The provision had better be left as it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One always hesitates to disagree with the law officers. In fact, it is idle to disagree, because there is ample majority to see that this agreement shall become effective. But certainly we have here a self-contradictory provision-perhaps selfcontradictory is not the proper expression, but I believe it will convey the sense of what I desire to say. The right hon. gentleman has pointed out the inconsistency between the two. This is a statute; it is not an agreement. The statute ratifies and approves the agreement. It is true that there must be a formal exchange of notes at Ottawa by which the agreement is accepted by both parties. By international usage it is contemplated that the act does not come into force until after that date, whatever the date may be. This statute says, however, that "this act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council." We know that the agreement which is part of the act, and which must be read with it as part of it, has been in force since January 1.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, only the schedule.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the schedule is part of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And must be read in conjunction with and taken as part of the statute. That is, Bill No. 13, which one day will become the statute, by section 2 provides 12739-86
that the agreement set out in the schedule of the act, as it was approved, shall have the force of law notwithstanding the provisions of any other law in Canada. Since the first of January the schedule has already had the force of law in Canada because there was power under the statute so to declare. This bill states, however, that notwithstanding the provisions of any law in force in Canada this shall have the force of law, and is hereby approved. It is approved as of date to be fixed by proclamation. That is section 2. Section 4 of the bill states that the proclamation fixes the date; therefore the approval relates to the date. But it has been approved by the governor in council and there has been a reduction of duties brought about by executive action, which reductions have been operative for the last two months. By the time this bill becomes law they will have been in operation three months.
I have no desire to interpose technical difficulties, but when I was speaking the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) suggested leaving the section as it is, but adding thereto the words: "and when so proclaimed shall be deemed to have been in force from January 1, 1936." That addition preserves the point made by the right hon. gentleman, one which I quite appreciate, and also preserves some consistency with respect to the conduct of business in Canada. I suggest it would be an anomaly to say that for a period of three months both the United States and Canada have been carrying into effect the schedule of an agreement now being ratified by parliament by an act which states that it shall not come into force until the date fixed in the proclamation. It struck me that the hon. member by the suggested addition provided for that very contingency. There is the formal ratification by the two governments, then the proclamation, and then the statement in the statute whereby the proclamation is made that it shall be deemed to have been in force since the first day of January, 1936, which is absolutely in accordance with the facts.
We have acted upon the assumption, rightly or wrongly, that in our official conduct, apart altogether from questions of duties, since the first day of January the agreement was binding upon us in every particular. While I have no desire to place my views against those of the law officers of the crown I can only say that, as a matter of using the statute as an expression of the will of the house, it is the will of the house as indicated by the Prime Minister that this statute shall come into force on proclamation. But it is also the will

Canacla-U. S. Trade Agreement

of the house, because action of the executive has been approved, that this statute shall be deemed to have been in force since the first day of January of this year. If that provision were added I think the measure would not be open to any doubt as to its consistency, and there will be no anomaly, because it would then be thoroughly consistent with the whole intention of the government as expressed from time to time in the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my right hon. friend and to the hon. member for Leeds that the adoption of the words they have suggested, namely "shall be deemed to have been in force since the first day of January," would imply that the schedules had not been in force by virtue of statutory authority. Such is not correct. My right hon. friend will recall that while in office he was responsible for a measure which gave to the governor in council the power to lower duties against any country which might give to Canada reciprocal-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not reciprocal-concessions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, concessions. It was under that authority that, so far as Canada is concerned, up to the present action has been taken with respect to the schedules. That authority will continue until the act in all particulars becomes effective. There are clauses in the bill other than those relating to the schedules. If we were to adopt the words my right hon. friend has suggested we would be saying that the other sections, which it was never intended should come into effect until the act as a whole was in effect, had been in effect since January 1. That might get us into grave difficulty with respect to some action taken or which, were the act already in force, should have been taken. It would not be desirable to run a risk of that kind.
Similarly, so far as the United States are concerned the reductions which have been made by the president have been made under the authority not of this agreement but of powers given to him by congress with respect to making reciprocal agreements with other countries. That authority applies to the reduction of duties. Let me repeat to the right hon. gentleman that the reduction of duties on both sides has been effected under an authority which existed at the time negotiations respecting the agreement were entered into. These reductions are legal in all particulars; they are being carried out under the authority given by statute, but they will not continue indefinitely unless very soon an agreement is ratified which will make them

binding over the period of the next three years. It is important therefore that the act should set forth that these schedules will be binding along with the other clauses of the agreement up until the date which has been fixed for its possible termination.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I take it that the object
of this bill is to confirm, ratify and make valid in every respect the agreement that has been entered into between Canada and the United States. The Prime Minister says, and I have no doubt accurately enough, that the governor in council had authority to reduce the duties in schedule I. That may be true; but as we are confirming the agreement it seems to me, and I so submit in all sincerity, that it is well to have the ratification of the agreement in every respect and in every detail, even though the action of the governor in council may have been valid and may have authorized and did authorize the reductions made. But now we are putting on this agreement the seal of approval of parliament, and it seems to me that we ought to go all the way and make our ratification and approval complete. It puts it on a stronger legal ground and prevents any possibility of question as to the regularity of anything done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend were a member of the government responsible for the agreement I am sure he would not wish to put into the legislation approving the agreement any clause which would imply that some action taken prior to the enactment of the measure had not been wholly valid. Having had the best legal advice in this matter throughout I believe we shall be erring on the safe side if we hold to the advice on which we have acted.


Mr. VENIOT:: I wish to correct a false
impression which may be created in the country by the hon. member for London (Mr. Betts) who spoke this afternoon. He wanted to know why so many Liberals from the maritime provinces had not voted for this agreement. I would call his attention to the fact that on the date the vote was taken the maritime provinces had twenty-five members elect, there being one vacancy. Of the twenty-five members elect there was one Conservative, the lone star from New Brunswick. The others were all Liberals from the maritime provinces, and out of those twenty-four Liberals twenty voted for the agreement. Four happened to be absent.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have a word to say
in reply to something that has been said by one of the members representing Vancouver, who spoke about the lumber business. At

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
the time I did not have a bound set of Hansard and I used the unrevised edition. But I remember distinctly that in his speech on October 12, 1932, the then Prime Minister spoke about the lumber business. His remarks will be found in the middle of the right hand column of the page on the right hand side. He said that our previous trade with the United States in lumber-our exports-amounted to $32,000,000 and that our trade with Great Britain was some hundreds of thousands of dollars in excess of $6,000,000. That meant that our trade with Great Britain was only a small fraction of our trade with the United States. For a time our best market for lumber was England; and then our lumbermen changed it for the United States, mainly because that was nearer. I have the honour to represent a constituency which is on the border line, and therefore it is much more profitable for my constituents to trade with the United States. In that very speech on October 12, 1932, if my memory serves me rightly, the right hon. gentleman mentioned the tax which had been imposed by the United States on Canadian lumber-so much per thousand feet. That duty has been a real handicap to our people. I did not vote on the treaty because I did not want to commit myself on that before seeing the effect of it. I give the government the benefit of the doubt and I approve of the treaty because it is a gesture which shows our willingness to trade with our neighbour. This is understood by all the people who know a little about the lumber business, and that is why I insist on it. The right hon. gentleman said in the same speech that it was on account of that new duty which had been put on lumber by the United States that our exports were falling. I read that many times three years ago, and it struck me that it was the reason why the trade had decreased so much. Now it was a matter of retaliation. It is always dangerous to have a tariff contest with another country in the upper grade. The result may be most appalling in the long run. This is what happened. The tariff was raised against every country in the world. The United States retaliated to a certain extent, and now the government is showing willingness to trade with the United States. It is a very good move, for it is an incentive to better trade with all the nations of the world.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise only for one
purpose. The three dollar tax is not a tariff item. It was in the revenue tax bill brought down against the will of the President of the United States. He protested to congress against including in that revenue bill the three dollar duty on Canadian lumber. There was a four cent tax on copper. It was not a duty;
it was a revenue tax, and it was extended and expires on the fifteenth day of June, 1937.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad the hon. gentleman made that correction, which confirms what I have said. I am sure he remembers distinctly what he himself said, and whether you call it a revenue tax or a duty is immaterial. There was either a revenue bill or a customs bill-you may call it what you like-which imposed a certain amount that had to be paid on Canadian lumber going into the United States, and the consequence was that the yards were full of unsold lumber for many years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the bill is reported out of committee, if I may be permitted to express it as such, I should like to say one last word.


George Halsey Perley: I take it the
schedule will have to be carried?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Section 2
reads:
The trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America set out in the schedule to this act is hereby approved and shall have the force of law notwithstanding the provisions of any law in force in Canada.
I believe the adoption of that ' section carries with it the schedule referred to therein. I do hope it will not be found necessary again to run through the three weeks' discussion we have already had on the schedules.


George Halsey Perley: It is usual in
committee for the chairman to say, "Shall the schedule carry?" I suppose we could deal with the schedule as a whole.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The carrying of section 2 does not carry the schedule; it is put to the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to deprive hon. gentlemen opposite of the opportunity of reopening the schedules if they so desire and in due course the chairman will call them.
During the course of the last month we have been discussing this agreement almost every day the house has been sitting, and I do not think there is any doubt left in the minds of any one as to where in the main difference lies between hon. gentlemen opposite and those who support the agreement. As the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has said, time alone can show whether the agreement will be one of mutual advantage to the two countries or whether it will reveal the fact that one country has secured much the worse or much the better of the other. I am afraid that short of the period of the agreement the difference

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
of view between us will hardly be reconciled. Admitting, however, the difference of view, we ent-ertain as to the merits of the agreement. I hope that from now on all parties will find it possible to accept the agreement in the spirit which was expressed so admirably by one who was a former leader of the Conservative party in Canada and a former prime minister, a gentleman whose name is greatly honoured by hon. members opposite and greatly respected by all parties. Speaking on January 30 to a meeting of the shareholders of the Crown Life Insurance Company, of which he is president, Sir Robert Borden is reported as follows in referring to the new trade agreement:
Reviewing, in brief, conditions as they exist in Canada to-day, Sir Robert pointed out that abnormal unemployment, the railway situation and high taxation still confront us, and must not be unduly minimized, and that international intercourse is still hindered by instability of exchange and high tariffs.
"On the other hand," he pointed out to the well-attended meeting, "the recent arrangement for reduction of tariffs and wider trade between Canada and' the United States, apart from any question as to relative advantage which remains to be determined by events, has given an inspiring lead which may be followed elsewhere."
I submit that Sir Robert, being no longer in the active arena of party controversy and being able to take a detached view of the matter, may be regarded as being in a position to express an opinion which I believe will be found to be largely that of independent minded persons of this country. I believe that if this agreement is accepted as something which gives a lead in connection with trade intercourse between nations, at a time when a lead is greatly needed we shall find as the years go by that it has proved to be of great advantage, not only to the two countries that are parties to it, but to other countries of the world as well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I had
intended to make a few observations on the third reading of this bill, but they can be made very satisfactorily at this time. The remarks of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden were not directed to an approval of this bill or of this agreement. He said that freer trade relations between the two countries were desirable, but he has not expressed the idea nearly as strongly as we endeavoured to express it in November, 1934, nor any stronger than I endeavoured to express it on two occasions in London, speaking for the government of the day. The bill now before the committee contemplates two things. First of all, it contemplates an agreement with the United States of America. That in turn involves the consideration of two questions, with

one of which we are wholly in accord and with the other of which we are not in accord.
As to whether it is desirable to have freer trade relations with the United States, we are all agreed. We have said that and have repeated it. We have been assailed for making that statement, it being said that .*e did not mean it. Notwithstanding what was said the other day by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), during my lifetime I have never known the time when the Conservative party did not hold to that point of view. Ever since 1878, when Sir John Macdonald enunciated the national policy, the position of the Conservative party has been perfectly clear on that point.
We come now to the second question, the terms of the agreement. It is upon this question that the whole argument turns; there the right hon. gentleman and I are in complete accord. He says that he and his supporters regard the terms of the agreement as satisfactory; we have voted in this House of Commons to record that we do not regard these terms as satisfactory. We do not believe that they give opportunity for a single day's work to a single Canadian. We do not believe that they present an opportunity to diminish the number of unemployed in this country by one. This matter has engaged the attention of hon. members for several weeks. They have considered it from many angles and the more it has been dealt with, the more I think it has been apparent that while this or that item may be desirable from a Canadian standpoint, taken as a whole the agreement is not beneficial to the people of Canada. The right hon. gentleman has very properly said that the ultimate determination of that issue must await the passing of time and the performance of the agreement in the years to come.
Briefly, what is the position? First, the power to make this agreement has been challenged in the United States. It is contended there that there is no power in the president to exercise the authority which he did in making this agreement. It has been said that the power to make an agreement of this kind rests with congress and it being a trade agreement, the senate of the United States must approve by a two-thirds vote. That is a question with which we have nothing to do; it must be settled and determined by the people of the United States and their supreme court. I noticed the other day that the question is now up for litigation although only a very small sum of money is involved. The issue has been .presented to a federal judge for consideration, but that issue we may leave outside the question altogether.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
Let us ask ourselves half a dozen questions and then I shall have concluded. First, what have been the benefits to agriculture? What have been the benefits to wheat, oats, barley and rye? Has any one of these commodities in which we are so greatly interested been given wider markets in the United States of America by virtue of this agreement? The answer is no. There has been no lessening of the barriers imposed to enable these commodities to reach the markets of the United States. What about potatoes? With respect to seed potatoes there are some benefits although there are quota limitations, but with respect to the great mass of potatoes produced in this country, can it be said that there has been a widening of the market in the United States for Canadian potatoes? On the contrary, as the matter stands to-day, not only may potatoes come into Canada more freely than they did, but they are in fact coming from Michigan and from Maine, into the markets of New Brunswick and of Montreal, and into the markets of Ontario at Windsor and Toronto; they now have access to our markets on more favourable terms than ever before.
Then, let us go to the dairy products: butter, eggs, cream, milk, and what do we find? Under the tariff that prevailed against this country prior to the late government coming into office, the tariff preceding the Hawley-Smoot tariff, agriculture in Canada was crippled, but those duties are exceeded by the duties which now apply to Canadian products. Cream, which carried a duty of twenty cents prior to 1930, now carries a duty of thirty-five cents, and a quota is imposed against its export from Canada. Converted into terms of butter this means a duty of eight cents a pound, which I am told means an absolute prohibition. On raw milk, there is no concession whatever; as to poultry, young chickens come into this country on a more favourable basis, from the standpoint of the American producer, than they have had before in recent years. In the result, the farm products that I have mentioned-cereals of all kinds, potatoes, vegetables and vegetable products, butter, eggs, cream, milk, the various dairy products-are not permitted to enter the markets of the United States on any more favourable conditions than they did before, the exception being a limited quantity of green peas, under special circumstances.
Therefore the Canadian farmer is not as well off as he was before, because he is subject to a new competition which he did not previously have to meet. The produce of truck farms-celery, parsnips, carrots, spinach, asparagus-all these commodities now enter our
country under more favourable conditions than before. It is true-and I congratulate the government upon this-that they have accepted what they condemned in days gone by, the policy of the late government in dealing with these matters, namely, in fixing a value which they have not modified except in so far as the agreement compelled them to do so by reducing it by 20 per cent, still maintaining an order in council which gave the authority to the minister, and the minister still exercising that autocratic power which, we were told, threatened the very institutions of our country; he has exercised it. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) smiles; no doubt he is surprised that the country exists at all after the exercise of such autocratic power during the last few weeks by a government avowedly Liberal. There we have the effects upon the farm, vegetables, fruit, matters of that kind. I see a concession here about peas, and a concession there about apples. Apples as a matter of fact constitute an item in which we have to meet the competition of Americans more keenly than that of others.
Now, let us go into the forest. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has very properly pointed out that there has been a reduction in the tax and in the duty, making together a fifty per cent reduction. One is the tax that expires in June, 1937; the other is the duty of one dollar per thousand. Mr. Hoover, when president of the United States, strongly protested to his committee of, I think it was, ways and means that was then dealing with the tariff of the United States, and as a matter of fact it is well known that the minister to Canada from the United States also protested against the imposition of that tax. But that revenue tax was imposed to the extent of four cents a pound against copper and three dollars a thousand on lumber. Undoubtedly there is an advantage to Canadian lumber dealers in the reduction of that tariff on lumber. I am only sorry that it is not more, and I think it is true that the great consuming public of the United States also regret that it is not more. But let it not be forgotten that this comprises but a very trifling percentage of the whole consumption in the United States; something between five and ten per cent of the entire lumber consumption of that country is covered by the possible exports from Canada. And they are subject to a quota; that must not be forgotten. So far as the products of the forest are concerned we have certain items that enter free now that will be upon the bound list. The one outstanding achievement as far as the agreement is concerned is that

Canada-TJ. S. Trade Agreement
lumber is to have a lower rate than before imposed against it and the tax is to be reduced by fifty per cent.
That exhausts the forest; and from the forest we pass on to the sea. What have we there? Will anyone say that if there were a free vote in this house, regardless of party affiliations or views, this house would regard for a single minute the concessions with respect to fish as being adequate? Would anyone think that Canadians would regard the concessions granted with respect to fish as something that is reasonably, intelligently sound from the standpoint of the Canadian producer? He is denied that market on the Atlantic coast except with respect to some items such as swordfish, and they have to be fresh, not frozen, as I read the item. Now, if there is one objective in the world for which Canadians have struggled, it is to have access to the markets of the United States for their fish. It is the one thing that all governments have sought. In view of what we gave, I suggest that it would not have been unfair for us to have received it. But I am traversing now only what we did not get. So as far as Atlantic fish are concerned we can leave that out. The concessions that we have are those that we already had, except with respect to the item that I have already mentioned, which is, I was going to say, skates, but it is swordfish, which may be consumed in considerable quantities.


Olof Hanson: We have concessions on the Pacific coast.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pardon me; I am coming to the Pacific. On the Pacific coast we have concessions with respect to halibut, which I trust will be advantageous to the Canadian fisherman. I observed when I was at Prince Hupert that the Canadian fisherman received Two cents per pound less for his catch than the American, fishing off the same banks, got for his, and the reason was the duty and the fact that the fish were sold in the United States. The local sales are probably insignificant; the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) can say as to that. The great sales in New England are by the New England Fish Company, shipping their products to Boston, Philadelphia and New York. They used to ship them over the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. I am told that, with more modern ships, they send the fish to Seattle and the shipment goes from there. The hon. member can verify that.


Olof Hanson: No; they are still shipped by railroad.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The whole shipment?


Olof Hanson: The majority. Ninety per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The major shipment still goes by railroad. It used to go by express in a nice refrigerator car attached to the passenger trains. Salmon is a very considerable item, fresh salmon on the east coast and perhaps to a lesser extent fresh salmon on the Pacific coast, for reasons that need not now be discussed. So much for the product of the sea.
Now we come to the products of the mines. Mining has become tremendously important in this country, more and more important, as the Minister of Mines (Mr. Crerar) said the other evening. Show me what we receive from this agreement that is at all commensurate with what we give. It is true that in respect to one or two items covering commodities produced by the aid of electricity, which was one of the points made in the note sent the United States, we receive a reduction of tariff, but in the main there is no change in existing conditions. Of course gold does not pay any duty at any time and last year the major part of our gold found a market in the United States to the extent, I think, of perhaps $95,000,000 altogether. That pays no duty, of course. It has not done so in Canada; it has not done so in the United States.
Then what have we? I did not touch cattle, but we did not get the 50 per cent; we received a concession of only one cent per pound instead of the li cents per pound which would have been the 50 per cent, and even before the president received the powers to which I have referred application was made for the purpose of having the tariff board recommend a reduction of the rate by 50 per cent. That was a case which came to them from Pennsylvania, in which Canadian cattlemen gave their assistance. It will be within the memory of hon. members that we voted the sum of $5,000 to assist in paying the cost of having a Canadian go to Washington, before this government came into office, and as a matter of fact before the late government came into office, in order to make representations in connection with the cattle industry and especially a reduction of tariffs on the principle that the tariff rate was so high that it should be reduced by 50 per cent. That application was dropped when the new provision of the law authorizing the president to enter into agreements came into force. So with respect to the farm, the forest, the sea and the mine we have but two or three items to which to point. They are important, covering lumber and cattle, but what has been the effect with respect to lumber? Only the other

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
day I received a letter saying that the price of lumber has been increased to the Canadian consumer by $2 per thousand while the American consumer is getting his lumber for $2 per thousand less by reason of the agreement.


Thomas Reid: Not by reason of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, by reason of it. The American consumer finds that he is paying S2 per thousand less; therefore he is getting the benefit of that S2. In that case the reduction is passed on to the consumer, but so far as Canada is concerned the reverse is the case. I do not know whether that is general; I have not had before me a sufficiently large number of instances on which to generalize, so I am giving only one or two illustrations.


Thomas Reid: Is it not a fact that, wages have been increased in the lumber camps of British Columbia; that the cost of the logs is greater and that the $2 has been passed on?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In answer to my hon. friend I may say that I have never known a case in which a producer increased his price when that increase was not caused by higher wages, higher taxes or the like, but they have not always had the same advocacy that has been provided by the hon. gentleman on this occasion.


Thomas Reid: That is the cause this time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: that the difference in distance between Buffalo and some of out great cities by the actual time consumed in movement by air, to the points of production in Canada is negligible. Therefore, those are two concessions that we have given, involving the loss of revenue on the one hand and the free entry of cut flowers into this country on the other.
The other day an hon. gentleman opposite proved the effect of the concession on magazines when he said that he had been able to obtain a subscription for a famous magazine for fifty cents per year. Of course; they are beginning to offer United States magazines at lower prices than ever before in order to extend their circulation, and the worst of it is that this is not only a concession; it is a concession that cannot be changed. We have pledged our word and honour that during the lifetime of this agreement these magazines will remain free. We have given them the whole intermediate tariff; we have given it for what I have explained and what I have indicated, I trust not unfairly.
We have given our intermediate tariff to our greatest competitor in world trade. Wherever we seek a market, whether it be in Europe or in other parts of the world we have to compete with United States products. Under the intermediate tariff that competition is now met at home. It is here; our Canadian producer has to meet it in his home market. And whatever else may be said, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer, very properly pointed out that it always seemed to him that the great home market was what had made the United Kingdom as prosperous as it is. Why is the United Kingdom as prosperous as it has been during the last few years? Because it had recourse to a tariff, because British producers provide for the wants of forty million people.
We have built up in this country a structure predicated upon the assumption that the wants of eleven million people shall be provided for by Canadian workmen in Canadian factories, utilizing capital from all over the world. Now that structure is threatened. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), whatever else may be said about his speech the other day, admitted in this house that there had been a lessening of employment, but), he said, only in those cases where there had been high tariffs and new industries had come into operation during the last few years because of the high tariffs imposed by the late government. That is beside the question. The question is: Have we paid too great a price by putting these men out of employment? Where are the commensurate advantages? Where are the advantages that

inure to the Canadian farmer, to the Canadian miner, to the Canadian dairy producer, to the Canadian manufacturer, if eight, ten, fifteen, twenty men go from this factory, from that factory, from yonder factory? As the hon. member for London (Mr. Betts) pointed out this afternoon these are not isolated cases. Industry has been struck in its very vitals by the operation on so wide a scale of the concessions to which I have referred. That might well be something that in more favourable times for the world and for our country in particular we could have faced, but has industry ever faced more critical times than it faces to-day?


Mr. HARTIGAN:: The last five years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am saying the last
five years and this year. The hon. gentleman either fails to read the ordinary everyday reports that come from time to time or else deliberately does not desire to know, because I am not separating one year from another in talking about this period. In this period has industry ever been so threatened as to-day?


David James Hartigan: Five years is a period.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course it is; it is
a full stop in the ease of the hon. gentleman. Can we afford to have industry so threatened, in a period such as this, when the world has not yet emerged from its depression? There are those who think the world has emerged from the depression, but read the reports; read the reports of the League of Nations; the world is improving; it made great progress in 1935, but the dark days are still with us. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman will take the trouble to read the reports of Canadian industries. They show increasing earnings, it is true, but what do they show in the way of returns on the capital investment? They show very inadequate returns. What is the contrast between England and us?


David James Hartigan: What do they show
for the working man, the labourer?
Mr. BENNETT': Will you, Mr. Chairman, be good enough to tell that hon. gentleman to talk to himself outside? May I go further and point out that in England every encouragement is given for big profits. The bigger the profits, the better; that is their theoiy. They now make no bones about that. They say that they want industry to make money so that they can get their slice of it to maintain the country. Look at industrial life to-day and consider what our profits tax yields, compared at least with similar taxes in other countries. Banks pay twenty per

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
cent in Great Britain, no one complaining, no one making a hullabaloo, everyone rejoicing, glad that the banks are able to do this, because the state takes so much. In industrial life, if you pick up the reports, you find industrial companies making their final dividends, twelve, fifteen, eighteen per cent, and the state is always glad that is so. But listening to hon. gentlemen during the progress of this discussion one would think nothing was quite so bad as that industry should make money. If hon. gentlemen would only take the trouble to turn up the reports of those industries that they suggest have been so highly protected, and see their returns during the last few years, would they say that those industries have made any money, produced any returns? Their shareholders have been without dividends during this period. Some of them have recently gone on a dividend basis on a small scale, but in the main industry in Canada has not been prosperous. Can we afford at this moment, this period when industry is recovering, to confront it with a form of competition which it has never had to meet before?
The minister the other day said a very fair thing; he said: Look at the intermediate tariff, how high it is; it is not very much different from the general tariff. But that is wholly beside the question. In the United States are industries supplying the wants of 120,000,000 people. To maintain that output ninety per cent of the people are employed to produce for home consumption. The other ten per cent produce a surplus that they can ship to Canada, and so maintain complete capacity as distinguished from limited capacity, and they can afford to sell that ten per cent at low prices and still come within the provisions of our law with respect to dumping without any difficulty, for we gave one other concession I should have mentioned; I wanted to deal with it. We said that we would have no more fixed valuations for duty. Hon. gentlemen cheered loudly when that announcement was made. Well, I wish they had to deal with our problems during the period from 1930 to 1935 when I was in the finance department. There was brought to the office by an industry in Canada a sample felt hat which was offered for sale delivered in Canada at $3.60 a dozen, which was of course less money than we could gather the material for, it being a subsidized product. We put upon it a fixed valuation, a value that bore a proper relation to the cost of production of the article. We say that we provided in our customs act safeguards with respect to duty that would properly care for that. Go to the border cities: what has been
the result there already? Look at the closed doors now that were open in December last.
Hon. gentlemen may say that the automobile industry is not indigenous to this country and we should not have it. But, sir, we have it. The export business to British countries has been enormous under the British preference and the Ottawa agreements. As was mentioned this afternoon, we are selling our goods in every part of the British commonwealth, including New Zealand, Australia, in some instances carrying on much the same business as American industries have been carrying on in Canada with respect to assembling parts. Some countries have provided, as in the case of New Zealand, that there should be some fabrication in their own country by way of completion of the finished article, so that they might supply employment to their own people. That is the position so far as we are concerned.
Those of us who have voted against the agreement certainly have not done so with any joy. I tried to point out something which I know hon. gentlemen opposite do not credit, namely, that I would have infinitely preferred an agreement which I could have supported, and when I make that statement I know I speak for those about me. But we cannot by any process of reasoning convince ourselves that what we are giving is in any way comparable with the benefits we should receive. What we are giving is so much greater than any possible benefits that we cannot give the agreement our support. That is the whole story. If by measuring the agreement in any terms one could use one could arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, I would be satisfied.
I give these illustrations, although very hurriedly, because they are important. The situation resolves itself into this: Can we point to renewed opportunities for work by Canadians in Canada? I have not been here all the time the matter has been under discussion, but I can say that during the time I was here nothing of that kind was done. Certainly my reading of the debates does not show me anything which indicates that by virtue of this agreement any more workmen are to find employment in Canada. But we have the admission that there is a lessening of employment. It is true that the statement is made that there is unemployment in large industries which should not have come into being, because they have had to be supported by too high a tariff.
There is the position. We have a lessening of employment in a period of unexampled unemployment, and with more people on relief than we have had before. That is what we must face. On the other hand we
Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

have given to our great competing neighbour not only an opportunity to sell in our market, but an opportunity to sell their surplus products as well, under terms and conditions which we did not think possible before. A year or two ago I gave illustrations to show that prices fixed for duty purposes did no more than give Canadians the measure of protection they had under the tariff, before exchange values had so altered. I took the pound at S3.76; I took it at $4.00, and I was able to show that unless we had done what we did, in view of the terms in our tariff, we would be giving our goods practically no protection at all. With respect to the United States, where the general tariff prevailed, the same condition was equally true. Now, having abolished any provision for fixing values for duty purposes we still say that we have adequately protected the situation. I think it will be found that that is not by any means so. We have abolished any opportunity to do that which was our very safeguard, and all that stood between us and irretrievable ruin in Canada at one time, because the relation between goods and our exchange was so intimate and so closely allied that we had to take the steps we did to preserve our position. I might say something about exchange, but I shall not do so to-day.
I wish to say only one thing more, and that is that we have increased competition and have lessened the opportunity for the Canadian workman. We have been given no corresponding benefits, except in the manner I have mentioned, and they were in the very nature of things such as we might expect, in any event, under the application of the flexible provisions of the American tariff existing prior to the power given to the president in 1934.
We have done more. We have lessened the possibility of the establishment of new industries in Canada. Listening to addresses made with respect to mineral development, how can one do more than hope for a great improvement in the industrial life of this country? But we have lessened the opportunity. Why? Because we have said to Japan that when production in Canada is not equal to ten per cent of the consumption it is not an article made or produced in this dominion. That applies to every country having favoured nation treatment; it applies to the United States. Now, the industry in Canada which is not producing ten per cent of Canadian consumption is no longer producing an article made in Canada, and cannot launch out in support of itself. Therefore it has no choice; such industries will never be established.


Mr. EULER:: They will still have the tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I am pointing out we are seriously restricted in applying protection in the case of Japan, with respect to goods not made in Canada. Goods not made in Canada are now defined as goods the production of which is not equal to ten per cent of our consumption. That is going to apply to every country of the world enjoying favoured nation treatment. We have defined that which during all these years we declined to define. In the days of Tupper, Macdonald, Laurier, Borden and Meighen, and in later days, the Canadian government declined to define the term "of a class or kind made in Canada." It is true that there were rules in the customs administration, and that it was stated that the rules were applied to meet given situations, because we were endeavouring to develop industry in Canada. Now, for the first time we have given a definition. We have declared that unless ten per cent of a given product consumed in Canada is made in this country, then it is not a product produced in Canada. Japan, with her low rate of exchange, is to have the market to herself. Or the market may go to other countries; it will be divided among them, because unless production in Canada is equal to ten per cent of consumption the article is not produced in Canada. We have defined what in days gone by we never undertook to define,-what, I must say, the late government declined to define.
Then, there is one last argument: Look at what we have done for the instruments of production. I wonder whether there is any member of the committee who has not read with some degree of apprehension what took place in Russia in the last seven or eight years, or what takes place in all countries developing industrial life. The very first thing they do is to provide means whereby within their own countries they can manufacture instru-mets of production. Why were tractors one of the first articles made in Russia? Because they must have tractors made in their own country so that they will not be dependent upon foreigners for their supply. I could give case after case to the committee indicating where we Canadians have found ourselves desperately handicapped because we have had to go to foreign countries to get instruments of production. I could do more than that. I can say that in the development of the oil fields in the Turner valley interests which occupied a strategic or preferred position were able to get their instruments of production

Caiuxda-U. S. Trade Agreement
from Pittsburgh more readily than, were others who were endeavouring in their own way to carry on operations.
Take some of the very oldest firms in Canada who have been endeavouring to produce instruments of production, in the mining field, for instance, Bertrams, if you will, or Ingersoll-Rand, a branch in the eastern townships of that great concern in the United States, as well as many others I could name. What has been the whole purpose? The purpose has been that Canadians might be self-sufficient, and I use that word gladly. The purpose was that Canadians should within their own borders produce the instruments to enable them to develop the vast resources of this country. But place yourself in a position where you are no longer able to produce those instruments; then you are at the caprice of your competing neighbour, and you will obtain your instruments of production when he is good and ready to give them to you. And, remember, his own people get them first.
Why did w7e ever establish an agricultural implement business in Canada? Everyone knows why. There will be no doubt in the minds of hon. members on that point if they will read the debates of that time. Our endeavour has been, not only in that respect, but wherever we have undertaken to develop our resources, either minerals or mines or whatever it may be, farm lands or anything else, to try to provide for the production of instruments in our own country. The other day the hon. member for Huron North referred to the fact that someone had bought an instrument of production in Burlington cheaper than he otherwise would because he paid less duty. And so he did. How much less will he get for his fruit next fall? That is the question. How much less will he get by reason of the very competition provided for by this agreement? And what about the other man whose cattle found1 their way to the market in Buffalo? Ever since the AAA was held unconstitutional in the United States the price of cattle has fallen until, the week before last, you could not ship cattle to the United States as against Canadian prices and make a profit.
What we have endeavoured to do by slow degrees has been to make this country selfsufficient, and it has been an uphill struggle, living as we do in this northern climate, with a limited population. We have endeavoured, with these great resources which we hold in trust, to develop them according to a plan which would ensure some compensation being given the western farmer for what he said was the increased price he may have paid for his implements of production. We have ensured him his home market by every means in our power, and I have pointed out what that means. I have pointed out how vastly important that market is. While the United States export trade amounts to ten or twelve per cent it has nevertheless exercised a profound influence upon the national life of that country. In Canada our export trade, apart from consumption at home, amounts to fifteen, seventeen and sometimes twenty per cent, and that is of enormous importance to the national life of this dominion.
We must develop here not the doctrine of isolation but the doctrine of self-sufficiency as against those countries that compete with us, not on the principle of doing unto others as you would that they should do unto you; not on the principle enunciated by Sam Slick the clockmaker, but on the principle of David Harum, "Do it first." Do unto others as they are about to do unto you, but do it first. For surely you cannot argue that this young country, with a population of eleven millions, should lower its tariff and so open a field for the activities of others, itself desisting from the development of its own industry in the manufacture of instruments of production, and depending on someone else. No; by every means within our power we have endeavoured to bring about a balanced economy so that all might receive the benefits of that system and that tariffs-whatever differences of opinion we might have respecting them-should be of advantage to every interest in the country. In this instance, however, we have departed from that principle and have granted concessions that are out of all proportion to the benefits which we are to receive. For those benefits that we have received I rejoice with others. But I cannot contemplate paying too high a price for them, half a million dollars here, half a million or a million there. I cannot contemplate such a situation with equanimity unless I see somewhere else some means by which we shall receive half a million or a million and a half in return.
My right hon. friend will no doubt say that I look upon this matter from the standpoint of bargaining, in too haggling a spirit, forgetting the large view that may be taken of good neighbourliness. Well, I read the other day what has happened with respect to good neighbours on this continent for the last hundred years, and we have never been lacking in the expression of willingness to be good neighbours. We have however been unwilling to be good neighbours for the purpose of having our country exploited in the name of good neighbourliness. That has been our position, and it is the position we still take. I am not at all concerned about the
Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement


David James Hartigan: Mr. Chairman, I have just listened to the case put up by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) against the benefits accruing to this country from this trade agreement. In that conjectural brief, so to speak, which he put forward, it will be noticed that the right hon. gentleman gave no concrete example. The consumer was not mentioned from beginning to end of his remarks although the secondary industries were.
I should like to give a concrete example of the benefits of the Japanese treaty to a basic industry. Only to-day I was talking to a well-informed lumberman from the maritime provinces and he told me that the effects of the Japanese treaty have been felt already by the lumber dealers. It is an indirect effect, but it does exist. At one time Japan took a considerable quantity of the lumber produced by British Columbia. When the Japanese market was shut off, this British Columbia lumber came into competition in England with lumber from the maritime provinces. As a result of the treaty with Japan, British Columbia is now able to get her lumber into that market and the result has been that the whole cut for next year in the maritimes has already been contracted for in England. My authority for making this statement is quite good and I stand to be corrected by hon members from British Columbia. This is a concrete example. It is not a case of saying, "I am apprehensive," or "I am afraid." It is a concrete example of what the Japanese treaty has done for Canada; it is not leaving to conjecture what may happen or what will happen.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee Tesumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Trade
and Commerce (Mr. Euler) is not in his place, but he directed my attention to the fact that an observation I made during the afternoon might be misunderstood. He thought that possibly the committee gathered that I said if goods were not of a class or kind made in Canada they would enter free. If I did I should have finished the sentence and said, free of dumping duty. I desire to make that perfectly clear. The tariff is not changed by reason of the provision in the Japanese arrangement whereby commodities not manufactured in Canada to the extent of ten per cent of Canadian consump-. tion are regarded as goods not made in Canada. If Canadian production is ten per
cent or less than Canadian consumption, then such goods, I repeat, are regarded as goods not made in Canada, but if production is more than ten per cent of Canadian consumption then they are to be regarded as goods of a class or kind made in Canada. In one instance they would pay dumping duty and in the other instance they would be free from dumping duty, but in both cases subject to the tariff as provided by statute. I desire to make that abundantly clear. I told the minister that I would do so as soon as the committee resumed this evening.


Charles Avery Dunning: When the schedules were under discussion in committee of ways and means, the right hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) requested a list of the fourteen items on which the trade agreement rate is higher than the corresponding rate was in the former Fordney-McCumber tariff, which it will be remembered preceded the Hawlejf-Smoot tariff which is now in effect in the United States, the Fordney-McCumber being a much lower tariff generally than the Hawley-Smoot. The right hon. member also requested me to make available a computation of the value of the exports to the United States of the items on which the trade agreement rate is higher than the Fordney-McCumber rate, the same as the Fordney-McCumber rate, and lower than the Fordney-McCumber rate. I have that information now.
The fourteen items on which the trade agreement rate is higher than the Fordney-McCumber rate are:	Two lumber items,
cattle other than dairy cows weighing 700 pounds or more each, cream, crude feldspar, flooring of maple birch and beech, live poultry, canned razor clams, bran, shorts and other byproduct feeds, bluegrass seeds, green or unripe peas, turnips, harness leather and patent leather.
The total value of the exports to the Tnited States of products covered by these items amounted in the fiscal year ended March, 1930, to $56,837,000, leaving off the odd hundreds. Of this total the two lumber items accounted for $38,967,000; cattle other than dairy cows weighing over 700 pounds, for $8,065,000; cream, for $4,679,000, and the other ten smaller items, for a total of $5,124,000. making up the total figure I gave a little while ago, $56,837,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are your figures for the
year ended March 31, 1929?


Charles Avery Dunning: 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Have you 1929?
Canada-TJ. S. Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry, but I have
not those figures. We made them up for the year most nearly applicable, prior to the change in the United States tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The emergency tariff was in force during a portion of that period. That is the reason we wanted 1929.


Charles Avery Dunning: Prior to March 31?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, because it was in
that year that the tariff itself was in force.


Charles Avery Dunning: My recollection does not confirm what my hon. friend says, but I am sure he would be accurate about it. In any case, I am sorry to say that I have not the figures. It should be explained, however, that these items are not strictly comparable in some respects, and of course it should be borne in mind, with respect to the two lumber items, that those were free of duty and of tax under the Fordney-McCumber tariff. But under the trade agreement we have secured the maximum reduction possible under the powers conferred on the president by the Trade Agreement Act. With regard to cattle other than the dairy cows, this item cannot be regarded as strictly comparable because of the fact that the Fordney-McCumber tariff was lower only with respect to cattle weighing 700 pounds to under 1,050 pounds each. On cattle 1,050 pounds and over the trade agreement is the same as the Fordney-McCumber rate. That statement of course is intended to qualify the statement of dollar value which I gave a moment ago. In the fiscal year ended March, 1931, exports from Canada to the United States of the products covered by the fourteen items on which the trade agreement rate is higher than the Fordney-McCumber rate amounted to $29,584,000. In the fiscal year 1932, exports amounted to $14,465,000; and in the fiscal year ended March, 1935, to $10,472,000. So much for the fourteen items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Hawley-Smoot tariff was in force then.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. Just particulars
of the exports from year to year.
Mr. BENNETT': The hon. gentleman is right about the emergency tariff. The emergency tariff came into force in 1921-22, and the Fordney-MtcCumber tariff would be in operation up until March, 1930. What he said a moment ago is quite right. It came into force later.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was my memory,
but on a question of fact I always hesitate to be too positive. Then there are the forty-

one items on which the trade agreement rate is lower than the Fordney-McCumber rate, and the value of the exports of the products covered by these items amounted in the fiscal year ended March, 1930, to $29,626,000; in the fiscal year 1931, to $11,642,000; in the fiscal year 1932, to $5,486,000; and in the fiscal year 1935, to $20,490,000.'
There are twelve items on which the rate of duty has been reduced by the trade agreement to the same as the Fordney-McCumber rate.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not wish to interrupt the minister, but he gave us the classification of the fourteen articles on which the rate has been raised, and I know forty-one is quite a large number, so possibly he could group them, but I would like to have them.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. Confirming what my right hon. friend has just said, I find on inquiry that the emergency tariff was in force during 1921 and 1922; the Fordney-McCumber tariff was in force from 1922 to 1930; in the month of June, 1930, the change occurred. I have here attached the full list; it is very lengthy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only thirty-four.


Charles Avery Dunning: Forty-one.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think I heard the minister aright when he said, "forty-one" to-day, but I notice on reading his speech he says, "thirty-four."


Charles Avery Dunning: No. The figures I used the other day, or at least what I intended to say was that the agreement is lower than the Fordney-McCumber tariff on forty-one items, the same on thirty-two, and higher than the Fordney-McCumber rate on fourteen items.
If members of the committee desire, I can relate in detail the individual items which are lower. Is that desired?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If the minister would get the consent of the committee to put the statement on Hansard, that would be quite satisfactory.


Charles Avery Dunning: With the consent of the committee I will put these items on Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has already given the items as forty-one, thirty-two and fourteen.


Charles Avery Dunning: CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-Continued
(c) Items on which trade agreement rate is higher than the Fordney-McCumber rate
Para- graph No.	-	Fordney- McCumber Rate	Trade Agreement Rate	Remarks
207			35 cts. per ton. 50 cts. per 1,000 ft.	
401	Timber hewn, sided, or squared, otherwise than by sawing, and round timber used for spars or in building wharves; sawed lumber and timber not specially provided for; all the foregoing, if of fir, spruce, pine, hemlock or larch.	Free	B.M.; revenue tax on rough and dressed lumber. $1.50 per 1,000 ft B.M.402	Maple (except Japanese maple), birch, and beech: Flooring.	Free	4% ad val.	701	Cattle weighing 700 pounds or more each and not specially provided for.	li cts. per lb. when under 1,050 lbs.; 2 cts. per lb. when 1,050 lbs. and over.	2 cts. per lb	Trade agreement rate only higher on cattle weighing from 700 lbs. to under 1,050 lbs. each.707	Cream, fresh or sour	20 cts. per gal; 30 cts. per gal. after June 13, 1929.	35 cts. per gal.	711	Birds, live; Chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, and guineas.	3 cts. per lb	4 cts. per lb.	721 (b)	Razor clams (siliqua patula) packed in airtight containers.	Free	15% ad val.	730 763	Bran, shorts, by-products feeds obtained in milling wheat or other cereals. Grass seeds and other forage seeds: Bluegrass	15% ad val.;7$% ad val. after; April 6, 1924. 2 cts. per lb	10% ad val. 21 cts. per lb.	769	Peas, green or unripe, when imported and entered for consumption during the period from July 1 to September 30, inclusive, in any year.	1 ct. per lb.	2 cts. per lb.	773	Turnips and rutabagas	12 cts. per 100 lbs...	12| cts. per 100 lbs.	1530 (b)	Leather (except leather provided for in sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 1530) made from hides or skins of cattle of the bovine species:- (3)	Leather to be used in the manufacture of harness or saddlery. (4)	Patent leather, rough, partly finished, or finished, or cut or wholly or partly manufactured into uppers, vamps, or any forms or shapes suitable for conversion into boots, shoes, or footwear.	Free	
Free	
Free	10% ad val. 10% ad val. 10% ad val.	1803 (1)	Timber hewn, sided or squared, otherwise than by sawing, and round timber used for spars or in building wharves; sawed lumber and timber, not further manufactured than planed,and tongued and grooved; all the foregoing, if not of balsa or teak, and not specially provided for.	Free	Revenue tax on rough or dressed lumber $1.50 per 1,000 ft. B.M. on part of this item.	On timber covered by this item the rate is still free or the same as the Fordney-McCumber rate.

Caiwda-U.S. Trade Agreement
There are twelve items on which the rate of duty has been reduced by the trade agreement to the same as the Fordney-McCumber rate and twenty items which are free of duty under both the trade agreement and the Fordney-McCumber tariff. The value of exports from Canada to the United States of the products covered by the twelve items on which the rate has been reduced to the same as the Fordney-McCumber rate was as follows:
1930		 $9,929,000
1931		 4,015,000
1932		 1,764,000
1935	 1,637,000
The value of exports to the United States of the products free of duty under both the trade agreement and the Fordney-McCumber tariff was as follows:
1930		 $211,797,000
1931		 173,005,000
1932		 132,862,000
1935	 109,864,000
All these computations are based upon Canadian trade statistics, and in the case of a number of items it has not been possible to include the figures on account of the classification in the trade agreement differing from the Canadian statistical classification. This applies particularly to those items as regards which the trade agreement rate is the same as or lower than the Fordney-McCumber tariff. For instance we cannot give the value of our exports in those years of pulpboard in rolls for use in the manufacture of wallboard, and of sodium cyanide, although we know that the trade in those products is of considerable value. For this reason the figures I have quoted should be regarded only as approximate and not as an exact estimate of the value of the trade affected by the trade agreement.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we listened to a very able address setting forth the Conservative view of the agreement, and I think it may be said that an address of that type by a very able advocate constitutes the full case against the agreement. At this stage I do not desire to impede the progress of the measure through the house by again going over in detail matters which were thoroughly discussed when the house was in committee of ways and means on the schedule. Of course it was to be expected, the right hon. leader of the opposition being unavoidably absent during a portion of that period, that he would summarize the objections of his party in an address such as we heard this afternoon, and when a great advocate starts to view with alarm then the viewing with alarm is thoroughly done and we all get a feeling that something terrible is going to happen, that as
a result of what we are about to do Canadian employment will be seriously reduced. For a time we are tempted to forget the facts in listening to the "view with alarm" eloquence of such an advocate.
But certain facts have been disclosed even in the relatively short period during which this agreement has been in effect. I admit that an experience of a month or two is not a criterion, but I submit that it is very much more of a criterion than the calamitous prophecies of the right hon. leader of the opposition. For instance, in the matter of employment I cannot, nor can any other member of this committee, follow the fluctuations in employment and the reasons therefor in every large or small industrial plant from one end of the dominion to the other. There may be cases, indeed I know there are some, in which the trade agreement is being used as an excuse for letting out men, whereas, as a matter of fact, competitive and other conditions within Canada are the real reasons, in some cases at least that have come to the attention of the government.
In connection with industry as a whole, however, some information is available. No one, I think, would accuse the Vancouver Province of being unduly friendly towards the present government or likely to misrepresent facts in a manner which would favour a measure proposed by this government. But in the Vancouver Province of January 11 I find this headline:
Better Days in B.C. Mills
Employment 20 per cent Higher This Year On Mainland Prospects Bright
The article goes on:
Screaming saws, rising employment figures and a steady stream of lumber trucks from the majority of Vancouver sawmills are giving rise to hopes that the lumbering business will soon step into higher gear. Lumber executives [DOT] [DOT] * admit prospects are brighter than they have been for several years... Mill employment has risen approximately twenty per cent.
And so on. Then:
The U.S. market is strong and under provisions of the new reciprocity treaty Canada is permitted a 250,000,000 foot quota under reduced tariffs.
And so on. Then I do not think anyone would accuse the magazine called Industrial Canada of being unduly friendly towards this government or towards reduced tariff policies.


Mr. SENN:: Or any government.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps that is fair. At any rate one would not expect Industrial Canada to view with any degree of satisfaction conditions such as those prophesied
Camda-U.S. Trade Agreement

by the right hon. leader of the opposition this afternoon with respect to industry. The February issue of Industrial Canada, under the heading, Industrial News of the Month, contains the following headings:
To Build Can Factory in New Toronto Large Addition to Winnipeg Soap Factory Establishing Canning Industry at Brooks, Alta. New Mineral Industry at Lakefield, Ont. , Chromium Smelting Plant Being Enlarged Large Extension Planned for Toronto Soap Plant
Will Manufacture Cheese Box Headings Will Build Coke Briquetting Plants Large Assembly Wharf Completed at Nanaimo, B.C.
London Printers Consider Building Program
My goodness, according to what we have been hearing in this house, lately, those London printers surely must be crazy.
Paper Products Company Building Extension Brush Manufacturers Moving to Larger Factory	_
Merger of Fire Engine Manufacturing Firms Carbon Black Company Being Reorganized New Industry Commences Operations in Stratford
Expansion Program of Food Products Industry New Sawmills Under Construction in Burnaby, B.C.
New Veneer Factory Nearing Completion Will make New Line of Road Machinery Vancouver Packing Company Planning Expansion
Typewriter Company Double Factory Space Adding Storage Space to Woodstock Factory New Corset Manufacturing Firm in Toronto New Alloy Steel Plant Commences Operations


Peter John Veniot: You might add to that the great expansion at Bathurst in the production of Fourdrinier board.


Charles Avery Dunning: At least one can say that in one month's issue of Industrial Canada there is no evidence that Canadian industrialists view the future with the alarm expressed by the leader of the opposition this afternoon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those items do not touch the agreement, unfortunately.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, if half the ruin predicted this afternoon by my right hon. friend comes to pass certainly there will not be markets for the additional output from the list of expansions I have given.
Then, of course, our exports in a sense tell the tale. True, it is only a short period; the agreement has not yet had time to produce either calamity or greatly increased prosperity, but at least certain trends are visible. They were visible in January; they became even more visible in February, as compared with the same months a year ago. In agriculture and vegetable products-and everyone will

remember the ruin that was predicted for them this afternoon-our exports to the United States in February, 1936, were S3,258,000 as compared with $1,991,000 in the same month a year ago. Of animals and animal products our exports in February of this year were $3,651,000 as compared with $2,218,000 in the same month a year ago.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is that to the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: To the United States, yes. I will not detail the items under these headings as every hon. member of the committee knows that these are the standard headings used by the bureau of statistics in presenting information from month to month with respect to Canada's exports. What have we here? Fibres, textiles and products, $68,000 in February, 1935, rising to $249,000 in February, 1936.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: And exported to the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: To the United States. Wood, wood products and paper, $7,088,000 worth in February, 1935, $8,835,000 in February, 1936.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No tariff changes there.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, bound on the free list, which is vex-y important to Canadian manufacturers of newsprint; they need not worry for the next three years about the danger of duties being imposed against their products. Other exports to the United States were as follows:
February 1935	1936
Iron aud its products.. . $ 223,000	$ 392,000
Non-ferrous metal products 1,908,000	2,923,000
Non-metallie minerals.. .	720,000	998,000


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the hon. gentleman attribute those increases to the present agreement?


Charles Avery Dunning: At least I am being fair in that; I am quoting the exports under each one of the standard headings used by the bureau of statistics


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, in a year's time.


Charles Avery Dunning: -as an indication that the calamity which was forecast is not yet on its way. Chemicals and allied products were down from $890,000 in February, 1935, to $712,000 in February, 1936. Miscellaneous commodities not otherwise dealt with were up from $470,000 to $537,000.
Well, as I said a little while ago, the issue is joined. We sincerely believe that this agreement by and large is good for Canada and

Salary Deduction Act
ia good business for both countries. The opposition believe-and I do not deny them sincerity also-that this agreement is calamitous for Canada and tremendously advantageous to the United States. May I suggest that a year or more from now we shall all be much wiser. The dispute between us, I take it, is not confined to particular commodities. Neither side to the argument would be content to have it settled on the basis of this or that commodity, but rather, to use the term used by the leader of the opposition, would have it settled on the general balance. We believe it is possible for both countries to benefit, in that differing materially from my right hon. friend's conception of trade. We sincerely believe that both countries will benefit as a result of this agreement. To put the matter in an old-fashioned way, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We do not expect the trade agreement to solve all our problems, but we do regard it as a definite step forward, and distinctly to the advantage of Canada as a whole.
Section 4 agreed to.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 15 to provide for the deduction from compensation in the public service.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Sir Eugene Fiset in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I have only one suggestion to make, and that is that the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) should be present. I think the house would like to hear from him; we would like to know how he can support this measure, and especially this section of it, remembering what I have endured in days gone by while listening to him and his associates, some of whom now occupy treasury benches, speak as to the iniquity of any such deduction as this. It all goes to prove that imitation is the sin-cerest form of flattery, and I congratulate the Minister of Finance upon now adopting as his own a measure which he found upon the statute books.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: My desk mate, the
senior member for Ottawa, is delayed in Three Rivers on account of illness. Otherwise he would be here, and I am sure he could defend himself eloquently.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry indeed to
hear that the hon. member is ill, and especially to hear that he is ill in Three Rivers, where they are building an elevator.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Duration of act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the same bill as
was passed last year, is it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. Last year the
word "reduction" was used, and this year it is "deduction."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Otherwise it is word for
word?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Jean-François Pouliot: I understand that this
bill for the five per cent cut-


Walter Edward Foster: I think the hon. gentleman is not in order. The bill has passed.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DLTNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 16, to amend the Income War Tax Act (special tax).
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Sir Eugene Fiset in the chair.
On section 1-Special income tax on certain salaries.
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, may I repeat to the Minister of Finance suggestions I made last jrnar to his predecessor, to the effect that all taxes for war measures should be applied to war expenditures. Therefore there should be a different accounting in the Department of Finance under the control of that superman, the gentleman we all know, the comptroller of the treasury, who is not a chartered accountant. Sir, formerly there were accountants in every department and things ran smoothly; now we have a comptroller of the treasury who is much more interested in sports than in his own business. It is well known-
Income War Tax Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely this is out of
order.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is known that there is a gentleman there who is not an accountant.


Eugène Fiset: I must remind the hon. member that we are discussing the Income War Tax Act.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Eugène Fiset: We are not discussing the estimates of any department.


Jean-François Pouliot: Last year I suggested to the Minister of Finance that all war taxation should meet war expenditures. If a bill is called an Income War Tax bill, or anything of the kind, it should meet war expenditures, soldiers' pensions, expenditures of the Department of National Defence, and like expenditures. My point is that when measures are provided to meet expenditures resulting from war they should not be made to apply to civil expenditures. Therefore I suggest that there should be a change in the accounting of the Department of Finance. I do not know whether you were in the house, sir, but I made the suggestion to the last Minister of Finance who replied that the matter would be referred to his successor in office. I take this opportunity to submit the same observations to the present minister, in order that he may take advantage of the suggestion.
All government revenues go into a melting pot. War taxes of every description should meet war expenditures of every description; otherwise it is obtaining money under false pretences. For many years by governments which held office before the war expenditures were made for public works, railways and canals, agriculture, and so on. Since the war there have been special expenditures. Therefore, as some of this legislation has been drafted because of the war, I suggest that the accounting in the Department of Finance should take that fact into consideration. In my humble view I am perfectly in order when I make this suggestion to the minister.
There have been made in the Department of National Defence expenditures which cannot be justified before the people of Canada, and for that reason I do not see how moneys can be derived from an Income War Tax Act. If the expenditure is one resulting from the war I do not object to it, but I suggest that those who have been in the service of His Majesty should not receive preferential treatment. Let us look at the bill. It is entitled Income War Tax Act (special tax), and imposes a special tax on certain people.

Now, I do not see how that tax can be put into the melting pot of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, out of which to provide a higher superannuation for some former officials of the Department of National Defence who have taken advantage of being seconded from that department to another one in order to receive a higher superannuation than the ordinary civil servant of this country receives, and as the money that is to be provided by the legislation now before us is to be used in part for such a purpose, I must tell the committee what is going on. I must do so, because several members of this committee have been asking me repeatedly, " What is the matter with McNaughton? What is the matter with Steel "? Sir, this is a matter of great concern to every Canadian citizen because the superannuation of McNaughton and the superannuation of Steel will come out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as you will admit, Mr. Chairman, and therefore I submit I am in order in discussing the question upon this bill.


Eugène Fiset: I am sorry, but I must call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that this bill simply provides for a five per cent deduction from the salaries of certain officials therein designated, and the salaries of the officials the hon. member has mentioned do not come under consideration at all in connection with this bill. This bill is not to increase salaries; it is simply to provide for a five per cent deduction from the present salaries of certain officials.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a bill imposing a tax of five per cent.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let me read paragraph 9A (1) of section 1 of this bill:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this act or in any other statute or law, the members of the judiciary and commissioned officers of the military, naval and air forces of Canada and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall be liable to pay a special income tax of five per centum upon the salaries or pay paid to them by the Dominion of Canada.
The point I make is that the salaries of the judiciary and of the other officials mentioned are to be cut by five per cent. That means that they will receive five per cent less salary, in spite of the fact that they were appointed at a certain fixed salary. Not only that, but there is this further fact, and I think I am perfectly in order in discussing the salaries of the members of the judiciary-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pardon me. I must insist on the point of order. This is a tax upon certain incomes. The salaries of the judges could not be changed by any action which.

Income War Tax Act
this committee might take upon this bill. The only thing which could be changed as a result of the discussion would be the amount of the tax here proposed. I would suggest to my hon. friend in all seriousness that there is a proper place to discuss the civil servants who have been named by him, namely, on the estimates of the departments in which they serve, and there is a proper place also to discuss the salaries of the judges, namely, on the votes for that purpose. I do submit that by no stretch of the rules can this discussion be in order on the section of the bill that is now before the committee.


Eugène Fiset: I
agree that the point of order is well taken, and I will ask the hon. member kindly to desist.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I discuss the point
of order first, Mr. Chairman? The members of the judiciary are mentioned in this bill. It says that they "shall be liable to pay a special income tax of five per centum upon the salaries or pay paid to them by the Dominion of Canada." Am I not therefore in order in discussing the income tax paid by the members of the judiciary in this country?


Eugène Fiset: No. The hon. member would be in order in discussing the special tax imposed by this bill, and nothing else.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I will discuss it, sir. I will not discuss the salaries paid to the judges; I will not discuss their income tax at large, but I will discuss the special tax that is imposed on their salaries by this legislation. and then it seems to me I shall be perfectly in order. But before coming to that-and I am very serious about this-may I mention what was said to many of the judges on their appointment, and this is known by the people at large? They were told: We will appoint you to the bench at such and such a salary. Upon that understanding the judges were ready to sacrifice the clientele that they had built up in a life's practice, in order to sit on the bench to serve their fellow-countrymen to the best of their ability. And it was a sacrifice because, sir, you know very well the amount that is paid to the judges who are appointed to the bench in this country, most of whom before accepting their judicial appointments were prominent barristers and solicitors who were doing very well in their legal practices. Some of them were retained by large corporations and received big retainers, and for them it was a real sacrifice on behalf of Canada when they accepted an appointment to the bench. Furthermore, the
judiciary of this country have no superannuation. They have not that advantage which our civil servants enjoy of receiving superannuation at a certain age, or, if they die before reaching that age, of leaving something for their widows and children. The judges, in order to protect their wives and families, must take out life insurance and pay the required premiums. They have also many other obligations. May I point out that the greatest mistake that could be made would be to leave the judges in a position in which they were not free from government influence. Hon. members know what was said about Caesar's wife; the same should be said about every member of the judiciary. What could be more shameful than to hear someone tell someone else who has a case before a judge, "I will say a word on your behalf to him." A judge should be above that; a judge should be highly independent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I belong to the legal profession, which fact has nothing to do with what I am about to say. If the statement just made means anything, it means that the judges of this country are amenable to influence from without. Surely this committee cannot tolerate that observation.


Charles Avery Dunning: It should be taken back.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must be withdrawn.


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask the right hon. gentleman to speak a little louder and more distinctly and then I shall be in a position to answer him.


Eugène Fiset: The right hon. gentleman stated that the hon. member had implied that the judges of this country were subject to undue influence. I think that statement is out of order and should be retracted.


Jean-François Pouliot: I never said it.


Eugène Fiset: The hon. member did.


Jean-François Pouliot: I never said it. I will
repeat my statement clearly enough to be understood by all who have ears to hear and brains to understand. I said that the judges should not suffer because of taxation imposed upon their statutory salaries. Why? A judge should never come to the government for a favour. Judges must decide cases submitted by the government, as is being done in the supreme court. According to the statute books of Canada the government can submit questions of law to the supreme court. These judges should hear these questions without fear or favour. I do not say that the judges are influenced by this legislation, but I do
Income War Tax Act

say that they suffer from it. Legislation that touches the salaries of judges is legislation that is all wrong from a national point of view. I do not say this to criticize this one or that one. At first I thought that the judges would be very glad to offer part of their salaries as a sacrifice on the altar of this country. It is very hard for the judges to save part of their salaries to provide, when they die, for the future of their widows and for their children. In spite of that, drastic legislation against their salaries is imposed by the government. I am most surprised that a former president of the Canadian Bar Association, a gentleman who shone as a lawyer and who enjoyed and still enjoys the respect and confidence of the judiciary of Canada should place a wrong interpretation upon the words that I have uttered, not in defence of the judiciary but in defence of the confidence that the Canadian people should have in our judiciary. Even if not a single judge is impressed or inclined to go one way or the other because of this legislation, the fact remains that a certain influence is created in the minds of the Canadian people who have to argue cases before those judges. My contention is that this is all wrong, and I hope I speak loudly and distinctly enough to be understood, even by those who do not want to understand.
There is another reason why this legislation is all wrong. The judges are being placed in the same category as commissioned officers of the military, naval and air forces, and commissioned officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Judges on the one hand, mounted police on the other. The masters of the supreme court and all other courts in this country, on the one hand, and the servants, the Canadian mounted police, on the other. Some of these commissioned officers are very brave men, but there are others who try to exploit the Canadian people to the last drop of their blood. I refer to Mc-Naughton and Steel.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is rather out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not out of order.


Eugène Fiset: Yes; the hon. member is. Neither General Mc-Naughton nor Colonel Steel belongs in the categories of commissioned officers or the judiciary mentioned in .this bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Jean-François Pouliot: They do not belong in that category; I am glad, for the sake of the officers of the military, naval and air forces of Canada, I congratulate them upon not

having among them men like McNaughton and Steel. These commissioned officers of the military, naval and air forces, even the officers of the domesticated Royal Canadian Mounted Police, have to pay something by way of income tax. These payments make that old bank, the consolidated revenue fund, fatter and fatter in order that larger superannuations may be paid to McNaughton and Steel. I object strongly to that. It must be admitted that all pensions are paid out of consolidated revenue; if someone is taxed in order that the consolidated revenue shall pay less to him, that is no reason why consolidated revenue should pay more to someone else. That is discrimination and it will soon become a scandal. I cannot see why the judges and the commissioned officers of His Majesty's military, naval and air forces, and even the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, should receive less in order that the two gentlemen I have mentioned should receive more.
This is the point, and I am perfectly in order in stressing it. The only trouble is when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) rises in his seat to say that I am not in ordler; it is because I have not finished my argument and I have not told the committee what I was coming to. Having explained the matter thus, I believe the committee will agree fully with me that I can strongly object to the fact that those highly respected people of the judiciary and the army receive less while others who do not belong any more to the army, and who cannot be put upon the same plane as the judiciary, receive more. In this I am perfectly in order; I have no less respect for the bench than have those who speak of the law in terms of acting. I say from the bottom of my heart-and I have practised before the courts for over twenty years-that the higher the respect for the judge the better the understanding amongst our fellow countrymen. It is because I have the highest respect for the tribunals of this country that I strongly protest against this tax. If some unworthy man were receiving less, the tax would be superfluous.
You will agree with me, Mr. Chairman, and the committee will agree with me that we can proceed only by way of comparison in this matter. How can you discuss a piece of legislation by reading only two or three lines and then saying, "Paragraph adopted," "paragraph adopted," " section adopted," " schedule adopted?" This is not fair. Our statute book is an entity, every part of which can be compared with every other. You have enough experience of statute law fully to understand

Income War Tax Act
what I am saying. If there is a discrepancy or a discrimination in one part of the statute book as compared with another, it should be brought to the attention of this committee and of the house in order that any injustice or unfairness or discrimination or discrepancy may be corrected at once. Where is the place that it can be done? Only here, whether the house sits in committee or as a house itself. Therefore, sir, may I tell you that on the one hand there are people who should receive more who are receiving less, and on the other there are people who should receive less who are receiving more. With your understanding of the rules and orders of the house you, sir, and every member of the committee will admit that one is perfectly in order when discussing such a matter.
Not as a lawyer, not as one who has argued cases for many years before each tribunal of this country, but as a humble citizen who has at heart the ambition of seeing his fellow-countrymen happy together, and having the greatest regard for that bulwark of national understanding, the bench, I cannot do otherwise than express my deep regret that this legislation is on the same lines as that which was brought in by a Tory government last year and the year before. I regret this very much; I regret it because the pets of the Tory government are still on a pinnacle; nobody can touch them; when their names are mentioned every one is called to order. Are they sacred? No, sir, they are not sacred. They are just those-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, here he is.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman has now spoken forty minutes, and I suppose, even if I have him called to order on that ground, he will continue again. But I call the chairman's attention to rule 40, clause 2 of the rules of this house.
Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the house, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or _ repetition, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if then the member still continues to speak, the Speaker ^hall name him, or, if in committee, the Chairman shall report him to the house.
I suggest that this proceeding has become a perfect farce and entirely to the discredit of this house. It would not be tolerated in any other representative assembly in Great Britain or in the dominions.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the point of
order-


Eugène Fiset: The hon. gentleman has already spoken forty minutes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir, but speaking to
a point of order, any member can speak for forty minutes in committee provided that he is not interrupted, but as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has interrupted me by raising his point of order, I am entitled to another forty minutes speech. Yes; and this great lawyer has given me the opportunity to continue my argument. I thank him for that.


Eugène Fiset: I
am sorry, but the hon. member can speak only forty minutes. On the point of order, he has spoken for forty minutes, and somebody else will have to take the floor.
Mr. TUCKER- As I understand it, the reason this legislation is not included in Bill No. 15 is that it was deemed that the judiciary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had some sort of contractual right to their emoluments whereby there was no right to deduct anything in the way of a percentage from their salaries, so it was decided that parliament would do what was done in regard to other members of the public service by Bill No. 15, but in another way and instead of reducing the salaries of the judiciary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by five per cent, as was done in Bill No. 15 in regard to other members of the service of this country, parliament sought to do the same thing by imposing a tax of a similar amount on these people under Bill No. 16. Any member of the judiciary or of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who is content to be under Bill No 15, and so elects, is not under Bill No. 16. As I understand it, that is the purpose of this legislation, namely, to get around the contractual obligations we owe to the judiciary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I rise to make a suggestion to the Minister of Finance. From time to time it has been stated that the rate we are paying labour throughout Canada has gone down in many cases to what it was in 1914, but we find that the wages of money are still much higher than in 1914. The suggestion has been made that the wages of money are no more sacred than the wages of human beings. In order to make my point I should like to read from the Canada Year Book to show how the wages of money have varied during the past few years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely this is out of
order.
Income War Tax Act


Mr. TUCKER:: I submit that I am not- out of order, for this reason: I am suggesting an extension of this bill. It has been stated that the obligation to pay interest on bonds is a contractual obligation, and therefore there is no way of cutting down the interest on those bonds until they mature and can be called in. I am submitting that just as the wages of the judiciary can be cut down by special taxation as in this bill, so can the wages of bonds be cut down by special taxation. I believe that when I suggest an extension of this bill to cover the wages of bonds-of money-I am not out of order, but of course if, Mr. Chairman, you rule me out of order I shall accept your ruling.


Charles Avery Dunning: On the point of order, it is quite obvious that if it were in order for an hon. gentleman to suggest anything at all as an extension of any bill before the house, there would be no use in having rules of order at all. This bill deals very clearly with one specific matter, the taxation of a specific class of people in the service of the Dominion of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who otherwise might not be taxed.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, who otherwise might not be taxed. I say to my hon. friend from Rosthern, as I said a moment ago to my hon. friend from Temiscouata, that there is a proper place and a proper time to discuss these matters. This is neither the time nor the place. I submit that a large majority of the members of this committee are sincerely anxious to get on with the business of this country-a great deal of which is on the order paper awaiting attention. At the last sitting of the house the Prime Minister gave an intimation of what would be taken up to-day. The matters we are now discussing are related to provisions which have been in effect for several years, continued from year to year. We may not like them. I have no objection to debating the subject matter of the bill, but I do submit that hon. members are wasting the time of this committee and of parliament in attempting to carry on, under this very simple bill, a wide range of discussion upon all sorts of topics which cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be related either to the principle or to the subject matter of the bill. I ask your ruling, sir, with respect to confining discussion, as the rules provide, strictly to the subject matter of the section of the bill under discussion.


Eugène Fiset: I
think the point of order is extremely well taken, and I will ask the hon. gentleman kindly to desist. Shall section 1 carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, Mr. Chairman. I do not wish to be disrespectful of the Chair and you know, sir, that I have the highest regard for you, but this is a most important point because it means a decrease in the amount of money the judges receive from the federal exchequer.


Charles Avery Dunning: On a point of order,
there is nothing in this section relating to the amount of money the judges receive. Section 1 relates to the amount which the judges and the others mentioned therein shall pay. It is a percentage of whatever they get; it has nothing whatever to do with the amount.


Eugène Fiset: The hon. gentleman simply mentioned the salaries the judges were receiving and stated that they were being reduced by five per cent. I think the hon. gentleman is in order.


Charles Avery Dunning: I serve notice now, Mr. Chairman, that if hon. members are going to attempt to stretch the rules I intend, as far as I can, to insist on the rules of the house being followed in order that we may get on with the business of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell only one thing
to the Minister of Finance, for whom until now I had a great regard. I will tell him this, that I have not been frightened by anyone during the eleven years I have been a member of this house, and he will never succeed in frightening me.


Charles Avery Dunning: I rise to another point
of order. I had no desire whatever to frighten my hon. friend. I did not take that much upon myself. I do not think I would foe capable of doing that.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is just as well.


Charles Avery Dunning: What I am speaking ol
now is the rights of all the rest of us. This committee, by a very large majority, desires to get on with the business of the house. Any member has a perfect right to hold up the business of all the rest of us; that is part of his rights as a member, but there are certain rules with which he must comply and which are necessarily very strict in order to protect the rights of all the rest of us as well as the rights of the member who has the floor for the time being.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the rights of the
country.

Income War Tax Act


Charles Avery Dunning: And I intend with respect to this debate, Mr. Chairman, to ask you to keep the discussion, no matter by whom, by myself, if you will, within the limits of the rules provided for the conduct of the business of the committee of the whole house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I fully agree with that;
I have no objection to it at all. Moreover, sir, my contention is that everything I have said since the first words I uttered in this debate is perfectly in order. But, sir, on what section are we now? I want to understand it.


Eugène Fiset: Section 1.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, we have to take
section 1 as a whole, and when we discuss this matter we must take into consideration the effect it has upon the judiciary. In that I am sure we will be in complete accord. May I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that it is not my wish to impose at all upon this house or this committee. I have spoken very little during the other debates that have arisen since the beginning of this session; I left the discussion to my colleagues. But now when a matter of concern to every individual who has to go or who may have to go before the courts, as either plaintiff or defendant, arises, I want to say that the first thing that is expected by that man, either the plaintiff or the defendant, is that he will have a fair trial before the judge who hears his case. That is the point. You will admit, sir, that whether you take action against someone or someone takes action against you, you are entitled to expect fairness from the judge who sits on the bench-


Charles Avery Dunning: This is entirely out of order.


Eugène Fiset: I beg the hon. member to speak to the bill and not ramble all over as he has been doing all evening, thus obstructing the work of the house. I make a special appeal to him and I hope he will listen to the chair.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank you, sir; I appreciate it, but in my humble view I am more in order in speaking about the salary of the judges than in speaking about the man in the moon. Now, I will make my contention short, in two or three sentences, and then I shall be through unless someone rises to a point of order; then I will speak until the close of this sitting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not leading the house, but I have had some experience in this house, and I protest against any member thus openly flouting the chair. The other
day I was called to order about a matter and I publicly withdrew a statement because I felt I owed it to the chair. I could have argued very clearly about my view of the matter. But I do think every hon. member owes some duty to the chair. To-night the chair has ruled, not once nor twice nor thrice, but the ruling of the chair has been disregarded flagrantly and openly-


Jean-François Pouliot: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -and the chair has been laughed at. Can we continue business in this way, or shall the chair do what the rules provide, as read by my colleague the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), and see that the rules are obeyed?


Jean-François Pouliot: On a question of privilege I strongly protest against what the right hon. gentleman has just said. I have never laughed at the chair, and I have never acted in such a way as he described. Every hon. member of the committee is a witness to that. I have the highest regard for the chair and will fully abide by the decisions of the chair. Here I am arguing a case, not for obstruction-


Charles Avery Dunning: On the point of order, just a moment ago the hon. member announced his intention in case of a certain contingency of speaking until this sitting closed to-night.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was within the hearing of every hon. member of this committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Clear intimidation.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member said that he would talk until the committee adjourned. I call your attention, sir, to standing order 41, paragraph 293 (i):
... a member, while speaking, must not-
(i) use his right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the house.
That clearly relates to what the hon. member announced just a moment ago his intention of doing. I must on this occasion join with the leader of the opposition and appeal to you, sir, to insist upon the rules being observed, and not continuously evaded. I do not want to deny to any hon. member, nor would you, sir, deny to any hon. member reasonable freedom of speech and the widest possible latitude, but these rules exist for the protection of all of us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Made by the house itself.


Charles Avery Dunning: Made by the house itself for the protection not only of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) but for
Income War Tax Act

the protection of the rights and privileges of every hon. member, and what is going on now is easily understood by every member of the committee. There is a proper place to discuss matters such as those to which my hon. friend is referring, but this is not that place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The motion to go into
supply is one of them.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, just a
word-


Eugène Fiset: I
have tried my best. When I appealed to the hon. member I quoted the words of the rule mentioned by the Minister of Finance. I appeal once more to the hon. member for Temiscouata, and if he does not obey the ruling of the chair I regret to say that I shall have to report him to the Speaker.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have only one word
to say with regard to what the leader of the opposition and the Minister of Finance have said. I put them both in the same bag. That is all I have to say.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting relief for unemployment and assistance for agricultural settlement and rehabilitation and development of natural and other resources, and to provide for such payments out of the consolidated revenue fund as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed legislation.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bothwell in the chair.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. ROGERS:: This resolution precedes
the introduction of a bill which will supersede the Relief Act of 1935. Beginning with the autumn session of 1930 parliament has been asked annually to approve legislation to authorize the government of the day to employ funds of the dominion for the relief of such of our population as may be in necessitous circumstances through prevailing unemployment and crop conditions. The

present resolution precedes the introduction of the Unemployment and Relief Assistance Act, 1936, which is designed to provide similar authority for the forthcoming fiscal year.
The relief of distress has always been held by the dominion to be primarily a responsibility of the provincial and municipal authorities, with the proviso that where the need for relief has been such as to place a very severe burden upon the provinces and municipalities it is proper and necessary that the dominion government should extend financial aid to the other governmental authorities. This principle we propose should be continued under the present measure. Accordingly it provides the requisite authority for agreement between the dominion and the provinces with respect to relief measures, unemployment relief works, and loans, advances and guarantees to the provinces. With respect to dominion-provincial agreements the bill provides the same general subject matter as heretofore. It is also proposed that the governor in council may enter into agreements with corporations, partnerships and individuals engaged in industry, respecting the expansion of industrial employment. In addition to the provision for works and undertakings in agreement with others, authority is proposed to give the governor in council power to authorize dominion works and undertakings out of moneys appropriated by parliament.
In pursuance of a policy of parliamentary control of expenditures the proposed bill provides that agreements entered into with the provinces respecting relief measures are to be approved by resolution of the House of Commons as well as by the governor in council, and similar provision has been inserted covering agreements with corporations, partnerships and individuals engaged in industry. As a further safeguard to parliamentary control the bill has reference throughout, in so far as new commitments are involved, only to moneys appropriated by parliament, which will be asked to vote funds necessary for these purposes. It may be recalled that the Relief Act of 1935 gave the governor in council wide powers, under the general heading of peace, order and good government, and also as regards protection of the financial position of the dominion and provinces.
Similar provisions are not contained in the new measure. Such general provisions affecting the making of regulations by the governor in council, the appointment of staff, the publication of orders in council, and the report to parliament, are comparable with similar provisions in the act of 1935. The bill would expire on March 31, 1937, except

Unemployment
where in the nature of things obligations under this or earlier relief acts must be carried forward. I do not intend at this time to engage in a more extended exposition of the bill. That will be reserved for a later stage. My observations at this time are intended only to be explanatory, and I hope I have met the reasonable expectations of the house in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can hardly think my ears correctly reported what I heard. It cannot be possible that a Liberal minister could have suggested what I have heard to-night. After what we heard in this country during the months of September and October, is it possible that a government contemplates giving aid to industry and entering into contracts with individuals and corporations to enable them to expand their business? Surely my hearing must have deceived me. It cannot be possible that the government has done this! No wonder the Minister of Finance laughs; he has to find the money to foot the bill. He had no idea, nor had anybody else, that a Liberal minister would ever do this. Why-


Charles Avery Dunning: Better let me speak for myself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The interference with
business that wras taking place in former days is mild, compared with what the hon. gentleman has just said. "We are not going to do it with tariffs; we are going to do it with bonuses." "We are not going to do it with bonuses, we are going to make agreements with individuals, with companies and with corporations to enable them to expand their business, and to carry on, regardless of what the consequences may be to the people's finances." Surely there is something wrong. The hon. gentleman should have been a minister in the former administration, for the doctrine he has now promulgated was the doctrine that was condemned on every platform in Canada during the last election campaign.
But that is not all. The unfortunate part about it is that this resolution does not authorize anything such as the hon. gentleman has stated. There could be nothing clearer than that the resolution should at least lay the foundation for the bill. On one occasion I found myself in exactly the same position, because I had not sufficiently amplified in the resolution what I proposed the measure should be. Show me in the resolution any provision which contemplates (a) a loan to a province or (b) a guarantee of a loan to a province. That will be found in the Relief
Act of 1935. The hon. gentleman says that he contemplates doing that, but he cannot do it in a bill founded on this resolution. He has to have another resolution to do that. There is nothing clearer, as was pointed out to me when I was learning the tools of the profession, that the resolution must make clear every object contemplated in the bill. It may do it in general terms.
Let us look at the resolution. It states:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting relief for unemployment-
That is fair and simple. Then it goes on: -and assistance for agricultural settlement and rehabilitation and' development of natural and other resources.
That is clear. "Agricultural settlement and rehabilitation"-I am going to ask the minister, before we leave the committee stage, to give us an explanation of what he means by that expression. Then, in the third place we have the "development of natural and other resources." We have not heard anything about that. Perhaps the Minister of Mines (Mr. Crerar) in his expansiveness, proposed to open up some gold mines and use this relief money for that purpose. Paradventure he is going to engage in the development of the coke industry, or possibly the peat industry, or possibly some other industry of that type. But we should have an explanation with regard to that.
As the resolution reads it contemplates the development of natural and other resources. Now, by "other resources" of course the minister must mean the building of breakwaters, bridges and works of that kind. But let us go a step further:
-and to provide for such payments out of the cosolidated revenue fund-
Without limitation, without saying how much. It is absolutely essential, if we are going to found a bill upon a resolution, to give the limitation; otherwise it is a blank cheque. Then:
-as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed legislation.
In other words, here is your blank cheque, again.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


William Daum Euler: Wait until you see the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not have to wait until I see the bill; I must see it in the resolution. From what has been said I judge it is proposed that the Minister of Finance shall introduce a measure which will provide what the expenditure shall be in connection with all these subjects.
Unemployment

I did not quite follow the hon. member when he spoke about the governor in council approving, approving, approving and approving. As far as I could see it was a governor in council measure, for never have I heard an explanation of a resolution where there were more references to the governor in council, the governor in council, the governor in council, not in the resolution itself, but in the explanation with respect to it. Therefore I would judge that the governor in council which was so much out of favour a few months ago, or years ago, is now very much in favour.
Then there is added the provision that the house will approve these matters, ex post facto, or antecedently. It can only approve them when the house is in session, or after they have been approved. If they are approved by the governor in council and also by the House of Commons, this would mean of course that the house could approve only such plans as had been made before the house rose. After that, the house could approve them after they had been carried into effect, and I suppose a majority could always be relied upon, as a matter of form.
But I assure the minister that when he speaks of the approval of the governor in council and then the approval of the House of Commons there should be something more than the anticipation of a rubber-stamp approval. That used to be one of the grounds of contention. Now, are we to have approval of these things by the House of Commons before they are entered into, or after they are performed? It would be a lot of value if it was done after, would it not? It would be like locking the stable door after the horse had been stolen.
Then, there is a further point. I am pointing out that that is all that is covered by the resolution. The hon. gentleman stated that it was intended that the House of Commons should approve arrangements that might be made with industries. Well, if that is so it becomes tremendously important that there should be mention of it in the resolution. There should be mention that the expenditure should be subject to the direction of the House of Commons, either before or after it is made.
Inasmuch as the Prime Minister stated on Friday that the next item of business to be taken up would be the second reading of a bill respecting harbours, I suggest that the minister move that the committee rise for tonight. The resolution as it stands does not warrant a bill. Then, I might make this statement, that on being asked what the business would be the Prime Minister stated

on Friday that we would take up Bills Nos. 15 and 16, and then a bill standing in the name of the Minister of Marine, with respect to the national harbours board. That is what he said would be the business.


Charles Avery Dunning: Read on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall read the whole of it:
Sir George Perley: What will be the business on Monday?
Mr. Mackenzie King: On Monday it is proposed to go on with the Canada-United States trade agreement. If we should be fortunate enough to conclude the second and third readings we would then take up one or two other bills that appear on the order paper, and go into supply in any one of the departments that have not yet been called.
Sir George Perley:	Will the right hon.
gentleman be a little more specific about the other bills?
Mr. Mackenzie King: Yes. There are two bills in the name of the Minister of Finance, very small bills, No. 15 to provide for the deduction from compensation in the public service, and No. 16 to amend the Income War Tax Act. Then there is one bill in the name of the Minister of Marine, respecting the national harbours board.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would say at once to my right hon. friend that I was not aware of that when the arrangement was made to proceed, and he has every right to ask that the committee rise and report progress on this resolution and ask leave to sit again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly. Would the
Minister of Labour in the meantime be kind enough to direct his attention to the situation in connection with the resolution? I found myself embarrassed once and unable to include in my bill very vital terms because I had not in the first instance taken the will of the governor general preceding the introduction of the resolution. It is a rule, of course, that that must be done in order that the subsequent bill may be properly before the house. I must say that I think this resolution is hardly ample for the provisions of the bill which the hon. gentleman has outlined, and if he will look it over, I think he will find that is so. In the meantime I do congratulate the hon. member upon retaining those provisions in the act of 1935 that he found so desirable, and if he found the peace, order and good government provision no longer desirable he is once more to be congratulated upon his freedom from anticipating any trouble.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps I may be allowed to say just this with regard to our desire to advance this legislation this evening. The bill providing for the setting up of the national

Supply-M arine
employment commission has been advanced to second reading, and of course has been distributed to hon. members of this house, and we felt it desirable that, the other bill which is to be founded upon this resolution, and which is also related to the unemployment situation, should be advanced a stage and iistributed to members of the house before debate should take place upon the former bill.
As to the suggestion made by the right hon. gentleman with respect to the resolution, I shall be very glad indeed to look into it further. I may say, however, that the bill itself, as he is well aware, is one which enables the governor in council to enter into agreements with provinces or with industrial corporations, if you will, for the purpose of carrying out certain relief works, and I think it has never been the practice in the past to confine the designation of relief works within very narrow boundaries. The resolution as it now stands does perhaps suggest rather more than the bill itself will reveal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is nothing in the resolution about financial assistance at all.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That, of course, is provided for in the bill, and I take it that the provision with respect to unemployment relief generally might be taken to include provision for financial assistance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be very glad, however to consider the suggestion of my right hon. friend.
Progress reported.



DEPARTMENT OP MARINE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bothwell in the chair.
Lighthouse and coast service-
Amount required to pay compassionate allowance to John Davidson, formerly light-keeper at Cape Mudge, B.C., $500.
Charles Avery Dunning: The other evening the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), who was then leading the opposition, was kind enough to allow consideration of an item in the Marine estimates in spite of the fact that that department had not gone into supply on one of the days provided by the rules. We desire to-night to carry out the undertaking then given to the hon. member for Argenteuil by calling an item in the Marine department, thus putting that department regularly before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for compassionate allowance to recoup the workmen's compensation board of British Columbia in continuation of a pension granted and to be paid by that board up to the 31st March, 1937, in the sum of $35 per month, to the widow of the late E. J. McCoskrie, who was formerly employed as port warden at Prince Rupert, B.C., and who was killed while in the performance of his duties, $420.
Richard Bedford Bennett: How would the Workmen's Compensation Act of British Columbia be applicable in this case and not in other cases? Why should we recoup the workmen's compensation board in this case and not in all other cases of fatal accidents to dominion employees?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the normal course of events, had this man been a civil servant he would have been under the dominion government and under workmen's compensation. It was ruled that he was not, but it was felt in this particular case, as he was killed in the performance of his duty, that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act should apply, and consequently it is necessary to recoup the province for applying the provisions of the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was the same sum voted last year for the same purpose?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, every year since 1925.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine signal service, $96,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the minister give the committee some information as to the nature of this work? There is a decrease in the vote. Perhaps the minister would account for that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This vote is to provide for the maintenance of marine signal stations which have been established for the purpose of recording the movements of ships, weather conditions, ice conditions, and dangers to navigation generally. The system extends from Cape Race, Newfoundland, to Saint John, New Brunswick, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Belle Isle, and up the gulf of St. Lawrence through the great lakes to Sault Ste. Marie. The reduction in this item is largely accounted for by the item of wages, which is reduced from $5,571 to $2,017; that is casual wages, apart from salaries, and was paid last year, I assume, for repair work and that sort of thing. The item for salaries is practically the same. There is also a reduction in material, supplies and sundries. The service is not being curtailed in any way. The saving is made purely on work which must have been repair work.

Supply-Marine-Pilotage


Mr. DONNELLY:: Is any portion of this vote used for marine signal service in Hudson bay or strait?


Clarence Decatur Howe: None at all. The signal service is purely from Cape Race up the St. Lawrence and the great lakes to Sault Ste. Marie.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of pilotage, $90,600.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Perhaps the minister
would explain this item.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The pilotage service itself is self-supporting, but this vote is for administration. It covers a pilotage boat at Father Point, the service of a superintendent at Ottawa, and local superintendents and assistant superintendents of pilots at such points as Montreal, Toronto, Kingston and Vancouver. There are other small items, but the main one is a decrease of $12,917 in miscellaneous printing, travelling, et cetera. I cannot say why it was so high in 1935-36. There is a saving of $8,000 in fuel supplies, et cetera, and a reduction of $7,250 in repairs by contract. The sum of $5,000 was paid last year in advance to pilots, but no advance is being made this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This affords me an opportunity of asking a question of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). The other day he stated in the house that during the last five years $18,000,000 had been used by the late government for travelling expenses. He suggested that out of that sum the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) might save sufficient to pay pensions for the blind. A dispatch was sent to the western papers by the correspondent of the Southam newspapers indicating that between $18,000,000 and $19,000,000 had been expended for travelling expenses during the five years, 1930-35. In view of the fact that the minister has just said that part of this item was for travelling expenses, I should like to know how the hon. gentleman made up any such amount as $18,000,000.


Mr. LEADER:: Those figures were given in the auditor general's report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For what?


Harry Leader: For the general travelling expenses of the dominion government for the last five years. I was low in my estimate when I said $18,000,000, because if the amounts paid out for automobiles are included, the total is $19,500,000.
fMr. Howe.]


Mr. THORSON:: Surely this is all out of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A little more attention to the rules will get away from any difficulty on that score. That answer is wholly inaccurate if any value is to be attached to it at all. When the hon. member says that the government expended such a sum, the mere statement carries its own refutation. He must have included the cost of moving prisoners to penitentiaries, cost of handling the police, expenditures by the Department of Agriculture and every other department, because the sums expended by ministers in travelling expenses happened to be less than they have been for many a long day.


Walter Adam Tucker: Surely the leader of the opposition is out of order? He is very good at calling everyone else to order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is dealing with an item of travelling expenses.


Charles Avery Dunning: I heard the hon. member for Portage la Prairie make the statement in the house, but I never had any idea that he was attempting to show that the members of the late government had spent $18,000,000 on travelling expenses. What I gathered was that he was speaking of the travelling expenses of the whole dominion government service for those five years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the government service; that is the service of the Dominion of Canada.


Harry Leader: I never expected the house to believe that I meant the ministers of the government had spent that amount of money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What does it mean?


Harry Leader: I said, and I repeat my statement: Over $19,500,000 was spent by the late government between 1930 and 1935, and that includes all departments, including the Department of Agriculture, mentioned by the leader of the opposition. All the right hon. gentleman has to do is to look up the auditor general's report and he will find that my figures are correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not only am I now
satisfied that an attempt was made to leave an impression that was not warranted, but it was stated directly in the dispatch which was sent to the newspapers. Particulars were given for the year ended March 31, 1930, the government having come into office on August 7, 1930. The total for that year was over $4,000,000. There was a diminution the next year; there was a diminution the next year

Supply-Marine-Pilotage
and a diminution the next year. This item would be included in that sum and it would include the mounted police and all other services. It was not expended by the government. It represented the vote of this house; it represented estimates passed for that purpose. The government submitted estimates to the house and the house passed them. The figures were so transparently erroneous and the cheers with which the observations of the hon. member were greeted showed what it was done for. Sooner or later we shall have the right to ask-


Walter Adam Tucker: I rise to a point of order. Surely the leader of the opposition has not the right to impute to the hon. member for Portage la Prairie an attempt to mislead the house. The right hon. gentleman said, " An attempt to leave an impression that was not warranted by the facts." I submit that the right hon. gentleman has no right .to say that the hon. member for Portage la Prairie attempted to mislead this house, and I ask for a ruling that he is out of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member apparently missed the point. I was referring to the newspaper report sent out and I can give him the headlines that appeared about this statement of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. The rules of the house provide that I can place a question on the order paper, if I so desire, asking for particulars. I certainly propose to continue to ask the hon. gentleman what he did mean by that statement. Anyone reading the statement made that evening, without its being amplified as it was by the Minister of Finance, would draw only one conclusion; anyone reading the newspaper would draw only one conclusion, that the government had expended for travelling expenses this particular sum of money.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is so absurd.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A gentleman wrote me
to say that he was quite perturbed at seeing the statement that this amount of money had been spent in travelling expenses during the past five years by the ministers, $4,000,000 being expended in one year.


Walter Adam Tucker: I rise to a point of order.
I submit that the right hon. gentleman has no right to say that certain statements were calculated to leave a wrong impression. The right hon. gentleman has said that the hon. member for Portage la Prairie made a statement calculated to mislead this house and I submit that he has no right to make such an implication against the hon. member. I ask for a ruling on that.


Harry Leader: If I may be allowed to
reply-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bothwell):: If the hon. member is speaking to a point of order he is in order.


Harry Leader: Speaking to a point of
order, I am not an experienced parliamentarian; I am only an ordinary farmer from western Canada. I have no objection to what the right hon. leader of the opposition has stated here to-night. I do not care what motives he imputes; he is wrong. What I meant to convey to the people of Canada was that we might save something in the cost of administration, and when I gave those figures out of the auditor general's report- and they are true, notwithstanding the remarks of the right hon. gentleman-I wanted the people of this country to note what it is costing in travelling expenses and everything else. I think that is what he is objecting to. If it will soothe his feelings, I should like him to go to the auditor general's report for the five years previous-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have.


Harry Leader: -and he will find that the travelling expenses are larger. But the trouble is that the people of Canada who pay the shot do not know these things, and what I am trying to do is to let them know, not to say anything derogatory of the late government or anyone else; that is not in my nature. But I reserve the right, as a member of this house


Charles Edward Bothwell: Order.


Harry Leader: -to convey some information to the Canadian people when I think it is necessary to do so.


Charles Avery Dunning: On the point of order, it seems to me to rest entirely on the question of what the leader of the opposition did say. If he said that a certain newspaper article was calculated to leave a certain impression, that is one thing. If he stated, as the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) has stated, that a member of this house made a statement with a certain object, thus imputing a motive to that member, then the leader of the opposition was clearly out of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; he was not.


Charles Avery Dunning: I doubt very much if we shall know precisely what the facts are until we read Hansard in the morning. In the meantime I suggest, for the purpose of
Supply-Marine-Pilotage

getting on with the business, that the point of order be withdrawn; the leader of the opposition be satisfied with the discussion so far, and we proceed with the discussion of the estimates.


Walter Adam Tucker: I accept the suggestion
of the Minister of Finance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was dealing with the question at this time because it is the first opportunity I had, when the item regarding travelling expenses came before the committee. This item, the minister says, includes an item for travelling expenses in connection with lighthouse and pilot service, and he says that under this head, namely administration of pilotage, there has been a reduction of $28,000 partly caused by a lessening of travelling expenses. Perhaps the hon. minister would be good enough to indicate just what is meant by travelling expenses, for I should like to assure the committee that there is set out in the auditor general's report the details of the expenditure of each department, on the one hand being the appropriation and on the other the expenditures, and if any member can suggest a method by which there can be a saving in any of these expenditures I am quite sure the Minister of Finance will be the most pleased man in the world. I assure the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) as well as other hon. members that the estimates voted by parliament for this purpose during the last five years were very much less than they were during the preceding five years, and that the reduction was to a point at which it was contended at times there was hardly sufficient to carry on the public service. If there is any suggestion that money can be saved I am sure the minister will be glad and the Minister of Finance as well. For instance, in connection with the conveyance of prisoners to the penitentiaries, in connection with the movement of the mounted! police, in connection with the transfer of trade officers from one section to another, in connection with movements of officials who have duties to perform, in connection with inspections of various kinds, if savings can be effected I am sure the ministers will be gratified. But as regards this item I should like to know just what was saved in travelling expenses, because this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The item is for miscellaneous printing and travelling; it is rather difficult to sort it out. The item that is being voted this year in the amount of $90,600

is roughly the net expenditure that has been made in the last three or four years. That expenditure in 1032-33 was $86,812, in 1033-34 about the same, in 1034-35 about the same; in 1935-36 up to January 31, $92,765. It has been the practice in a good many places to loan money to pilots pending receipt of pilotage dues. That practice has been gradually cut down, due to the fact that we found it possible to collect the dues more promptly, and the vote this year provides no such sum for that purpose. I think that is the explanation of the reduction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question I was
asking the minister was: What reduction has there been in travelling expenses under this item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are allowing for these
various items to include travelling expenses for all districts, examination of pilots, printing and stationery, electric current, telephone, laundry, repairs and freight charges, fuel for Father Point station, repairs to buildings, et cetera. This year we are allowing $3,883, while last year the allowance was $16,800, I think that undoubtedly the difference enters in the item of repairs to buildings, et cetera; I imagine some extensive repairs were made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a bulk item, as the minister says, but is there any specific saving with respect to travelling expenses, and what was spent for travelling expenses last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do not have that. They are very minor. Just places where the pilot is dropped some distance and he has to get back.


Mr. STIRLING:: Do I understand that
this covers merely the administration charges of the pilot service to all harbours of Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is all.


Grote Stirling: There can be very little
travelling expenses coming under administration, surely.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very little; there are some
expenses.


Grote Stirling: Travelling of the pilots
does not come in.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I note that the leader of the opposition made reference to a saving of $28,000 as compared with last year. If I understood the Minister of Marine correctly, he stated that that was about the same amount as had been spent during the past three or four years. I would point out that

Supply-M arine-Pilotage
the estimates of 1933, on page 42, show the amount as 1218,000. This year the amount is $96,000, which would mean a difference of $122,000, So I think we should congratulate ourselves that we have a minister who can in such a short time bring about such a saving. I do not say that the amount was expended, but it certainly shows in the estimate, as quoted by me, as $218,000. May I inquire as to the fees or salaries paid1 under this particular item, whether there is a salary system in all the ports or whether there is a fee and salary combination system being used, and whether any consideration has been given to a change from the fee system to a straight salary?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This particular vote provides for certain salaries that are paid by the department. In addition there are fees that are paid to the pilots and that cover the pilotage dues. I can give those if the hon. member is interested.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: No; I am not particularly
concerned about the amounts. I am concerned about the system under which the minister operates, whether he considers the out-and-out salary better than the way he is now conducting the pilotage service, under a fee and salary system.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The administration only is covered by salaries. We provide, for instance, a head office at Ottawa with a superintendent of pilots; similarly we have offices in Vancouver, Halifax, Saint John, Quebec, Montreal and Kingston. We have an office there in each of those cities; we rent or own an office, and we have a certain staff such as stenographers and others. This covers that particular service. In addition to that there is a system of pilotage fees paid by the boats, and those fees are distributed among the pilots.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: In that connection I should like to ask who determines the amount of the fee to be charged by the pilot.


Clarence Decatur Howe: An order in council of the government, fixed by law.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Then, may I ask, just apart
from this item, though I believe it has a close connection, whether undter the new bill the national harbour board will have authority to regulate the charges or fees to be paid to the pilots in the various ports?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; the fees for pilots are fixed by the Canada Shipping Act. which is administered by the Department of Marine. That has nothing to do with harbour board legislation.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I should like to bring one other
point to the attention of the minister. The contention has been advanced on more than one occasion that the fee charged in some cases is altogether too high. I have particularly in mind the fee for pleasure craft belonging to United States tourists who visit various ports. They claim that they are charged a rather high fee, and that it prevents quite a number from entering our ports and spending money that otherwise would be spent in this country. I should like to hear what the minister has to say in regard to this point.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told by my officers that it has been brought to the attention of the department, though it has not been brought to my attention. As to pilotage fees in general, however, I must say that they seem to be reasonable; the pilots make only an earning which I would consider as reasonable for the class of work they do. In regard to pleasure boats, I shall be very glad to look into that question and see if any differential can be set up.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I should not like to leave the impression that I am objecting to the fees earned by the pilots in any port. They have a hard time and a hard life, but I was wondering whether in some way another system might be arranged under which they would receive a proper remuneration but not on the fee basis. That was the thought I had in mind.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that pilotage all over the world is on a fee basis, and I think our rates are quite in order. Every cent that is collected in fees goes to the pilots themselves. There is no charge for overhead at all; we carry that. These fees are pooled and distributed to the pilots.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Some hon. members who have spoken have quoted rather large figures, much larger than those of this year or last year, as appearing in the estimates in different years. I gathered from what the minister said that over a period of five years the expenditures had been practically the same. Could the minister give us the expenditures for the last four or five years?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The figure's are as follows:
Appropriation Expenditure
1930- 31	
$250,000	$111,0001931- 32	
250,000	158,0001932-	33	
218.000	86,0001933-	34	
218,000	86,0001934-	35	
118,000	86,000*1935-	36	
118,000	92,000
*To January 31, 1936.
Supply-Post Office


James J. Donnelly: Does the government build pilot boats or loan money to pilots to build their boats, or is anything of that kind done?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; we have loaned money to pilots in Halifax, Sydney and Saint John to build their boats, and they have paid it back on a fee basis.


James J. Donnelly: Does that come out of this grant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has come out of this grant. There is none outstanding at the moment; it has been paid back.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries, including amounts required to pay allowances to office appliance operators, grade 2, operating mechanical audit card punching machines in accordance with the terms of order in council P.C. 280/383, dated February 17,	1930; to pay allowances to
typists, grade 1, employed cutting stencils in accordance with regulations approved by order in council; and to pay allowances to office appliance operators, grade 2, in the revenue division employed' as key punch operators, schedules and rates to be decided upon by the Civil Service Commission and the Post Office department and approved by the governor in council, $1,248,660.
Contingencies, $155,920.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There will be a great deal of discussion on this item, with regard to the dismissal of officials and matters of that ltind. It will be a long, controversial item, because it covers everything in connection with the Post Office Department. Perhaps the minister will say what is included under the item ; that would be a good start, and then we can go on.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Postmaster General):: In this item is included all that is found at page 92 of the estimates; it is the civil government item. If members of the committee will just glance down the two columns they will find that in most cases they are the same. There are certain items in which there is a difference, but as a general rule they are practically the same except that there is an increase, as my hon. friends will see, amounting to $30,562 in civil government salaries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are statutory increases?


John Campbell Elliott: Those are
statutory increases, and I assume that my right hon. friend will be fairly familiar with the circumstances leading up to them. If it

is the wish of the committee I can give the details which make up that net increase. There are 358 statutory increases amounting to $24,060. To provide for the reestablishment of six positions abolished by order in council-


Richard Bedford Bennett: What six positions are they ?


John Campbell Elliott: One departmental accountant, grade 3, at a salary of $3,060; one principal clerk, $1,920; three clerks, grade 3, at $1,380, making a total of $4,140; one clerk, grade 2, at $1,200. That makes a total of $10,320. I may say that these positions were abolished under orders in council authorizing staff control regulations, and the restoration of the positions was approved by the civil service commission and authorized by order in council dated September 16, 1935. Then there is one additional position of stenographer, grade 2, at $1,260. That is to provide for Miss G. Fournier, who is employed as clerk, grade 4, in the office of the former Postmaster General. The creation of this position was also authorized by .order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And by the civil service commission?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. Then
there is an allowance for private secretary, $600; that is the usual allowance. Those make a total of $36,240. From that take $5,678 for decreases. The difference between salaries of employees who left the service and the amount required for those who replace them was $2,400; then the current salary reduction is $3,278, making $5,678 off the $36,240, which leaves $30,562. That deals with the first part of that item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is entirely satisfactory as far as I am concerned. I thought that included also some employees in the outside service. There is only an increase of seven as far as that is concerned, and these seven have been explained; they were temporaries before under the order in council and they have been restored to their permanent position by approval of the civil service commission and by order in council. I think that is the position.


John Campbell Elliott: That is correct.


Mr. HEAPS:: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not this item.


John Campbell Elliott: 
Abraham Albert Heaps: No; I will not insist now,
but when we come to item 263 perhaps I shall request the Postmaster General to go into it a little more fully.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be
glad to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the item under
which the discussion to which the hon. member refers took place last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Under the item of contingencies we have clerical and other assistance. What is the nature of that, in addition to that provided for in the larger vote of $1,248,660? The vote I have mentioned seems to provide for all sorts of clerks and messengers and clerical assistants. What is this?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will notice that under contingencies there is a decrease of $16,800. That is made up of a decrease of $15,000 on printing and stationery and $1,800 on sundries. Last year it was $172,720 and this year it is estimated at $155,920.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What I was asking was an explanation of the first heading, clerical and other assistance $75,920, the same as last year. I would like to know where that expenditure comes in, what that includes in addition to the item of civil government.


John Campbell Elliott: That includes all the temporary employees, including the Christmas rush and everything of that nature.


Grote Stirling: In Ottawa, or all through the country?


John Campbell Elliott: Ottawa only.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Shall the item carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; the contingencies item we have not dealt with.


John Campbell Elliott: That is what we are dealing with now.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Printing and stationery, there is a reduction there.


John Campbell Elliott: In printing and stationery there is a reduction of $15,000.


Mr. MacNICOL:: A moment ago the
minister said something about temporary employees for the Ottawa Christmas rush. Will he tell us how those employees are selected?


John Campbell Elliott: The civil
service commission has an eligible list, and it is from that list first of all that the Christmas rush employees are selected, if my memory serves me aright.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I think that is not quite right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I mean for delivering mail on city routes. Is the minister referring to that?


John Campbell Elliott: No; there is a difference between those engaged for the Christmas rush and those engaged at headquarters for other services. The ordinary Christmas rush employees relate generally to the handling and delivery of mail. Then there are others for making out money orders, and other duties requiring a certain amount of help. The great part, however, is the delivery of extra mail at Christmas time.
Supply-Post Office


John Ritchie MacNicol: To what branch of the extra service is the minister referring?


John Campbell Elliott: The financial branch at headquarters.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister does not refer to the temporary employees who deliver mail on the routes?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Who is responsible for the appointment of temporary help at Christmas time?


John Campbell Elliott: The civil service commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that right?


Major James William Coldwell: That was not my impression.


John Campbell Elliott: Is the hon. member speaking about the headquarters staff, or is he speaking generally?


Major James William Coldwell: Generally.


John Campbell Elliott: That does not come under this item, although I would have no objection to discussing it. We are now dealing with the inside service. Those engaged for the Christmas rush are selected from the eligible list for the inside service. In the outside service they are selected partly from the eligible list and partly from the-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Patronage list.


John Campbell Elliott: Selections
made under the direction of the postmaster.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No one but the Postmaster General has anything to do with the selection of the extra help?


John Campbell Elliott: I assume he gets all the information he can from the various parties upon whom he feels he can rely.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He always gets it from reliable sources.


John Campbell Elliott: He gets the best staff he can. There seems to be an impression that help for the Christmas rush is a position which should be given to a person not able to do anything else.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except vote.


John Campbell Elliott: That is not
the case.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Providing he belongs to the political party in power, Mr. Minister.


John Campbell Elliott: They are paid pretty good wages for the hours they work. They are required to work long hours and to work diligently. It is necessary that they be able-bodied young men.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not ask the question out of idle curiosity. Last Christmas season a number of men who had been employed alleged that they were not reemployed, but that an entirely new group of men had been taken on. It looked to me as though there might have been some political patronage lurking in the background.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the minister tell the committee the number of extra help employed this Christmas as compared with the year before?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think some hon. members are confusing this item with another one. This one, I believe, refers only to head office and has not anything to do with employment outside of Ottawa. It has to do with a number of employees brought in to give a hand because of a rush of business, and because of the terrific strain upon head office officials during the Christmas season. It is to provide suitable employment for those who, if they did not receive it, would be greatly aggrieved. The eligible list, so-called, is a list held by the civil service commission of those who are willing to take a job in the public service, if they get a chance. It is from that list that these people are drawn. There is no doubt that this does not apply to other than Ottawa. The item for contingencies touches only Ottawa?


John Campbell Elliott: That is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nobody else?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
John Campbell Elliott: I am told that
is for travelling expenses of head office officials.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


John Campbell Elliott: During the whole year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are they travelling all the time, or do they work at head office?


John Campbell Elliott: They are just travelling while they are on the road.

Supply-Post Office


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is only fair to say that the regulations under which these men travel have been approved by successive governments. It provides that if they have free transportation they shall not receive payment. Some of the higher officials have free transportation. They receive so much a day, or they have to produce vouchers. In every sense the expenditures are regulated and in the end they are audited by the auditor general before they can possibly be paid out.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is it, in order that there may be no misunderstanding.


Jean-François Pouliot: One of my colleagues has referred me to pages 92 and 93 of the estimates. Is that correct?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is a most interesting department. I have received numerous letters from my constituents respecting changes of post offices and changes in regard to mail contracts.	,


John Campbell Elliott: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but I must tell
him that mail contracts do not come under this item.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is a connection
between the inside and outside services. Every order the outside service receives comes from the inside service at Ottawa. Those two items should be studied together. For instance, a postmaster may give unsatisfactory service. In that event I would write the secretary, the deputy minister or the minister and make my complaint. In these particulars we have indicated the salaries of these people. If no action is taken I wonder who would be to blame? Would it be the minister, his deputy, the acting deputy minister, or some other official of the department? If a postmaster gives unsatisfactory service or is too bold I do not hold him responsible; I hold the minister, the deputy, the acting deputy or some official at Ottawa responsible. We have to consider from what point orders come.
I have directed to one of those officials a very serious complaint. Two letters had been opened, and had been sent to Mr. Green. Two months ago they were sent to the inside service at Ottawa. The first letter was sent two months ago and the second letter about two weeks after. I received acknowledgment of the fact that the letters had been received. No action has been taken, but a week or two ago I received a letter from the minister saying that he had the matter under advisement.
There is a nigger in the wood-pile. It is not the nigger in the wood-pile who opens the letter, but it is the nigger in the wood-pile who prevents the one who opens the letter from being fired. This procedure is against regulation. It is the only case I have brought to the attention of the Post Office Department since the elections, and in this instance I made the complaint and asked that a postmaster be fired because presumably two letters had been opened by him.
An investigation has been carried on at Quebec or Ottawa, I do not know where, but I do know that I have received no satisfactory answer yet. Now here is a puzzle, Mr. Chairman. When the inside service here is responsible for allowing a postmaster to open two letters against the law of this country, how many letters can a postmaster open in over two months? That is a nice puzzle. In the meantime the public suffers, and it suffers not so much because the postmaster opened letters at a distant point from Ottawa, but because there is no sanction here. This is not a question of political partisanship at all; it is a question of fairness.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That offence is covered
by the criminal code, under the Post Office Act.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. It is most unfair.
I do not ask for any prosecution against that man. I would have been satisfied in having him fired and replaced by another man for whose appointment there was a very large petition. It did not reach the outside service; it did not reach me; I do not know what is going on. The Post Office Department is a chamber of mysteries. I do not know what happens there, but it seems that everybody in that department is a frozen asset. It took me a long time to say that, but now the country must know what is going on, and it is impossible to get a satisfactory answer from the Post Office Department right now. Who is responsible for that state of affairs? Is it any one of the gentlemen whose salaries are covered by this page and a half in the estimates? I do not know, but this state of affairs cannot continue. Something must be done. I waited patiently for a very long time. I said, I will wait for better times, but better times have not come yet. Will they come in the future? I do not know. I shall have much to say about political partisanship in the future, but just now I wonder what is wrong here. Is there no grease in the wheels and axles? I have no oil can to lubricate them. I do not know what is wrong, but I would
Supply-Post Office

like to have a satisfactory answer from the minister, and to know why that postmaster who presumably has opened two letters is Still in office enjoying the benefits of the postmastership, and why the member of parliament for Temiscouata has not received a satisfactory reply to his letter of over a month and a half ago.


John Campbell Elliott: I did not
want to interrupt my hon. friend after he had started, but it would seem that the matter has not been attended to with any great dispatch. There is no doubt about that, and I must apologize to the member for Temiscouata, who is always so courteous, if his letter has not been answered. Really I had forgotten that I had received a letter from him that had not been answered. I assume his letter was acknowledged when I received it, and that I directed an investigation to take place. The assistant deputy tells me that a report on this matter came in to-day, and a copy of it is now on its way to my hon. friend. Perhaps when I see it and hear what has taken place I will be able to give some further explanation of why it has not been possible for me to send the report sooner.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. member for his explanation, but I am very much surprised at the telepathy that exists. The report has come in to-night, and I am to receive a copy of it to-night. But I am here. Why does not the minister read the answer to the committee now in order that the members may see that my complaint was fully justified? It is not a matter of being unpleasant to my friend the Postmaster General, but here we are, members of the House of Commons, and we take responsibility for what we say. This is a most serious matter. It is not a matter of making apologies. It is a matter of going straight, of going forward, of seeing that- the laws of the land shall be kept. That is as I understand it. It is not a matter of patting one on the shoulder. No, sir, it is a matter of managing a department so that everyone is treated squarely, and when a postmaster or anyone else commits an offence or does not abide by the regulations that he has to follow, of seeing that punishment comes.
I do not ask for the head of anyone, but I want everyone in my constituency to receive the letters which are addressed to them without being opened by any postmaster.
I will say more. If the postmaster in question-this was not the case-had been appointed on the recommendation of the member for Temiscouata himself, and had done a thing like that, I would have been the first

to ask the Postmaster General to discharge him at once. There should be no favouritism when a thing of that kind occurs; it is far too serious. How can one do business if one's letters are to be opened by a postmaster.
I accept the apology of the Postmaster General. When offering his apologies he did what he had to do, but it would have been much better for him if he had made no apology, if he had had no reason to make an apology. Sir, in what times do we live 1 I do not want to be hard on my hon. friend the Postmaster General, but because of the frozen assets that exist in his department, I have hundreds of letters with regard to post office matters, mail contracts and postmasters, which have been unanswered1. Why? I knew very well that I would receive no satisfactory reply and I told my people: Do not expect a satisfactory reply until such time as matters are adjusted. When anything of that kind occurs there is only one thing to do, and that is to bring the matter to the attention of the minister in charge. Then the minister should have an investigation made at the earliest possible opportunity, and then he should do the same as the League of Nations does-apply sanctions. This is a case when sanctions should be applied forthwith.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not military sanctions.


Jean-François Pouliot: No. Sanctions for peace,
order and good government. The minister has offered his apologies. That is very nice. It is the same as a confession of misjudgment. But I do not know who is responsible for the delay. I have no right to impute blame to anyone; I am too fair for that. Nevertheless there is a nigger in the wood-pile. Who is he? What is his name?


An hon. MEMBER:: Put him out.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hear hon. members say, Put him out. That is right, but how can we put him out without knowing who he is. It seems to amuse hon. gentlemen, but that is the situation. Who is the nigger? There is one page and a half in the estimates dealing with salaries paid to employees of the Post Office Department. These pages are printed in black on white, so who is the black one? Who is the black sheep? Will the minister be kind enough to tell me who is responsible for this matter being held up for such a long time? Why is it that on this day, March 23,
I have learned only ten minutes ago that a reply is in my box down in the post office.


John Campbell Elliott: No; it has not reached me yet.

Supply-Post Office


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend just said that it was on the way to me, and it has not yet reached him. The Post Office Department seems to be a chamber of mysteries. It would provide fine material for a detective novel.
Let us be serious. I have every sympathy for the Postmaster General and he knows this is the first time I have raised my voice in connection with what has been going on in his department since the election. I do not complain very often. I took my time and I waited to give other hon. members an opportunity to settle their cases. But nothing has been done and I have waited a long time. It is pitiful to have to write to constituents who are asking what action has been taken:
Dear Sir:
I regret very much to tell you that no action has been taken because it would appear that the Postmaster General is unwilling to take any. Therefore, I cannot give you a definite answer. Perhaps things will be easier in the near or distant future, but at present I do not know.
There is nothing more unsatisfactory than to say, "I do not know." No one seems to know about this matter; it is a complete mystery. I have a very high regard for the officials of this department. They are able men with a high sense of duty. The same can be said of the Department of Labour. Some of the officials in that department appeared to be incompetent last year, but that was because the minister was preventing them from showing their real ability. With a new minister at the head of the department the situation is entirely different. There are men in the Post Office Department who were there when the Hon. Mr. Murphy was Postmaster General; they were there under the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot); they were there under the Hon. Mr. Sauve. They seem to be frozen assets and I do not know that I blame them for that as they work in a frigid atmosphere. There is something wrong in the department. I have the highest regard for these officials and I think they should be left free to do their duty. This is entirely different from a question of political partisanship; it concerns administration and management. Why should we not receive more satisfactory treatment? I cannot understand it, and no one can understand it. Will the minister kindly tell the committee who is responsible for holding up this matter for such a long time?


John Campbell Elliott: I can speak for only a few moments. I may say to my
hon. friend that his mention of this matter was the first I learned of it since I received his letter some time ago. If he wrote me that letter two months ago and he has not received a reply, I really cannot tell him now why a reply has not been sent. I want to say to him that he has been more considerate of my time than other hon. gentlemen who have had similar matters to bring before the department; they generally bring them up at least once every two weeks. It is not that I have not been writing letters because I spend a good deal of my time answering various people. I have not answered my hon. friend because I have not had the report. I am sure he will be satisfied when I show him the report and give him the explanation. Perhaps matters might have been checked up a little more, but apparently this has not been attended to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it that the postmaster is found guilty?


John Campbell Elliott: I am not going to pass judgment on anyone until I see the report. When judgment is passed I hope it will be satisfactory to everyone concerned.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 24, 1936