1936-05-26

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher) presented the third and final report of 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, as follows:-
Your committee held twenty-five meetings and heard thirty-seven witnesses, including three members of parliament, and after careful consideration of the evidence presented not only before this committee, but also before the 1932 and 1934 committees, we desire to endorse the conclusion reached in 1934, viz., that:
"It has been made evident to your committee that the establishing of national broadcasting in Canada presents many difficulties, for the
correction of which time, experience and large expenditures of public money will be necessary."
1.	It has been amply demonstrated that a commission of three cannot be moulded into a unit that can formulate and execute policies successfully. Evidence adduced before this committee has made it apparent that under the existing organization there has been lack of coordination in dealing with some major questions.
(a) After carefully reviewing the administration of radio broadcasting we have reached the conclusion that recommendation number one of the 1934 committee, viz.:-
"That in the opinion of your committee radio broadcasting could be best conducted by a general manager"
is justified in all respects, and your committee hereby endorses and repeats this recommendation.
2.	We recommend that the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act of 1932 be repealed and that a new act be substituted therefor, which will place the direction of broadcasting in the hands of a corporation with an honorary board of nine governors chosen to give representation to all parts of Canada, this board to operate through a general manager and an assistant general manager, who will be responsible to the board for the conduct of all business of the corporation.
Members of the honorary board of governors should be men of broad outlook, having a knowledge of the tastes and the interests of the listening public and who can make a definite contribution to the solution of the problem before the corporation.
The general manager should be appointed by the governor in council, upon the recommendation of the board of governors, and should be an executive of the widest experience in the field of radio broadcasting.
3.	We recommend that the corporation be given substantially the powers now enjoyed by the British Broadcasting Corporation (see appendix attached), and, in addition, that it be given exclusive control over:-
(i)	the character of all programs, political and otherwise, broadcast by private stations, and the advertising content thereof:
(ii)	all wire line networks used for carrying broadcast programs.
4.	Your committee is of the opinion that the corporation should enjoy the fullest possible freedom, in so far as its internal activities are concerned, including full authority to engage, dismiss and control its employees and fix their remuneration.
5.	Your committee endorses the recommendation of the Aird commission in regard to the technical control of stations and reaffirms the views of that commission as set out in page 11 of their report, viz.:-
" Control
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries under the Radiotelegraph Act is the licensing authority for all classes of radio stations, which includes radio broadcasting stations and receiving sets, direct control over such technical questions as wavelengths, power of stations and the collection of licence fees should we consider, remain with this authority. In order to promote good reception conditions, it is most desirable that the radio activities of other departments of the government should conform
[Stage Direction]
Radio Commission-Final Report
to the regulations and be subject to the authority of the Radiotelegraph Act. We are also of the opinion that the radio branch of the marine department should continue to carry on the service to broadcast listeners, which includes the suppression of inductive interference."
Certain of the technical duties now carried out by the department in regard to the radiotelegraph and radiotelephone stations in the dominion appear to be duplicated by the commission in the case of broadcasting stations and the preponderance of evidence presented before your committee was strongly in favour of the handling of all this work by the department.
6.	We regard it as a fundamental requirement that complete cooperation be established and maintained at all times between the minister and the corporation, and that the minister before taking any action towards the authorizing of any new private stations, changing the power of such stations, assigning wavelengths and other correlated questions, shall first consult with and obtain the recommendation of the corporation to the end that if and when it is decided to extend the national system, the location and organization of private stations will be such as to permit of the efficient absorption of any or all of them into the national system.
7.	We reaffirm the principle of complete nationalization of radio broadcasting in Canada. Rending the accomplishment of this, radio listeners will continue to be dependent on private stations for much of their entertainment, and your committee is of the opinion that the fullest cooperation should be maintained between the corporation and the private stations.
8.	We desire to reaffirm the principle set out in the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act of 1932 that in detennining the compensation to be paid for the taking over of any private stations, no allowance shall be made for the value of the licence terminated by the taking over of such station, and that no person shall be deemed to have any proprietary right in any channel allotted, and that no person shall be entitled to any compensation by reason of the cancellation of the allotment of a channel or change in a channel.
9.	Your committee recommends that the corporation immediately consider ways and means of extending national coverage, either by linking additional existing private stations to the corporation's network or by the establishment of new stations.
10.	In order to provide for the establishment of new stations from time to time to give further coverage, it is recommended that the corporation be authorized to borrow from the government sums not exceeding a total of $500,000 under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the governor in council.
The interest and amortization charges on such loans as may be granted shall be a first charge on the revenue of the corporation.
11.	Your committee recommends that power be given to the minister of marine to control the use of electrical apparatus, machinery, or any device which cause local interference with radio reception.
12.	Your committee finds that during the last election there was serious abuse of broadcasting for political purposes and that lack of a proper control by the commission was apparent. The most glaring instance brought before the committee relates to the "Mr. Sage" broadcasts, in which offensive personal references were frequent and to which no proper or adequate
[Mr. Beaubien.j
political sponsorship was given. Some of these offensive broadcasts originated in the Toronto studios of the radio commission.
We also find that credit was issued to political parties in direct violation of the rules of the commission, which rules prescribe that all political broadcasts must be paid for in advance. Generally speaking from the evidence presented before your committee we are forced to the conclusion that there was a loose administration of commission affairs.
Your committee recommends that the following points be incorporated in the new legislation:
(i)	That dramatized political broadcasts be prohibited.
(ii)	That full sponsorship of all political broadcasts be required.
(iii)	That the limitation and distribution of time for political broadcasts be under the complete control of the corporation, whose duty it shall be to assign time on an equitable basis between all parties and rival candidates.
(iv)	That no political broadcasts be allowed on an election day or during two days immediately preceding same.
13.	Your committee recommends that, as soon as it becomes possibles, to review, readjust or amend the contracts for wire line networks, consideration be given to the inclusion in such networks of the telephone line systems, particularly those owned by provincial governments of the prairie provinces.
14.	Your committee recommends that, in the matter of news broadcasts, the closest possible cooperation should maintain between the broadcasting corporation and the Canadian press.
15.	Your committee recommends that legislation be introduced in parliament at this session to give effect to these recommendations.
A copy of the minutes of proceedings and minutes of evidence adduced before your committee, together with exhibits and papers relative thereto, are herewith submitted with the report, for the information of the house.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Appendix to Report
Synopsis of Powers of the British Broadcasting Corporation
(As set out in paragraph 3 of their charter of incorporation)
(a)	To carry on broadcasting service.
(b)	To acquire any undertaking, stations, plant, etc., for carrying on the corporation's work.
(c)	To establish and maintain stations.
(d)	To publish papers, books, magazines, etc.
(e)	To collect news.
(f)	To acquire copyrights in literary, musical and artistic works, gramophone records, etc.
(g)	To purchase and acquire patent rights.
(h)	To enter into arrangements with the government or other authorities subject to certain limitations.
(i)	To establish and support pension schemes for employees.
(j)	To purchase and lease real and personal property.
(k)	To invest corporation money not immediately required.
(l)	To borrow money.
(m)	To sell or lease property.
(n)	To do such other things as may be conducive to the objects of the corporation.

C.N.R.-Retirement oj Trustees

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McPhee.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to inform the house that His Majesty the King has graciously accepted the invitation of His Majesty's government in Canada to unveil the Canadian war memorial at Vimy Ridge on July 26. I have also pleasure in stating that on the same occasion Canada will be honoured toy the presence of the President of the French republic.



CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. WILTON (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I would appreciate the indulgence of the house in order to make a brief statement in reference to a newspaper report recently published to the effect that a member of the United States congress has asked for the appointment of a commission to consider the advisability of granting Canada the privilege of becoming a part of that country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert Earl Wilton: Is that in order?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.



SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, at the last sitting of the house the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) asked whether the government was taking any action in connection with the resolution regarding small .property holders moved by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Deslauriers) and passed by the house on February 27. In reply may I say that it was at that time and still is the opinion of the government that the question of granting relief or assistance to small property holders is primarily a municipal one. In the preparation of the budget and other government policies due consideration is being given to this class of Canadian citizens.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Howe) lay on the table of the house the correspondence between his or any department of the government and the trustees of the Canadian National Railways relative to the retirement of the trustees?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Railways):: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to look at the very few letters that were interchanged on this subject and they are all marked personal and confidential. They are almost wholly from the trustees and very few from the Minister of Railways.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the minister lay
on the table any that are not marked confidential?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are none not marked
confidential.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister said "nearly all."


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said they were nearly all
from the trustees.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understood him to
say they were nearly all marked confidential.
On the order being called:
House again in committe on Bill No. 17, an act respecting the national harbours board -The Minister of Marine.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter
purely of the privileges of this house, can there be any such document as a letter marked personal dealing with a public question such as the retirement of trustees? I think there cannot. The view taken by the Prime Minister on one occasion with respect to a matter that came up at that time seemed to me to be sound, that marking a letter personal cannot make it personal if it is a communication touching a matter of public business, such, for instance, as the retirement of trustees. The matter is too serious to be disposed of in this way. Perhaps the Prime Minister might look into it, and I will do the same.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-oouata):	Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of
order. The right hon. gentleman is out of order in speaking to the matter at this time after the house had disposed of the question raised on the orders of the day and had proceeded to an entirely different matter.

Customs Tariff



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Could we not defer until later in
the day consideration of the harbour board bill?
Mr. HOWE1: Just as my hon. friend likes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not understand it was
coming up, when I looked at the statement of the Prime Minister at the adjournment on Friday evening. I have no objection to the bill coming up later in the day, but there are one or two researches I should like to make before it does come up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon.
friend that I understood it was not likely there would be much discussion on the bill at this stage and that he was prepared to proceed at any time. It will however be wholly agreeable to proceed with the bill after the dinner recess instead of at the present time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: When the bill came up the other day and I said that we were willing to take it up, I then had in mind a note I had received from the Minister of Railways from which I understood the government would accept the amendment which I proposed, or accept it with some slight changes, and I did not on that occasion bring my notes with me. I have been out of town in the meantime, and I should like to gather my notes together in order to discuss certain phases of the amendment which I moved.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Customs tariff-462. Philosophical, photographic, mathematical and optical instruments, n.o.p.; speedometers, cyclometers and pedometers, n.o.p.; complete parts of all the foreging:	British preferential tariff, 15 per
cent; intermedite tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Mr. DUNNING:: We are just adding n.o.p. Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-462a. Photographic cameras and equipment for use by professional photographers and commercial photo-finishers in their own business, as follows:

Cameras for professional purposes, for making negatives 4J inches by 6J inches and larger, and the following accessories for use with such cameras:	ienses. shutters, exposure
meters, range finders, film and plate holders, lens hoods, lens boards, ground glass carriages, reducing backs, reversible adapter backs,

lantern slide attachments, film sheaths, combination paper and plate holders, kits, carrying eases, camera stands, camera tripods, camera tripod tops, vignetters, diffusion discs, diffusion disc holders, colour filters, colour filter holders, polarizing screens, polarizing screen holders and backgrounds.
Printers, enlargers, heaters, dryers, mounting presses, print washers, automatic film processers, printing frames and tanks for developing, fixing and washing: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, on this
item, as on some others, the British preferential tariff has been decreased, and that is why I take this opportunity to give notice that I withdraw an order of the house, No. 43 on the order paper, being a motion in my name with regard to the British preferential tariff. Upon this item, sir, we may discuss the Canadian-British tariff and also trade at large. I shall try to be as brief as possible, but I wish to give a short review of what has happened in trade during the last five years.
On August 1, 1930, the total number of items in the customs tariff was 1,100, and on June 5, 1935, the number was 1,280. The first thing the late government did at the special session of 1930 was to increase the tariff, and according to Hansard of September 8, 1930, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is quoted as follows, at page 4:
The necessity for dealing with exceptional economic conditions with the resultant unemployment has induced me to summon you at an earlier date than would otherwise be necessary. Measures will be submitted for your consideration, including amendments to the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff, *which it is anticipated will do much to meet the unusual conditions which now prevail.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, high tariff was used as a cure for unemployment. At that session, 152 items of the tariff were increased and 11 decreased by parliament, and after those changes had been made the then Prime Minister was ready to go to England for the economic conference, and there was to be no more unemployment in this country. At the economic conference he spoke in his own way and told the British people what was the aim of his government. I find his-speech in the official report of the imperial conference of 1930, starting on the first page of the annex. He spoke as follows:
The Conservative party of Canada believes in, and employs, the principle of protection of the home producer of agricultural and fabricated products from harmful interference by world competitors. But it is not part of our policy to exclude from our markets foreign goods, so long as their importation does not threaten a reduction in the high standard of'

Customs Tariff
living which our citizens enjoy. On the other hand, it is our declared policy to provide for the consumer a cheap market, by stimulating the growth of competing domestic industries to that point of development where they will be able, in fair competition with others beyond our dominion, to offer to the Canadian public products of like quality and at prices comparable to those prevailing in the larger markets of other countries.
And again, he said:
I offer to the mother country, and to all the other parts of empire, a preference in the Canadian market in exchange for a like preference in theirs, based upon the addition of a ten per centum increase in prevailing general tariffs, or upon tariffs yet to be created. In the universal acceptance of this offer, and in like proposals and acceptances by all the other parts of empire, we attain to the ideal of empire preference.
I do not think it is necessary to say anything more about it, since the matter was commented upon by my leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who said at the time that it was absurd to ask the British countries to raise a wall of high tariffs against all other countries. Naturally such an absurd offer was declined by Great Britain and the other British possessions.
During the session of 1931, the government, then under the leadership of the present leader of the opposition, increased the tariff on 128 items by legislation and on two by order in council, and decreased the rates in respect of 55 items. These changes were not very successful; it was found that Canada could not live alone, so then it was decided to call an imperial economic conference to be held in Ottawa. Opening this conference as chairman, the right hon. gentleman, among many other banalities, said:
We have a common purpose. We have a supreme desire to achieve it. And there can be no group of countries in the wide world so capable of united action as are the countries which comprise the empire.
Therefore we are equipped and ready for the task. It would be folly to pretend it is not a great one. It would not be British to turn aside because it is. Great though it may be, grave as are the difficulties, we cannot hesitate.
That was said in a very firm tone. He continued :
We are bound in loyalty and self interest to go forward, knowing as we must that our success means the beginning of a new and greater prosperity for ourselves, the empire, and the world.
That was a great speech. The idea was to bring all British countries together and have new agreements passed. Some agreements were passed after the conference of 1932. In that year 150 items in the tariff were increased; one item was increased by order in council, and 144 items were decreased by parliament. These 12739-1901
increases were mostly in accordance with the agreements signed by the different countries of the British empire. It will be remembered that Mr. Baldwin postponed his departure in order to sign something. This has been said already in the house and it must not be forgotten that on the day he was to leave nothing was ready. The papers said that the then Prime Minister shed tears because no papers had been signed. Mr. Baldwin waited one day more and finally signed some papers which had been carefully prepared by the members of the staff which had accompanied him. Those papers included the agreement which has been incorporated in our statute books.
This was a matter of give and take; we could not ship Canadian goods to Great Britain without taking British goods in return. I should like to direct the attention of the committee to page 2704 of Hansard of May 1, 1934. Hon. members will find there a letter from a Mr. English, Canadian trade commissioner, dated March 6, 1934, stating that the high commissioner did not think much of British exports to Canada. That was one of the mistakes made by the previous government. As the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Rhodes said last year, the first mistake was not to take advice or to obtain the necessary information before increasing the tariff. I Should like to quote from page 3319 of Hansard of June 5, 1935:
Mr. Pouliot: I was told this afternoon that the government secured information from the tarin board in regard to the increases and decreases m duty that have taken place since 1J30, but as the announcement of the appointment of the personnel of the board was not made in this house until February, 1933, may I ask the Minister of Finance who advised the government in regard to the increases and decreases in the tariff that took place from August 1, 1930, until the tariff board was appointed in February, 1933?
Mr. Rhodes:	The government must take
lull responsibility for any changes it initiates, and I have no hesitation in saying that the government is quite prepared to undertake that responsibility.
The government took the responsibility, but it could give no compensation for the damages suffered. The letter from Mr. English shows that the trade was to be onesided, according to the government of the day; that we were to ship Canadian goods to England but we were not to accept British goods in return. The letter speaks for itself. Letters w'ere written by the then Prime Minister, copies of which are on file in returns, to the effect that all the members of the Department of Trade and Commerce located
Customs Tariff

in Great Britain were to be under the control of Mr. Howard Ferguson, the Canadian high mmmissioner.
To sum up. First of all, the previous government thought that Canada was self-supporting, that imports were not necessary, that Canada could be let alone. This was regarded by all the other nations of the world as absurd, and the government of the day tried to bring about some interimperial trade, neglecting completely the foreign trade of Canada. This also was found to be a mistake, and then what was done? They tried to secure better trade with all the other nations, and the then Prime Minister went to the world conference in London, where he met the representatives of sixty-three or sixty-four other states. That conference was unsuccessful. The right hon. gentleman was said to have saved the conference, but it died a natural death two or three days afterwards. It was a great success-the success of high tariffs. He used high tariffs as a remedy for unemployment, and at the same time we saw unemployment increasing by leaps and bounds in proportion to the increase in the tariff.
But there is something else. In 1934 the right hon. gentleman who is now leader of the opposition sent a telegram to Mr. Litvinoff, the Russian minister, inviting him to speak at the League of Nations at Geneva. But he alone did not send this telegram; it was a joint telegram signed by himself, Mr. Batoloff, Mr. Manuel Rivas-Vicuna, and many others.
Previously the government had passed-on February 27, 1931-an order in council which it is desirable-


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that we are on item 462a, which has to do with photographic cameras and equipment for use by professional photographers and commercial finishers in their own business. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the item under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is true, Mr. Chairman; but the different tariffs under this item will all be free when this schedule becomes effective. I am not however discussing so much the equipment for use by professional photographers as I am the abolition of the various rates of duty. That is the point, and my remarks will be very brief-I shall be through in five minutes. I have discussed the importance of lower tariffs for the benefit of this country, whether in connection with this item or any other, though I take advantage of the present item to make these few remarks. Not only that; this particular item is a part of the

whole customs tariff and one can try to show the effect of one part in relation to the whole.
On January 30, 1935, the following question was put to the government:
Did the Canadian delegation officially meet,
' in Geneva in September, 1934, Mr. Maxim Litvinoff, People's Commissary for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R.?
The member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), then Prime Minister, answered, no. Another question was put:
If so, did the Canadian delegation make any agreements with the Russian delegation, and, if it did, what are these agreements, particularly with regard to exportation of wheat and lumber to Great Britain?
The answer was also, no, according to unrevised Hansard of January 30, 1935. Therefore, after the right hon. gentleman, with the others, had invited Mr. Litvinoff to Geneva, he did not discuss with him such important matters as the wheat and lumber exports of Russia to the other countries of the world, which seems most extraordinary.
To show you, sir, that the way in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) now deals with the tariff is much more sensible than the way the late government did, I will quote from an order in council which was passed on Friday, February 27, 1931:
Whereas it is provided by section 2, chapter 3, of the 21 George Y (second session)-"An act to amend the Customs Tariff"-that the governor in council may from time to time prohibit the	importation	into	Canada	of	any	goodsexported directly or indirectly from any country not a contracting party to the Treaty of Versailles, and that any order prohibiting the	importation	into	Canada	of	any	goods
from any such country shall be published in the next following issue of the Canada Gazette;
And whereas the Minister of National Revenue reports that it has been established to his satisfaction that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not a contracting party to the Treaty of Versailles aforesaid;
And whereas the Minister of National Revenue further reports that, haying regard to the documentary and other evidence that has been received by the various departments of the public service in Canada, it is in the public interest that the importation into Canada from the aforesaid Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of coal, wood pulp, pulp-wood, lumber and timber of all kinds, asbestos and furs, should be prohibited; . . .
There is a conclusion in accordance with the foregoing. Well, it is pretty hard to accept the motive therein indicated. The fact that Russia was not one of the nations that signed the treaty of Versailles was not a reason for prohibiting the importation of Russian goods into Canada, because there were thirty-four other nations that did not sign that treaty. It was an insult and a defiance to them to say that Russian goods were forbidden entry into Canada because

Russia had not signed the treaty. It shows the childish way in which the government of that day was acting.
To conclude, sir. I am very much surprised at the importance which is attached to the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition. Since the beginning of the session he has not made a single constructive remark -not a single one. He reminds me of the fellow who drives his coach into the ditch. The present leader of the opposition drove the state coach into the ditch and last year used some small twine-the social legislation- to try to pull it out. The people have given to the present government a good rope for the purpose, but the coach is still there because the right hon. gentleman is in it and keeps on applying the brakes.


Herbert Earl Wilton: I rise to a point of order. I would ask whether the direct attempt to abuse a member of the house is consistent with the item under consideration, or whether it is in order for the committee to listen to that kind of language.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, sir, I have just one thing to say.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is that I regret very much having put the Minister of Finance in the same bag with the right hon. leader of the opposition. I remove the minister and I put in it instead the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Wilton), to enjoy himself with the right hon. leader of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any reason why the provisions of this item should not extend to other than professional users of cameras? The difficulty of enforcing it seems to me very great; that is, differentiating between the professional user requiring equipment for professional purposes, and the private owner.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was a very considerable examination, particularly on that phase of the matter, before the tariff board. It was on a reference, as my right hon. friend will probably recall; there was a consultation between the board and the administrative officials as to that phase of it, and apparently it has been found impossible to administer the item as at present worded. The size, for one thing, is important.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was thinking of the accessories. I realize that cameras can be dealt with.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Department of National Revenue, while acknowledging that it is not the easiest thing in the world, is pre-
Cusloms Tariff
pared to endeavour to administer it. At the same time the tariff board, after a thorough investigation of the whole matter, thought it a desirable reform to bring about, and seeing that the administrative department is willing to try, I am inclined to let them do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That always has been the trouble.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that was one of the principal reasons why the item was referred to the board.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory is that it was not thought desirable-if I may be perfectly frank about it-to put small cameras, that is the ordinary cameras of commerce, on the free list; but it was represented, I think, to the late government that it was highly desirable that professional photographers should be able to secure the large sized cameras without having to pay a duty, because they were not made in Canada. I do not know whether they are made here now or not, but certainly they were not then. The difficulty I see arises not with the cameras but with the accessories.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must say that when I saw the item in the form in which the tariff board had put it, I was surprised that the department would take the responsibility of thus dealing with accessories. With reference to cameras it is easy to know to whom they are consigned, but in small communities accessories are often sold by the professional photographer in the community to those who may require them, and I suppose these photographers would continue to do so, although it says, "cameras for professional purposes, for making negatives," and then, "accessories for use with such cameras." I have no doubt, as the minister says, the officials have given the matter every consideration, that they realize the difficulty, and will take steps to overcome it.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I just want to express
my agreement with the leader of the opposition. For the life of me I cannot see how customs officials or anyone else can distinguish between a tripod that is to be used with a camera for making negatives 4,| inches by 6i inches, and one that is to be used with a small camera, and so make one free of duty and the other dutiable.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course the criticism
of the hon. member (Mr. Donnelly) will apply
30S4
Customs Tariff

in connection with very many items of the tariff. It is frequently necessary for the department to rely upon a declaration with respect to the use of a particular article. If one refers to the verbatim transcript of the evidence taken by the board it becomes clear that none of the articles mentioned in this list is made in Canada. Even the accessories mentioned are not of a type manufactured in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that so with respect
;o all of them?


Charles Avery Dunning: I understand so, yes.
The Canadian manufacturers of the commodities mentioned in the application did not oppose the granting of this concession. What might, be called the opposing elements came to an agreement on the general principles involved. They went into conference and actually agreed on the items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that include everyone in the trade?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, well, I have nothing
further to say if that includes the small interests-t'he druggist, for instance, who sells the supplies.


Charles Avery Dunning: No-the manufacturers
of the articles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am inquiring whether
the consumer was consulted or not.


Charles Avery Dunning: The consumer in this
instance is the professional photographer. The professional photographer and the manufacturers of photographic supplies went into conference. I am free to say that I share somewhat the fear that the customs department may have difficulty with it. They are content, following a review of the evidence and the conclusions of the tariff board, to endeavour to administer the item, and we shall watch whether some change may be necessary as a result of experience. For the present we think this is a concession to the photographic industry that we can very well make in connection at any rate with that portion of their professional equipment which is not made in Canada.


Mr. STIRLING:: Under the previous items where did the material largely come from which is covered by this new wording?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Rochester.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, more largely from
the United States and Germany than anywhere else, although it was distributed over so many items of the tariff that it was difficult to trace with any accuracy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Eastman's, of course, are the great kodak people of the world. To some extent they are rivalled by Germans. I thought they had a small plant at Toronto.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not for manufacturing
professional size cameras; just for the smaller ones.


Mr. STEVENS:: In the schedules that we
have before us as they appear in the votes and proceedings the old rates are indicated in the three columns to the right, and there I find five items referred to. Am I correct in assuming that those items are repealed and are now incorporated in item 462a?


Charles Avery Dunning: No; the numbers of the old items, my hon. friend will note, are at the end. This is a case where previously the particular equipment in question was not separately classified for tariff purposes, but parts of it were contained within the items referred to by my hon. friend, and the effect of the item is to extract from the items so numbered the articles mentioned in this one. It has extracted a part from each of the ones mentioned.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I notice that items 288
and 427 are repealed.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.
M,r. STEVENS:	Well, they are, in this
resolution that precedes it. The whole item is repealed.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is an explanation
of that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The fact is that these
items are repealed. At the moment I am not asking for an explanation

I will give the minister an opportunity of making one. But the fact that they are repealed is, I think, established by the resolution which we adopted or which we are now in process of considering. It will be noticed that item 288, for instance, is here referred to; the item we are considering, namely 462a, deals with photographic cameras, equipment, and so forth, and as far as I can see there is no reference in it to earthenware and stoneware, etc. Item 288 covers "earthenware and stoneware, brown or coloured and Rockingham ware; 'C.C.' or cream-coloured ware, decorated, printed or sponged, and all earthenware, n.o.p." This item is repealed, yet we see it is referred to here as in part going into this item. I will cite one or two more. The next item 427, also repealed, reads as follows:
All machinery composed wholly or in part of iron or steel, n.o.p., and complete parts thereof.

Customs Tariff
Then we turn to item 446a, which is also referred to and which is repealed. That item reads:
Manufactures, articles or wares, of iron or steel or of which iron or steel or both are the component materials of chief value, n.o.p.
Then item 462, directly referring to this item, or the item preceding it, 'is also repealed.
Philosophical, photographic, mathematical and optical instruments ...
This is something that I think should be very carefully considered. We are here dealing with photographic instruments, yet we find three important items, covering machinery, earthenware, and so forth, repealed, and apparently indicated in the schedule as being now covered in this new composite item. I sometimes fear that the committee by its action in approving the repeal of an item may be doing something the importance of which it is not fully aware. That is why when we began the consideration of this schedule I suggested to the minister that we should have very full information on the items that are being, repealed and dealt with in this way. I know from past experience that sometimes when items in the tariff are brought together for better administration, into a supposedly composite item the result is a very important change in the tariff which perhaps passes without knowledge or full consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But here we have put in a new item, 288, for Rockingham ware.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What puzzles me is why it should be attached to this item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is one of those cases where the result of giving the kind of information which has been given in the committee-I think probably I started it in 1930 -is to confuse the mind of even as industrious an investigator as the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens). I congratulate him on the extent of his researches, but I have to inform him that he has not gone quite far enough. The items here dealt with under 462a were formerly dutiable under each of the items to which he referred, and which are shown in the sixth column in the schedules as they appear in the votes and proceedings, but dependent upon the kind of material involved and the special matters with which we are dealing. There are other items in the list of tariff amendments with which we are dealing which relate to the same items, and which bring about other changes. My hon. friend will see, if he traces it through a little further, that the repeal of an item is followed by a substitution of something which completely takes its place but in a divided form.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Preceded in this case by 288.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I know of no better way to do it, or in which I could show in a list forming part of the schedule the particular kind of complication which I am now endeavouring to explain. If I endeavoured to print it I am afraid it would take a volume-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not asking that.


Charles Avery Dunning: -because the explanation may differ on each item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-463.	Magic lanterns and
slides therefor, n.o.p.:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Just adding "n.o.p."


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-473. Plates for printing in two or more colours, including electrotypes, nickeltypes and all engravings on steel or other metal, for use exclusively in printing, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: Just adding "n.o.p." Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-473a. Printing plates of all kinds for periodical publications enjoying second class mailing privileges, and matrices, metal bases and copper shells therefor: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 7i per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is just a slight change in wording in this item. If members of the committee will follow the wording of the item as it appears in the votes and proceedings they will see it:
Printing plates of all kinds for periodical publications enjoying second class mailing privileges, the pages of which are regularly bound, wire stitched or otherwise fastened together, and matrices, metal bases and copper shells therefor, but not to include printing plates and other articles covered by tariff item 475.
The intent is to clarify for administrative purposes the reduction here provided for, and to make it clear, as it was formerly in the tariff, that it applies to wire stitched or bound publications.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I so move.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose this is another of the items about which the open letter is addressed to myself. This excludes the daily newspapers?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.
Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or any other publication that is not bound. As it stood, any periodical enjoying second class mailing privileges, which includes of course weekly newspapers and trade journals not bound or not issued periodically, would come within the provision. As it stands now there is a limitation to wire stitched or bound publications. The rate is now 7$ per cent as distinguished from the old rate of 15 per cent. As a matter of fact since the old rate was 20 per cent from the United States, it is a reduction from 20 to 7jt per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.	It is
according to the agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Affording by this method what they call "freer competition" for the Canadian magazine against its competing American brother. That is the effect at any rate.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Henry Herbert Stevens: May I crave the indulgence of the committee a moment further? I have been turning these items up. I do not do this to harass the minister, but his answer just now might leave the impression that I was frivolous in my observation-


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, not at all! I am
sorry if I conveyed that impression.


Henry Herbert Stevens: For instance I cannot
understand the repeal of item 622. I have sought to understand these items by the references to them in these lists. Item 622 refers to trunks, valises, hat boxes, carpet bags, tool bags, and baskets of all kinds. That item is repealed. But in the schedule with which we are now dealing it appears in conjunction with photographic cameras. I submit that I could not do otherwise than look at the item in conjunction with this new item in the new schedule, and for the life of me I cannot see the relation. The minister may be able to answer and say it appears somewhere else, but I looked up some of the leather items and I cannot locate it within these several hundred items.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no repeal of
item 622.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, it appears in that
form here. It is not in' the list of items dealt with in the schedule.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why does it appear here in the sixth column?


Charles Avery Dunning: Part of the new item was formerly under 622.
IMr. Dunning.]


Henry Herbert Stevens: Item 622 refers to trunks, valises, hat boxes and so on. Can anyone tell me what that has to do with photographic supplies?


Charles Avery Dunning: We will see what wre can do.


Grote Stirling: It has reference to kits and carrying cases, which are mentioned in the new item.


Charles Avery Dunning: The old item 622, which still remains in the tariff, is a container item, covering containers of all kinds such as trunks, valises, hat boxes, carpet bags, tool bags and baskets of all kinds. The item now under discussion contains these words:
...accessories for use with such cameras; lenses, shutters, exposure meters, range finders, film and plate holders, lens hoods, lens boards, ground glass carriages, reducing backs, reversible adapter backs, lantern slide attachments, film sheaths, combination paper and plate holders, kits, carrying cases,-
Formerly, these cases would have been dutiable under item 622, but it W'as not necessary to repeal item 622 to provide a separate classification for the articles in question. Item 622 was and still is an n.o.p. item.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-476a. Glassware and other scientific apparatus for laboratory work in public hospitals; chairs and tables for surgical operating purposes, and complete parts thereof; infant incubators and complete parts thereof; electro cardiographs and complete parts thereof, and sensitized film and paper for use therein; apparatus for sterilizing purposes, including bedpan washers and sterilizers but not including washing nor laundry machines; all for the use of any public hospital, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


Charles Avery Dunning: Item 476a has been in the tariff for many years, and in the present instance the rating is unchanged. However there are one or two changes in the wording. The existing provision for surgical operating tables has been widened to include surgical operating chairs for hospital use. Further, the item has been widened to include cardiographs and films therefor. Neither cardiographs nor films have previously been mentioned in the tariff. Cardiographs have been subject to free entry, under item 696, when for use in public hospitals, but the specially prepared film for use in the expensive equipment has been dutiable, as ordinary equipment, under item 187. Film of this kind is not made in Canada, and the item has been reworded to cover, as I have indicated, not only cardiograph machines but the film to be used in connection therewith. The

Customs Tariff
third amendment to the wording entails the inclusion of the words "infant incubators and complete parts thereof." These are extremely expensive pieces of modern hospital equipment, and often play a vital part in saving the lives of prematurely born children. Formerly they were ruled dutiable as electrical apparatus, n.o.p. They are now made free of duty under all tariffs, when for use in a public hospital. I believe that is a complete explanation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank the minister for his explanation. I had occasion to bring the matter to the attention of the department only recently, and I wished to be perfectly certain that the words would cover the cases to which the minister has so kindly referred. This is particularly true with respect to the chairs he mentioned, and the cardiograph films and machines.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-494b. Cork blocks, boards, planks, slabs, rods or tubes, produced from cork waste or from granulated or ground cork, when for use in Canadian manufactures: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: The rating is unchanged. The only change is to alter the wording of the item so as to include "rods or tubes, produced from cork waste or from granulated or ground cork" used in the manufacture of cork products.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-505. Sawn boards, planks and deals planed or dressed on one or both sides, when the edges thereof are joined or tongued and grooved, n.o.p.:	British preferential tariff, 174 per cent; intermediate tariff, 22 J per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Sir GEORGE PE RLE  Y@: Why is there a change in the wording of the item?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is in consequence of the inclusion of the next item, and possibly it would facilitate matters if we discussed items 505 and 505a together. They are really parts of the one whole. The only change in item 505 is the addition of the letters n.o.p. Item 505a is an entirely new item in the Canadian tariff schedule. Up to the present hardwood flooring, if jointed or tongued and grooved, has been dutiable under item 505 at 174, 224 and 25 per cent; finished in any other manner they were given exactly the same rates, but were placed under item 506. By virtue of the Canada-United States trade agreement all hardwood flooring imported from the United States, and therefore from any most favoured nation country, is now
dutiable at 20 per cent. For many years the hardwood flooring manufacturers in Canada have sought a classification for their product in the Canadian tariff schedule, their plea being that the value of their product, and its importance in relation to the total value of our woodworking production, warranted a classification by itself. Further they have contended that the absence of a classification has made it difficult to trace imports and to seoure reliable statistical data regarding trade. The present item, which has been framed to cover all hardwood flooring of beach, birch, maple .and oak, however manufactured, meets the requirements of the flooring industry for recognition of their product in the schedule. The rates shown are those at present existing under items 505 and 506, namely 174 per cent, 224 per cent and 25 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the 20 per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: The intermediate rate which remains at 224 Pe'r cent interferes in no way with the undertaking given the United States under the recent agreement to the effect that hardwood flooring imported from that country will be dutiable on importation into Canada at the rate of 20 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a preference of 24 per cent for their flooring.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where is the 20 per cent mentioned?


Charles Avery Dunning: In the Canada-United States treaty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It does not appear in the tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that mean that other countries also enjoy the 20 per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Any most favoured nation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then this item in the tariff would refer only to those countries which are not most favoured nation countries?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There would be very few of them producing hardwood flooring.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No country with the intermediate tariff would be producing it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Possibly Russia would.


Charles Avery Dunning: The manufacturers desired a classification of their product, and thanked us for it, as a matter of fact. May
Cmtoms Tariff

I point out that we must have a rate in the schedule, notwithstanding the fact that we have an agreement with the United States covering the item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was it a bound item?


Charles Avery Dunning: In the agreement it is a bound item for three years, but at the end of three years if we fall back on the intermediate tariff it should be 221 per cent, in the judgment of those who have studied the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I can see, at 221 per cent the item would not affect any country at all, because it is an intermediate tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: In a practical way that is correct.


Grote Stirling: Will the 20 per cent appear in the office consolidation and receive a number? How will the customs officers know about it?


Charles Avery Dunning: As a matter of information, the departmental officials advise me they are endeavouring to work out an office consolidation of the tariff which in the nature of things would involve five instead of three columns, brought about because of the necessity on the part of the public of knowing tariff rates under the French treaty, the United States treaty and others.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-505a. Hardwood flooring, tongued and/or grooved, or jointed viz.:- beech, birch, maple and oak: British preferential tariff, 171 per cent; intermediate tariff, 221 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-522.	Rovings, yarns and
warps wholly of cotton, not more advanced than singles, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 12J per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 22J per cent; and per pound: intermediate tariff, 31 cents; general tariff, 4 cents.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the tariff board report
on the item?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I would suggest that any discussion might be had on items 522 to 529a, because they are the subject of the tariff board report mentioned by the leader of the opposition, to which I made reference in the budget speech.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was a long hearing in w'hich representatives from Great Britain appeared before the board.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hearing stretched over two years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I knew it was more than a year, but I did not know it was quite that long. Am I right in assuming that the report of the board has been adopted in every particular in these several items we are now considering? If not, in what particulars has there been a change? And am I right in assuming that the reason for the change has been that the British preferential tariff is no longer on the basis of a specific rate?


Charles Avery Dunning: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-523. Woven fabrics, wholly of cotton, not bleached, mercerized nor coloured, n.o.p., and seamless cotton bags: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent and 31 cents per pound; general tariff, 25 per cent and 4 cents per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-523a. Woven fabrics, wholly of cotton, bleached or mercerized, not coloured, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff. 221 per cent and 31 cents per pound; general tariff, 271 per cent and 4 cents per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-523b. Woven fabrics, wholly of cotton, printed, dyed or coloured, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 22J per cent; intermediate tariff, 271 per cent and 31 cents per pound; general tariff, 321 per cent and 4 cents per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-529. Embroideries, lace, nets, nettings, bobinet, n.o.p., fringes .and tassels, wholly of cotton: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 271 per cent and 3| cents per pound; general tariff, 30 per cent and 4 cents per pound.
Item agreed to.

Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-529a.	Lace embroideries
wholly of cotton, not coloured, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of clothing in their own factories: British preferential tariff, 7i per cent; intermediate tariff, 12£ per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The specific duty on all
these items was reduced 25 per cent, I think, in 1935. I am not sure whether cottons were reduced 25 per cent or 33J per cent, but there was a reduction on them, and that was pending receipt of the report from the tariff board.


Charles Avery Dunning: They were reduced by
one-third.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pending receipt of report from the board, and the board took that fact into consideration, I fancy, when they recommended that the balance of the specific duty imposed against British goods be removed entirely. I have not had time to read the report of the board, because it only came in, as the minister remembers, about the time the budget was delivered.


Charles Avery Dunning: I received it only a very short time before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the language of one of the hon. gentleman's predecessors, the two seemed to synchronize.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I might be permitted to mention one point that arises there; my right hon. friend could possibly help me. The law respecting the tariff board requires the minister to lay on the table of the house, within, I think, fifteen days after receiving it, any report from the tariff board. I do not know what was the experience of my right hon. friend or of his finance minister, but there are many occasions, it seems to me, upon which it would be quite undesirable to lay such a report on the table of the house until the action of the government with respect to the report was made known to the house in the form of the budget itself. I can well imagine circumstances of very grave embarrassment, particularly with respect to hearings respecting the rights of other nations under treaties and things of that sort, if this requirement has to be rigidly observed. I do not say that it was a great embarrassment at this time-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think not.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should prefer to have had some of these reports available to myself earlier than they were available, but I was by law compelled, in advance of the budget, to lay the reports on the table of the house within fifteen days after receiving them. I
doubt very much the general advisability of that provision. I know, of course, it is desirable and the law intends that the information shall be made available to the house upon its receipt from the board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The real reason of it, as I think my hon. friend will see if he reads the debates of that time, was that it was believed, especially by those who then sat to the left of the Speaker, to be highly desirable that the public should have all the information possible with respect to these matters.


Charles Avery Dunning: I agree entirely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that the judgment of the board should be treated as a judgment of the court and should be known, as far as that might be possible, by everybody at the earliest possible moment. There is no provision in the Tariff Board Act, as I recall it, and I speak subject to correction, for the publication of the report if the house is not in session. There might, of course, be publication from the knowledge of the parties to the controversy that the court had thus decided their case, but so far as the minister is concerned the provision with respect to laying on the table within fifteen days applies only when the house is in session. The argument that was then used I found it difficult to answer, and I find it difficult to answer now. The argument, as I recall it, was this: that the report of the board should be laid on the table of the house as soon as possible after the opening of parliament in order that the house may be seized of all the circumstances connected with the adjudication. But the public has known it ever since the judgment was given, just as the public knows the result of, let us say, an appeal to the privy council. In that case it knows it on the morning the committee delivers its judgment, but the formal judgment, which is that of the king in council, does not come until after the report has been made by the judicial committee to the king, and has been approved by the king in council. What happens when a judgment of the tariff board is delivered, and the board suits its own convenience as to the study it gives to the matter, is that it then becomes a matter of public knowledge.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not under part I.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That refers to applications to the board initiated by the minister, but I am talking about cases where, as in this case, the parties made application to the
Customs Tariff

board. It will be recalled that in the textile case, for instance, they made application to the board. They applied first to the minister to refer the case to the board, but he did not do it of his own motion, and then the parties applied to the board through the minister. As the minister himself pointed out the other day, the finance minister has certain rights. He can decide whether or not he will refer any question at all to the board. In this instance, if my memory serves me, and I have not read the case recently, they applied to the minister to refer it to the board.


Charles Avery Dunning: And he did so under
part I.	*


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under part one, of
course, there is no public judgment delivered, but the report goes back to the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no trouble except with references other than under part I.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There would be no difficulty when the house was not in session, and the difficulty in this case, I take it, is that the minister did not have a longer time than fifteen days within which to consider the report before tabling it. That is a short way of putting the difficulty. I will look up the act, but my recollection of the discussions that took place in the house at the time is that if the report of the board to the minister was delivered while parliament was in session the minister was required to lay it on the table within fifteen days after that in order that the house might be seized of it, and the argument was that the house should become informed of the whole situation before the budget was delivered.
It is not incumbent upon the minister to follow the findings of the board at all. He can do as he pleases, as he pointed out the other day. But the argument was that the house should have the opportunity fully to acquaint itself with the report made to the minister in order that when the budget was delivered they might know to what extent his judgment was influenced by the finding of the board. I think that was the argument that was made, but the minister himself was not then in the house. His honoured colleague who sits to his left perhaps will inform him as to the attitude taken by his own friends at that particular time. I think the act meets this as far as it is possible to do so, having regard to all the circumstances.
The minister referred to another matter the other day,'the extent to which the private operations of business concerns should become

known to competitors. He stated that he had to meet this question in connection with one of these cases-I believe it was the gasoline inquiry. I think it is fair to say that in practice this board has carried out its work with a good deal of satisfaction to those who have had occasion to have recourse to it. It takes time to establish the smooth running of an institution such as this, but I believe in the main it has given very patient consideration to every case referred to it and to the applications made under part II of the act.


Charles Avery Dunning: I apologize for taking
up time, but this is a matter of some considerable importance. I made t'he reference I did to the fifteen days because of the fact that we are here by virtue of the Tariff Board Act grafting a new branch on to a very old institution, the institution of the budget in accordance with British plan and British tradition of what a budget should be. We all know how carefully guarded the budget is and must be if we are to avoid speculation on the part of the public, informed or uninformed. The traditional secrecy surrounding what is to be contained in the budget is, I take it, a matter of vital importance to our system.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ours is better than the
corresponding British one.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think it is. H one could visualize the gasoline report of the board being brought down in this house two or three weeks before the budget, one could also visualize the volume of speculation of an unhealthy kind which might take place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Forestalling, as they call
it in England.


Charles Avery Dunning: I believe we would be
into the American system of tariff making, that is unless it 'became known that the government was not likely to accept recommendations from the tariff board. In such a case the usefulness of the tariff board would be impaired. If it were known that the government was very likely to accept recommendations from the tariff board, if public confidence in that board had grown to such a point that in almost every case the government accepted its report, then the tabling of a report in advance of the budget would be tantamount to advertising in advance a change in the scale of taxation on the date the budget was to be brought down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the previous government adopted every recommendation made,

Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: I think probably they
did. I bring this forward not by way of creating a controversy or of announcing any proposal to change the law, but as a matte-r for consideration, arising out of my experience of the last few months, particularly in connection with the preparation of the budget. It is true there is a difference between the method of publicity followed under the present Tariff Board Act and the method of publicity followed in connection with the tariff advisory board, when the party to which I belong was previously in power. The method then followed was of maximum publicity in respect of the hearing and the evidence, but the judgments of the board were never made public. Advice was given by the board to the minister of finance of the day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In some cases it was not a matter of record.


Charles Avery Dunning: In some cases it was not a matter of record. I am not debating at the moment the relative merits of the different methods. It is obvious .that there is quite an essential difference with regard to the treatment of the report from the standpoint of publicity. I just want to leave this with the committee, as I believe the committee and the membership of the house generally is desirous of building up a more scientific approach to our settlement of tariff questions in this house. This matter can never be divorced from politics, as politics is of the essence. We hope to develop a system which will mean an informed public and particularly an informed membership of this house without impairing the necessity of careful protection against abuses which can so easily arise in connection with leaks or possible leaks with respect to the budget.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a distinct difference between a reference to the board by the minister without an application and a reference made in consequence of an application.


Charles Avery Dunning: Right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is also different when parties to trade agreements make applications to the board. It does seem to me that if the act is not sufficiently broad, we could deal by regulation with the difficulty to which the minister has directed attention. I shall look this up myself, but at the same time I desire to express the deep regret of all of us who sit on this side that when the act was introduced in the house the hon. gentleman was not a member. The words which he has used this afternoon were almost identical with
those used in the introduction of a measure which I regret to say met with such stalwart opposition from the hon. gentleman who sits to his left.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend will not let me be non-partisan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, delighted. Is there any question of French cotton lace under this item? This matter had not been finally determined at the time we left office.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have carefully observed all our trade agreement commitments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-532. Clothing, wearing apparel and articles made from woven fabrics, and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, composed wholly of cotton, n.o.p.; fabrics wholly of cotton, coated or impregnated, n.o.p.:	British preferential
tariff, 25 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent; and, per pound; intermediate tariff, li cents; general tariff, 4 cents.
Mr. HEAPS:: I assume this item deals with clothing. I have received requests from some of my Scotch friends in the city of Winnipeg for the reduction of the duty on Highland costumes. These people feel that an injustice is being done to the Scotch folk in this country because of the tariff on Highland costumes. I think it was the Minister of Finance who permitted bagpipes to come in free of duty in 1930, and my Scotch friends in Winnipeg feel that if bagpipes can come in free of duty, Highland costumes should also come in free of duty. Where these costumes are brought in for personal use only I think they should be given the same privilege as is given at present to the bagpipes.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend's concern for his Scottish constituents does him credit indeed, but his knowledge of Highland costumes is surely limited when he imagines that such costumes are made of cotton.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I did not say that.


Charles Avery Dunning: This item reads, "composed wholly of cotton."


Abraham Albert Heaps: Under what classification
would Highland costumes come?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am inclined to think they would come under the corresponding item in the woollen schedule, which is not before us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This does not touch the woollen schedule?
Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: No. I have a suggestion to make to my hon. friend. The race to which he belongs is engaged largely in the clothing business, and I am surprised that the warmness of heart which he has professed towards the Scotch race should not be reflected in the clothing industry. I am surprised that Scottish costumes have to be imported when there are so many engaged in the business of manufacturing clothing here. I should think a special effort would be made to meet the need and the desire of the Scottish people for the tartan and the kilt and other goods manufactured of wool- which is entirely out of order on this item.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I appreciate very much what the minister has said, but he ought to know, if he knows his Scotch friends at all, that they prefer to have costumes that come from Scotland. Someone says it depends on the price. I think there is something in the letter I received. These people prefer to have costumes that come right from Scotland. It seems to me that when clothing of this kind comes under the schedule this item might apply. I suggest that the minister should give to these costumes the same consideration as was given to bagpipes a few years ago. However, I will discuss the matter with some of my friends, to see whether these costumes cannot be manufactured in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-558b. Rovings, yarns and warps wholly of artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres, produced by chemical processes, not more advanced than singles, not coloured, with not more than seven turns to the inch, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe:	(a) produced from
cellulose acetate:	British preferential tariff,
5 per cent; intermedate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Provided that, in no case, shall the duty under the intermediate or the general tariff be less than, per pound: British preferential tariff -; intermediate tariff, 28 cents; general tariff, 28 cents. (b) n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Provided that, in no case, shall the duty under the intermediate or the general tariff be less than, per pound: British preferential tariff -; intermediate tariff, 28 cents; general tariff, 28 cents.
Charles Avery Dunning: This item and item 558d are both tariff board items, and we might discuss them together, because they are definitely interrelated.
Customs tariff-558d. Rovings, yarns and warps wholly or in part of artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes, n.o.p., including threads, cords or twist for sewing, embroidering or other purposes, not to contain silk; artificial silk yarns

wholly or partially covered with metallic strip, one pound of which shall contain not less than 10,000 yards; under such regulations as the minister may prescribe: (a) produced wholly from cellulose acetate:	British preferential
tariff, 7J per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Provided that, in no ease, shall the duty under the intermediate or the general tariff be less than, per pound: British preferential tariff-; intermediate tariff, 28 cents; general tariff, 28 cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The tariff board gave a good deal of time, apparently, to the consideration of these items. I am bound to say that from a reading of the item, and knowing the facts as presented, it does seem that the protection afforded the Canadian industry is reasonably light at the present time. The effect is greatly to lessen it, almost up to the danger point. I am not certain *about that, but, that is my information strengthened by my memory of it in the past, together with inquiries I have made and a casual glance at the report of the board. However, the board has reported upon it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have here extracts from the report of the board bearing on that point, if my right hon. friend desires to have them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it is in the report I can read it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-561. Woven fabrics wholly or in part of artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres, produced by chemical processes, not to contain wool, not including fabrics in chief part by weight of silk, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 30 per cent; intermediate tariff, 40 per cent; general tariff, 45 per cent; and, per pound: British preferential tariff-; intermediate tariff, 40 cents; general tariff, 40 cents.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is also a tariff board item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is an increase in the ad valorem duty and an elimination in the specific.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, a balancing up of all the factors.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it might be well to say at this particular time that all these textile tariff duties placed on the books in 1930 were really emergency measures to meet an exceptional situation, as explained at that time. It will be recalled that the United States adopted the principle of an ad valorem and a specific duty with respect to woollens when they desired to encourage their industry, and the only difference between us was that we were undertaking to do it gradually, taking

Customs Tarifj
off a third one year, a third the next, and then a third. In the meantime the board was considering the matter and recommended that it be all taken off in 1935-36, instead of taking it off in the manner originally intended. My memory is that only one-third was taken off last year, 1935, and that is as far as it got. Did that third apply to both rayon and cotton goods, or only to cottons?


Charles Avery Dunning: Only to cottons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As regards the woollens, we took off 25 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, that is right; you have a most remarkable memory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I just happened to remember that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-564a.	Irish poplin, composed wholly of silk and wool, not exceeding twenty-five inches in width, imported in the web in lengths of not less than five yards each, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe, by manufacturers of neckties, scarves or mufflers for use exclusively in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff-; general tariff-.
Mr. DUNNING This is the Irish item.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be free under the intermediate and general.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; they cannot come in at all under this tariff item.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If they were offered for entry by the United States or any other country, would they not come under some n.o.p. item? If so, what item?


Charles Avery Dunning: Item 555 in the woollen schedules.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Irish poplin would not be in the woollen schedules.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; it is 73 per cent wool.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there no tariff at all?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not under this item. It would throw them automatically into the n.o.p. woollen item, where it is intended that they should be, coming from other countries.


James J. Donnelly: What will be the tariff under 555?


Charles Avery Dunning: Thirty-five per cent and thirty cents per pound. This is a real concession to the Irish; we shall all be wearing Irish poplin ties in this house next year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-567a.	Clothing, wearing
apparel and articles, made from woven fabrics and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, n.o.p., of which the component of chief value is artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes: British preferential tariff, 25 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 50 per cent; and, per ounce: British preferential tariff-; intermediate tariff, 5 cents; general tariff, 7 cents.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this the same as the board's report?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, this is not the board's report but is consequent upon it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the item to which the minister had reference a moment ago.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-569c. Hat braids, of a class or kind not made .in Canada, whether woven, knitted or plaited, not exceeding six inches in width, imported for use exclusively in the manufacture of hat bodies or shapes, but not for use in the ornamentation of trimming of such bodies or shapes, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tari, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: This changes the width of braid from four to six inches; that is all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-569e. Miners' safety helmets for use exclusively in mining operations, firemen's helmets and sand-blast helmets, of a class or kind not made in Canada: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: These specifically named articles were never dutiable.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is unchanged in the rating but there is a change in the wording. Whereas the existing item refers only to miners' safety helmets, the new wording covers firemen's helmets and sand-blast helmets. These types of helmets are life saving equipment. In the past, firemen's helmets particularly, because of non-classification in the tariff, paid relatively high rates. These are all of a class or kind not made in Canada and it is proposed to make them free under all tariffs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-603. Fur skins, wholly or partially dressed, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Provided that, the duty on hare or rabbit skins under the general tariff shall not be less than, per dozen: general tariff, 72 cents.
Customs Tariff
Charles Avery Dunning: This is unchanged in wording or rates but it no longer provides for specific duties under the intermediate tariff on dressed rabbit skins.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understood the minister to say it did not affect Australian exports.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. The Australians have not really raised the point and they have not been able to do anything under the rabbit skin preference. They did not send us dressed skins at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What will happen under the intermediate tariff if it is desired to import a thousand rabbit skins from the United States? What would be the rate?


Charles Avery Dunning: Fifteen per cent flat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without any rate per
dozen?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. They do not come from the United States. The chief source is Belgium,


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-GOT, part 2:	Leather, as
hereunder described, but not to include suedes, Cabrettas, Spanish capes or African capes, when imported by manufacturers of gloves or leather clothing, for use exclusively in manufacturing gloves or leather clothing in their own factories, viz.:-(i) made from sheepskins: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 7i per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
(ii) n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent: intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: I have had a lot of
trouble with this item. I will tell the committee frankly what it was. The case is a curious one. Prior to the Canada-United States trade agreement there was a reference to the tariff board by my predecessor in office of a request from glove manufacturers for a reduction in the duty from 20 per cent to 10 per cent. The coming into effect of the Canada-United States agreement automatically placed the duty on these leathers at 7J per cent, and immediately, of course, the applicants for a reduction to 10 per cent withdrew their application, having secured under the Canada-United States agreement a rate less than they were applying for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which was applicable to
other countries.


Charles Avery Dunning: That left the matter
more or less up in the air. There was made available to me the information which the tariff board had collected on the matter prior to the date of the withdrawal of the application, and on that basis we endeavoured to

do the best we could with the question. Since the item as drafted has been published we have had further representations which move me to ask the committee to change the item to read as follows:
Leather, consisting of beef-cattle hides, horse hides, and sheep skins, but not including suedes, Cabrettas, Spanish capes or African capes, when imported by manufacturers of gloves or leather clothing, for use exclusively in manufacturing gloves or leather clothing in their own factories:	British preferential
tariff, 5 per cent: intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the same reading
as the old item.


Charles Avery Dunning: As the old item in the
tariff, yes, but it is an adjustment of the rates. It is a matter of weighing the relative merits of the contentions of the glove leather manufacturers and of the glove manufacturers, and as between different types of leather in relation to the same ultimate commodity, and I think the suggestion I am now making represents a fair weighing of the whole situation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What are the rates?


Charles Avery Dunning: The rates are 5, 15 and
20 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This raises the intermediate tariff to 15 per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, on some kinds of
leather.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. It becomes a new
item, then, altogether?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is an amendment, and goes back in wording to the existing tariff item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but the horse hide
item is the item about which there was much discussion. The hon. gentleman knows -that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The old rate on it from
abroad under the general tariff was 20 per cent, but under the intermediate it is only 7i per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is now going to be doubled.


Charles Avery Dunning: On the intermediate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that quite fair? I put it to the minister in this way: Before the late government went out of office I received many communications about this glove item. It has not been satisfactory in recent years.

Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right. It has been a mess.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and it was proposed to try to have the tariff board straighten it out, but they were busily engaged with other and more important matters and it never went to them. As the item stands now, on this document that is before us, the votes and proceedings, there is no change from our general tariff, but that general tariff was increased only a short time ago-I forget what year it was-to 20 per cent. Horse hide became very important for the manufacture of a particular type of heavy glove in this country. I do not know to what extent it is used, but the representations made to the late government were that it was used not only for making gloves but also for making certain types of garment, to what extent I do not know. As the matter stands now, it is proposed to make the rate for n.o.p. 20 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Horse hide is in n.o.p. as the item is printed in the votes and proceedings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; that is what I am talking about, as it is printed in the votes and proceedings. Horse hide from the United States would pay 15 per cent, which is 5 per cent less than it paid before, but it is twice what the intermediate rate is, and there are certain countries enjoying favoured nation treatment from Canada that can supply horse hide, but they are some distance away and the transport increases the cost. I submit to the minister, since he is rewriting this item, that 15 per cent is a higher rate than the glove business of the country should stand under the intermediate tariff, in view of the fact that they always found the item to work a great hardship upon them.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is, the glove manufacturers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; I am talking about them, because this is the raw material of the glove manufacturers. I am dealing now only with the raw material, and our country does not supply sufficient for our requirements.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, very close to it. The importations were very small.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason was that we increased the tariff, according to their contention, too high, thus making the price a prohibitive one when the material was converted into gloves, and they complained very bitterly that they were losing a part of their business because they could no longer continue to manufacture that particular type of glove out of horse hide. That is the reason I say to the minister that I think the rate 12739-197
could easily stand at the intermediate rate that he originally proposed, namely, 7| per cent for other than n.o.p. items, the same as sheep skins. If I thought we could supply the necessary horse hide I would' not raise the question, but in Canada we do not kill horses; we ship them out. I think, if the minister will look into the matter carefully, he will find that in this country the production of horse hide for glove manufactuirng is really negligible.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, it is definitely growing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is that we ship the horses out of the country because our people do not take kindly to horse-meat; that is the short way of putting it; there are countries where horse-meat is used, and so has a value; and we have shipped from the country the horses, which of course include the hides, and have to buy back the hides. This is one of the cases in which we have to buy back the raw material for glove manufacturing. In view of the general attitude of the government towards the raw material item, I suggest that this item does not bear close analysis in the light of what has been done with respect to other industries. I think it is only fair to say that the representations made to the late government were that horse hide is produced in only one tannery in this country.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not so now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not so now? Well, if the hon. gentleman will look into the matter he will find that the change has taken place in the last twelve or fifteen months.


Charles Avery Dunning: My information is that a number of tanneries which formerly were not engaged in this activity have developed it during the past two years, so much so that, though my right hon. friend may have forgotten it, the glove manufacturers in making their application to the tariff board did so with respect to sheep skin and did not ask for a reduction with respect to horse hide. In going into the matter, I was astonished at this. They made no application for a reduction in duty on horse hide.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They did not ask for an increase, though.


Charles Avery Dunning: They are not getting an increase. Remember their application was with respect to a tariff which was then, with respect to horse hide, twenty per cent under the general tariff, and they did not ask for any reduction with respect to horse hide but

Customs Tariff

wholly with respect to sheep skin. The importations, of course, are not much of a guide, as the leader of the opposition says, because they apply to a period when the tariff was twenty per cent against the countries from which the horse hide comes. But the importations were very small. The total importation of all these leathers, sheep skins and all the rest, was only $31,500 in the last year of record.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would that fact not suggest that the existing rate of 7i per cent was sufficient?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is just what I was going to say.


Charles Avery Dunning: If figures mean anything this appears to work in reverse, because I have before me the figures for the first three months of 1936, under the Canada-United States trade agreement, under which the 7i per cent rate was in effect, and I find that importations amounted to $226 in January, $735 in February, and $364 in March. For one quarter of the year under the new tariff the total imports appear to be $1,325.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course that is not the season.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, but I gather that the imports are fairly steady. Be that as it may, it confirms an anomalous situation which appears all through my examination of this question. I have tried to strike as nearly as I could a fair balance, having regard to the fact that the glove manufacturers apparently were satisfied with twenty per cent on leather and did not include horse hides in their application. The examination I have given to the matter mainly centred, of course, round the question of sheep skins, which were the chief item of contention before the tariff board.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister object to saying who made the application for an increase in the intermediate tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, I must have had half a dozen representations, some through members of the house. I cannot recollect the names of the concerns; there is one tanner at Kitchener, another at Cobourg, another at Toronto, and another in Barrie; I have a particular memory of the Barrie one. So many communications come in I do not carry them all in my mind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is good enough.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was something
from Vancouver, but I do not remember the name of the concern. I tried to settle the question fairly having regard to the representations from all quarters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that to double the intermediate tariff on this item is not fair. I tried to look up such memoranda as I kept about such matters when communications came before the government. Last August complaint was made about the reduction of duty on gloves and the increased duty on horse hides. It must be remembered that the duty on gloves has been reduced, and with that there was an increase in the cost of the raw material. The glove manufacturers believe that is unfair. I tried to look up the various notes I had made personally; I do not keep systematic notes, :but as these various matters came before me I used to try to keep a note of them, and they went to the Department of Finance, and sometimes from there to the tariff board. But I think that to double this intermediate tariff item is not quite fair, notwithstanding what the minister says. As late as last year the horse hide production in this country was limited practically to one tannery. If the minister' will be good enough to look the matter up, before these resolutions are presented in a bill, I think he will satisfy himself that the production of domestic horse hides for glove purposes is limited practically to one Canadian concern. That was so last year at any rate, or was so represented to us by those who apparently spoke with a good deal of authority, namely the glove interests of the country, because the item has given everyone a good deal of difficulty. Then the item of these fancy leathers used for women's fancy shoes caused a good deal of difficulty, and the same is true as regards the suede item. Then you get into the heavier class. The calfskins item never caused any trouble, but horse hides have been a constant source of difficulty, arising largely because, on the representations made to us, this commodity is controlled by one crowd who ask just any price they please; they always asked a price which was that at which the commodity could be brought in from abroad wdth the duty added, the duty from the United States being 20 per cent. Since we have given the intermediate tariff to the United States why should we double the duty on this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: The intermediate tariff bore a strange relationship to the general tariff when the one was 7i per cent and the other jumped to 20 per cent.

Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the reason was
obvious; it was to endeavour to secure the tanning of these horse hides in our own country. That was the original purpose. The minister has doubtless received protests. I have received communications, sometimes including copies of letters sent to the minister, objecting to the doubling of this duty-


Charles Avery Dunning: From the very people who are also on record as not asking for anything in connection with horse hides when they were subject to a duty of 20 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the difficulty is this: Since the Canada-United States trade agreement was made they were satisfied with the 7i per cent and did not want any more. Now they ask: Why should the minister double the rate? When the intermediate tariff has been accorded to a country and the granting of that tariff has not greatly interfered with the domestic trade, at least has not interfered to the extent of injuring it, why should we suddenly jump the duty up 100 per cent, when one particular concern is the one greatly affected by it? That is the problem I put to the minister, and if he will look into the matter between now and the time the bill is in committee I think he will find the facts exactly as I have stated. Those were the representations made a year ago, and there is nothing to induce me to believe tanning is going on in Canada to any considerable extent to change the situation, because it happens that the raw material for tanning is not available at many of the spots which have been mentioned.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would point out that the item also includes cattle hides and sheep skins.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right, as it is amended.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not only leather made from horse hides but leather made from cattle and sheep skins, so what we are really doing is doubling the duty in the intermediate column on what is distinctly a raw material for a very important manufacturing industry, not only leather gloves but leather clothing. Leather is now largely used for windbreakers in men's coats, which is quite an important article in the colder sections particularly in the west, where men working out in very cold weather commonly wear a leather-lined coat. Leather for all that will now be 15 per cent under the intermediate tariff. This seems to me an extraordinary action. Would the minister object if I asked him to lay on the table the communications from the different manufacturers who asked for the increase?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think I should do that, with respect to tariff matters.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Without such information it is a little difficult for one to discuss the item intelligently. One gets a certain amount of information of which one is perhaps not absolutely sure, and while I do not wish to embarrass the minister I do not see why a manufacturing concern asking for an increase of duty should object to the reasons being given, particularly on an item of this kind, which is sweeping in its character.


Mr. MacNICOL:: In reference to horsie hides, would the increased duty not give a better price to farmers or anybody else selling horse hides?


Charles Avery Dunning: I doubt that. [DOT] It is a matter of opinion at present, but I doubt it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It should give a better
price to the farmer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had overlooked the
matter of sheep skins, to which the hon. member for Kootenay East directed attention. That is all going to be in the item under discussion?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No separation.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; we have gone back
to the old rate, and we went back to it because of representations since received from all quarters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the new duty not
touch the New Zealand situation?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because we made a
special arrangement with New Zealand and Australia in regard to sheep skins, if the minister will remember.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not made inquiries to ascertain the effect upon the arrangement with Australia and New Zealand.


Charles Avery Dunning: This helps both of them. They would not protest, because it increases their margin.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the duty from
Australia and New Zealand?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is covered under the
ordinary British preferential item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The matter was under
discussion, I remember, but was it ever consummated.
Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: No. not on this item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory was that
there was something special about sheep skins. However, I have not the information with me.


Charles Avery Dunning: There may have been
in connection with sheep skins, but not sheepskin leather.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Item 599 is the one referring to hides and skins, raw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is it. All I
can say is that in doubling the intermediate rate the minister has gone too far.


Charles Avery Dunning: Between new and the
time the bill is introduced I shall give the matter further consideration. I must say that although the item is small it has given me more trouble than other items involving twenty times the amount of trade. My first information was, as the right hon. gentleman has said, that only one concern was interested. After that, however, I received representations from others I have mentioned, and some I cannot recollect, to the effect that they were definitely interested.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that they
could not tan horse hides if they wished, but my information is that there is only one business engaged in that work.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-618a. Comb blanks of hard rubber, not further manufactured than pressed and vulcanized, when imported by manufacturers of hard rubber combs for use exclusively in the manufacture of such hard rubber combs in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 7J per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This item is changed in
neither rates nor wording, and is merely transferred from the orders in council section to the list of permanent classifications.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-657. Mouthpieces of hard rubber in the rough, aluminum pipe fitments, pipe bowls moulded from briarwood dust, and briarwood bonds not further processed than frazed, when imported by manufacturers of tobacco pipes for use exclusively in the manufacture of such pipes in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a new item, requests for which have been made by a company which purposes manufacturing tobacco pipes in Canada. The enumeration covers

component items which cannot be secured in this country. They have been dutiable at higher rates, and it is proposed that the rates be reduced.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-657a. Cinematograph or moving picture films, positives, one and one-eighth of an inch in width and over, n.o.p., per linear foot: British preferential tariff, 14 cents; intermediate tariff, 3 cents; general tariff, 3 cents.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is an n.o.p. item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What relation has the item to the resolution having to do with the imposition of an additional tax?


Charles Avery Dunning: None whatever.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And there is no change in the rate?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-663e. Soya beans, soya bean oil cake and soya bean oil meal, when imported by manufacturers of animal and poultry feeds or of fertilizers for use exclusively in the manufacture of animal or poultry feeds or fertilizers in their own factories:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is an amendment to move, by which we strike out the word ''exclusively" in the third line of the item. This is done to simplify administration, as suggested by customs officials.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move:
That the word "exclusively" in the third line of customs tariff item 663c be deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BARBER:: I notice the word "inedible" in item 663d. I have had communications stating that-


Charles Avery Dunning: If it will help the hon. member, may I say that I have an amendment to item 663d which will cover the point he is about to raise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the minister
has seen the discussions which have been taking place with respect to soya beans, and the establishment of the industry in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has been a good deal of press discussion. I shall not take time to repeat what I said on the budget, nor shall I outline the hundreds of derivatives produced from soya beans. With the exception of coal tar, I believe there is no other single sub-

Customs Tariff
stance from which can be produced so many derivatives. I had hoped that that might have had the effect of bringing about the development of the industry to some extent in Canada. The area within which it can be successfully carried on is limited, because of climatic conditions, but of its value there never has been the slightest question. The action of putting it on the free list simply means that we shall not become producers. About ten thousand acres were sown in soya beans in this country.


Charles Avery Dunning: And half of that for
forage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Part of that for ensilage. It is said that it makes excellent food to be placed in silos and is well suited for feeding requirements of milking cows.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is rich in proteins.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I do not think the government is fair to the Canadian people when it puts soya beans on the free list at a time when an effort is being made successfully to cultivate them. It is clear that they could be cultivated in the whole of the Niagara peninsula. In a small way cultivation is being carried on in the Chatham area, but there has never been that control so essential to success. It would seem quite clear from reports I have seen that soya beans could be produced successfully in the Niagara peninsula. This is equally true of some parts of Quebec-


Charles Avery Dunning: Quebec, do you say?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, so I am told. Before we left office representations were made to us that the people interested were satisfied that soya beans could be produced in those sections, and they were going to do something about it.


Charles Avery Dunning: As a food, possibly, but not as a berry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister say
that the ripening of the bean would not be possible?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not expressing an
opinion on the point. I recall that twenty-five or thirty years ago the statement was made that corn could not be grown in North Dakota, but I have seen the corn belt move steadily northward. The seed has been improved, and the corn has been acclimatized to the territory in question. I have no doubt that soya beans could be grown successfully in the Niagara peninsula of Canada. From
the evidence presented to me, that was my conclusion. So far .the production has not had an opportunity to pass the experimental stage, but once a grain is found to grow in this northern climate, whether it be wheat or any other agricultural product, usually it is of a high quality. I had hoped we would find an opportunity to replace unsuccessful and unprofitable products with one so widely used, and one which has so many possibilities. However, placing soya beans on the free list will end any advantage that may be gained, and will give a corresponding advantage to our friends to the south.


Charles Avery Dunning: Like my right hon.
friend, I am more or less a worshipper at the shrine of the soya bean. I regard it as the most remarkable product of the field, and in that statement I do not believe I am going too far. I would point out, however, that the tremendous range of commodities which can be manufactured from the soya bean, contrasted with the very small development of the growing of the mature bean in this country, causes us to weigh the advantage of the possibility of some day growing enough soya beans with the other advantage of making a commodity available to the Canadian people, not only for stock food, but for the hundred or more uses to which the soya bean can be put, in order that Canada may have such advantages as may arise from the use of the byproducts. After all the years in which experimentation has taken place, only ten thousand acres were grown in Canada last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is only a few years, you know.


Charles Avery Dunning: I remember it at least twenty years ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was only talked about twenty years ago.


Charles Avery Dunning: We experimented with it on our experimental farms twenty years ago, right here at the experimental farm at Ottawa.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In 1916.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hoc. friend may remember that the great war brought the soya bean into world prominence about 1916, and in Canada many of its derivatives were developed as a result of intensive research work done in connection with war materials.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Undoubtedly that is so.


Charles Avery Dunning: Still, in spite of the opportunity and the value of the product we were able to get up to only 10,000 acres in the whole of Canada last year, 5,000 acres of
Customs Tariff

which were grown for feed, and not for the maturing 'berry because it had not been found possible to mature it. On the other hand, all those engaged in feeding cattle or in the special feeding of any kind of animals require the by-products of the soya bean, and can make good use of them in developing the secondary products of the farm. The uses of it are so very, very wide that we think, on balance, it is better to make available the soya beans to Canadians, and trust to the genius of Canadian farmers and1 plant breeders to develop a hardy variety suitable for commercial production on our Canadian farms, and we can deal with that question when it arrives. Nothing would please me better than to be faced in this house with the question, generated by the successful commercial production in Canada on Canadian farms of the soya bean.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Why develop the industry artificially?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not proposing to develop it artificially. I should like whatever publicity attaches to my remarks to be directed towards encouraging Canadian people and Canadian farmers to investigate this most remarkable plant, and so far as my words have any influence, to stimulate experiment and research on the part of Canadian farmers in connection with the production of the soya bean. But at the present time I think the balance of advantage is distinctly on the side of those who require the use of this product, having regard to the fact that it cannot be grown commercially in Canada. Why, even the United States is not producing more than a small portion of its requirements of soya beans in spite of the fact that it has a much larger area suitable for its production than has Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do soya beans enter the United States free?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot answer that offhand.


Harry James Barber: I mentioned) the words "inedible" and "edible," because it has come to my attention that bakers in some parts of the country are using a certain amount of soya bean flour, up to ten per cent, to mix with wheat flour, in baking, and in one case, in the baking of Crispy bread the percentage is somewhere round eighteen per cent. I want to point out that this is becoming a competitor with wheat flour and will perhaps affect that very important crop of wheat which we produce in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: When we pass item 663c I shall move an amendment to item 663d to eliminate the word "inedible."


Mr. WOOD:: I should like to make a few comments in connection with the possibilities of the soya bean industry. First of all I would commend the minister for the action he has taken in regard to the tariff on soya beans. Many farmers have endeavoured to produce soya beans on farms in Canada, and in spite of the fact that we have had a tariff as high as fifteen per cent the price of soya beans at the mills is, I believe, only seventy cents, which is a price that really does not compensate the farmer for growing soya beans even in that section of Ontario in which I happen to live. It would be wise, I think, to recommend to the government and the Department of Agriculture to investigate the possibilities of developing a variety of soya bean that would mature earlier. I believe that in the southern portion of Canada at least the soya bean industry could be developed. We know what has taken place in connection with the development of a particular type of wheat, which has pushed the borders of our wheat growing area up into the northern portions of our provinces. I believe that in connection with developing the production of soya beans in Canada we could get a variety that would mature earlier, and then we might develop in this country a new branch of agriculture that might become profitable in itself and at the same time stimulate industry. As has been pointed out by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who made a splendid argument in favour of this particular product, its derivatives can be put to a remarkable number of uses in fabricating accessories for the motor car. Mr. Ford has made an exhaustive survey of the uses of this product, and it is generally conceded that there is a bushel and a half of soya beans in every Ford car. Now, if we can produce our Ford cars in Canada, this might be worth considering.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that bushel and a
half for the duco?


George Ernest Wood: Yes, various products, compositions, varnishes and celluloid. The soya bean is also often used in the manufacture of printers' inks, chocolate drinks, and many other things that we use in Canada. Earlier in the session I made a comment on soya beans and spoke largely from my own experience of what has happened amongst farmers I have known who have attempted to raise soya beans. Their efforts in many cases have been disappointing, but if the government would concentrate through the Department of Agriculture on trying to develop a variety

Customs Tariff
that would grow more successfully in Canada -and I believe they are working to that end now-there would be the possibility of establishing in this country another branch of agriculture that would be very much worth while.
I am led to believe that Germany alone imports about one million tons of soya beans. It is one product of which there has never been overproduction in any of the agricultural countries of the world. The densely populated countries of China and Manchuria, where they use a large portion of their own production of soya beans for feed, are those nations that are also exporting the most soya beans. Even in Great Britain the imports annually amount to 200,000 tons. We import something like 2,500 tons. I am quite sure the minister is following only sound business methods in not trying to penalize through the tariff the people who are using soya beans. If you impose a tariff, I doubt whether it would increase the price, because we already have a substantial duty and the price of soya beans is only seventy cents.
I am almost inclined to accept the view that the growers of soya beans are being exploited. Because of the varied use to which soya beans can be put it seems unfortunate that the price received will not pay the cost of production. No farmer can afford to produce these beans at seventy cents per bushel, considering the amount of work involved in raising them. There are certain sections in western and southwestern Ontario where the land is not too good for general farming purposes, but it would be suitable for the raising of soya beans. The soil is quite light and adapted to this particular crop. I was talking last week to one of my constituents in the township of Burford who told me that he had not attempted to harvest his crop of soya beans because the price which he would receive would be less than the cost of production. The beans have to be dried and sent to the factory in the proper condition. The beans may have been a little late in ripening and perhaps it would be possible to obtain a variety which would ripen earlier. I commend the minister for the stand he has taken in this connection as I believe there is a future for the soya bean. I want to make this comment because earlier in the session I spoke a little adversely of the attempts being made to encourage the growing of soya beans.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister had not
spoken then.


George Ernest Wood: I commend anything that is
being done in this connection on the experimental farms.


Mr. LOCKHART:: We have heard much in this house about the overproduction of wheat and the growing of soya beans seems to offer relief from that overproduction. I should like to direct the attention of the minister to a letter which I received from a business man who travels extensively in the northern part of Manchuria. He had received a copy of the comments which I made in this house in the early part of the session in connection with soya beans and he wrote me to state that there were different varieties of soya beans grown in that part of Manchuria where the climate is similar to that in western Canada. He felt that these varieties of soya beans could be grown in western Canada and in the province of Ontario. It seems to me that this is one of the greatest fields of investigation which could be undertaken by the Department of Agriculture in an effort to relieve overproduction in connection with other grains.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be glad to direct
the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to the remarks of my hon. friend. I know, as possibly other members of the committee know, that at our experimental farms all across Canada, and especially those in the west, experiments are being made in soya bean production. Seed has been brought from the regions to which he refers, but anything which will help to carry along this work is worth pressing to the limit.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the minister not
think taking off the duty will be inclined to discourage the growing of soya beans?


Charles Avery Dunning: It will not make any
difference and we are not taking the duty
off.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: You took it off under
the Canada-United States agreement.


Charles Avery Dunning: It never was on.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: You bound it to be free for three years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a duty.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No matter what the experiments are, the government has tied its hands not to put on a duty for three years.


Charles Avery Dunning: On the beans, yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That does not offer very much in the way of encouragement to undertake production during that time. What is
Customs Tariff

the use of experimenting if our farmers are not going to be able to produce? What is the use of experimenting if they are going to have to compete with countries which can produce under more favourable conditions? It seems to me that agricultural production is the one branch of production with which the minister ought to be particularly concerned. We are told that good soya beans can be grown in Ontario and other parts of Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: And that is a reason for putting on a duty?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a new industry as far as Canada is concerned, and I submit that that is when protection is needed, not when the industry is established. Protection should be given in the early stages when endeavours are being made to produce in commercial quantities. The tying of the hands of the government not to put on a duty for three years practically paralyzes any experimentation along these lines.


Charles Avery Dunning: Soya beans have been free for many years and there is no suggestion on the part of anyone as to what tariff would be adequate to promote commercial production in Canada. The items with which we are dealing cover soya bean products and the encouragement of the use of soya bean products in this country will benefit one thousand times more farmers .than could be benefited by any duty on soya beans. I think my thousand is a very limited estimate. Experiments are being carried on at practically every experimental farm, and I believe at most agricultural colleges, and we are encouraging the use of soya bean products in Canada. My bon. friend says that we have agreed to allow soya beans to come in free from the United States for three years, but that is a short time in plant hybridization and the accustoming of plants to our Canadian environment. There are a number of subsidiary industries based upon the soya bean which have been helped by the free importation of the bean. This bean cannot be obtained in this country in commercial quantities at all; it cannot be obtained even in experimental quantities. I think the course taken is a sound one, having regard to the experience of the past.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am afraid it is not likely to be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid I must join issue with the Minister of Finance. He said that a thousand farmers would benefit to one-


Charles Avery Dunning: A thousand to one, as compared with putting a duty on the beans.
TMr. Stewart.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does he not realize that he is displacing grain products with soya beans imported from another country? He is displacing grain products used in the finishing of cattle.


Charles Avery Dunning: What grain products?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Barley, for one. I listened with great care to the discussion which took place in this house a few years ago when it was suggested that we should do something to encourage the greater use of barley in Ontario, in view of the distressed economic conditions facing the barley producers because of difficulty in finding a market for their product. It was suggested that barley, as well as oats and wheat of certain grades should be used for finishing purposes. All these are used for the very purpose for which we are now going to introduce these commodities from other countries for our assistance. The duty that was imposed in times past on this oil meal and soya bean flour was 15 per cent, 25 per cent, and 25 per cent. They are now to be free. Item 663d refers to soya bean oil meal and soya bean flour, inedible, when imported by manufacturers of glues or adhesives for use exclusively in the manufacture of such glues or adhesives in their own factories, and this is all free. The item above that is with respect to animal feeds and fertilizers, and fertilizers paid a duty. Certain others were free. I put this question to the minister, first with respect to the last item. We are displacing the commodities that have heretofore been used in the production of glues, with an imported commodity called soya bean oil meal. Now the glue industry in Canada has been a substantial one and it has done a considerable export business with-I am speaking again from memory-Great Britain, notably. We are now to use an article imported from some other country for that purpose instead of using: our own animal product for the production of glue. In the second place, for finishing purposes, we are told that this is a thousand to one shot in favour of the farmer because we have displaced his barley, wheat, oats and, in some cases, corn and substituted therefor an imported commodity called soya bean oil.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend
has not been so unfair this afternoon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not unfair; it
is absolutely the fact. If soya bean meal is used for finishing purposes on the farm, where heretofore it has not been used-


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the point.

Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and the hon. gentleman said that it would be a thousand to one in favour of the farmer.


Charles Avery Dunning: Comparing the maintenance of the present position of the article- free-with putting a duty on it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am pointing out that
the very moment, by increasing importations, you substitute some other feed for the feeds now used, that very moment you lessen the consumption of the Canadian grain product; that is all. I have listened many times in this house to the case made in connection with this question, and notably the strong demand from western Canada with respect to barley. Take, for instance, any kind of feed, such as fox food, which the hon. gentleman regarded as important; but perhaps I should not deal with that; the item has already carried. I say, however, that to the extent you replace grain, whether barley, wheat, oats, rye or corn, which is used for feeding purposes on the farm, with an imported product, whether soya bean meal or Indian corn from some other country, to that extent you lessen the possibility of the Canadian farmer being able to continue making a profit on his farming.


Charles Avery Dunning: I defer to my right hon. friend's legal opinion at any time-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not any opinion of mine on farming.


Charles Avery Dunning: -but having had some experience in feeding stock, I beg to differ with him on the practical question of feeding and to tell him that if to-day I were finishing fat stock and were at the same time growing wheat, oats, barley and the other normal cereal products of the west, for results in the form of beef attained quickly I should want to inject if I could some soya bean element into the feed which I was giving the stock. And I should not think I was doing myself any harm as a grower of wheat, oats, barley and flax because I had sense enough to inject a quantity of another element, which I could not grow on my farm, for the purpose of producing far quicker results in the form of beef. That is a matter of practical feeding.


George Ernest Wood: The remarks of the leader of the opposition have been quite interesting to me. I appreciate his legal qualifications and his ability to argue and to make a speech. But I do not consider him an authority on feeding cattle. The point which the minister mentioned is a very important one; there is such a thing as a balanced ration. We have had considerable experience in Ontario in connection with the barley propaganda and I will tell the committee frankly what my views are
on this question. When I get into conversation with any of my neighbours over the barnyard1 fence and am told that the government is recommending that the farmers go into hog production or barley production or some other line, I generally reply that if there is propaganda to encourage a particular form of production the farmers will be well advised to turn round and go the other way. That has been my experience. When the government tries to force production along any particular line, the general result is overproduction with consequent chaos in the industry. When you feed1 cattle you want more than barley and oats. As the Minister of Finance has said, if you are to 'be a successful stockman you must balance your ration with proteins. I am quite satisfied that the government is adopting the right course, because this byproduct of soya beans is very valuable, containing about forty-four per cent protein, whereas oil-cake meal, which is a byproduct of flaxseed, has a protein element of thirty-five per cent, and the very best product of cottonseed meal contains about forty per cent. In proportion to value as a feed, soya beans at the present market price are by all means the cheapest product, so that if you increase the price to one class of farmer you are penalizing another group of farmers. We are not asking for protection for soya beans or anything else. In this dominion we have cheap lands and we have a resourceful people sprung from the old pioneer stock, people who know how to do things. We believe that the principle of merit should be recognized in society, whether in politics or in any other calling; and if we can convince industry that it is in the best interests not only of the consuming public at large but of industry itself to market reasonable products and not to inflict high prices on the public, then we shall have progress and a condition of affairs which will make for a more equal distribution of the wealth of the country and the satisfaction of life. I commend the minister for the way in which he is trying to pilot this legislation through. We as farmers are not asking for any particular privilege; all we want is a square deal. We say: Get off our backs and we will raise soya beans or wheat or anything else without protection. But we cannot continue to carry on our backs the load of exotic industry and our own load as well.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the hon. gentleman object to western farmers receiving a bonus on wheat?


George Ernest Wood: Let me be frank with the hon. gentleman; he has asked a plain question and I will give a plain answer. I absolutely refuse
Customs Tariff

to bonus anybody. If you go into any particular kind of business and you cannot carry that business on, for heaven's sake get out of it and let somebody into it that will. That is my point.


Charles Avery Dunning: Before this discussion gets general, may I suggest that it is soya beans we are now dealing with?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am greatly indebted to the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) for his appreciation of my knowledge of law and my ignorance of other matters, but no man who practises law successfully-I do not say I have done so-can remain ignorant of many, many things. He would be a very poor lawyer if, living in western Canada, he did not know anything about feeding, and he would be a poorer one if he did not know of the protein content of cottonseed meal and of cotton cake and various other protein products that are used in feeding cattle.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not many lawyers know that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, all the lawyers in this house from western Canada know that, as does the odd one from this part of the country. Knowing that, I want to put this single question to the hon. gentleman. The city of Brantford is near the constituency he represents, or it is a part of his constituency.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And let the workingmen there have a chance to live.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The market it has afforded to the farmers of Brant county is known to every man who has studied anything of the economic history of this country. The same holds good of other counties. The hon. gentleman has now told the committee that ill that is wanted is just a chance to sell products on merit and merit only. One of ihe occasions on which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance had to take a position that was to some extent at variance with that point of view was in connection with the New Zealand treaty, in respect of butter. I judge from what the hon. gentleman has said that no duty on eggs is necessary and that the duty on butter is something which the farmers of this country deeply resent. I trust the Minister of Finance will remember that the hon. member for Brant, speaking as a typical Ontario farmer, regards it as highly improvident and improper to maintain a duty on butter or eggs or potatoes or garden truck or farm products of any kind; all that is wanted is a chance to grow and sell them to the workingmen of Brantford and other communities adjacent thereto, communities

that would not exist if what he regards as this wrong principle of giving some little assistance to industry, because of conditions in Canada to which reference has so frequently been made, were not followed. Those who say that the farmer does not derive any benefit from the tariffs of this country fly in the face of the known evidence that has been produced times without number. This is not the case, of course, when you deal with the vast wheat fields of the western plains, but when you deal with the situation in eastern Canada, whether it be with regard to the softer wheats produced in Ontario, or the products of the farm and the garden which find a ready market in the nearby great cities and among the workingmen who congregate there, it is evident that the tariff has had such a stabilizing effect upon the east that the farmers of the west have been crying aloud to have a market at home like that; if they only had such a market how much better off they would be, how well-to-do they would be.


Charles Avery Dunning: Soya beans. May I respectfully suggest soya beans?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As far as the soya bean item is concerned, to the extent to which it is used it will displace some commodity which otherwise might be used in the same manner. But the soya bean protein content could not be called upon to take the place of ensilage com, because on the analyses the products proved to be entirely different. We were not asking that at the moment a duty be placed on the soya bean. What we were pointing out was that the hon. gentleman himself made light of this matter until he heard the minister take a serious attitude, and now the minister is a broadminded statesman. The hon. member for Brant is the same hon. gentleman who, a few weeks ago, when the budget was on, said that soya beans were something about which the less said the better.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not on the budget, the Canada-United States agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pardon me, my hon. friend is right; on the Canada-United States agreement. If the hon. member for Brant reads his remarks on that occasion and compares them with his observations this afternoon after the minister had spoken, he will realize how, in the words of Burke, "leaders of light and leading have been able to induce their followers to follow their lead." That, of course, is something very much to be desired; it is favourable to solidarity and helpful to discipline, which is always desirable.

National Harbours Board


Charles Avery Dunning: The right hon. gentleman will recall, I think, that the hon. member spoke after me on a former occasion and did not agree with me then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. minister had not widened his vision on that occasion to the extent he has done to-day; he was in charge of that Canada-United States agreement to hardly the same extent that he is in charge of this measure, and that broad vision which has manifested itself this afternoon to the hon. member for Brant had not then become apparent. He was merely dealing with the matter in a narrower sense. Now, with a broader view and a wider vision, the hon. member for Brant is persuaded that the course suggested by the Minister of Finance is the right one, and I congratulate him upon such an admirable evidence of discipline, so good for the solidarity of his party.


Mr.   AVOOD@: I recommend that same broad vision to the leader of the opposition himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have great hope that if the hon. gentleman lives long enough and follows public discussions closely enough he will adopt many of the suggestions that have been made from this side this afternoon.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-663d. Soya bean oil meal and soya bean flour, inedible, when imported by manufacturers of glues or adhesives for use exclusively in the manufacture of such glues or adhesives, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think, Mr. Chairman, you have the amendment, which is to strike out the word "inedible."


Frederick George Sanderson: I have not received
the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So you strike out the word "exclusively" in both 663c and 663d?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, not in the second one. It is stricken out in 663c but not in 663d; and "inedible" is stricken out in 663d.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not as difficult to administer in one case as in the other? That is the reason I asked.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. Glue and mucilage, you see.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One is glue and mucilage and the other is not.


Grote Stirling: The removal of the word "inedible" hardly meets the contention raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber), does it?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it does not, because the use of soya beans and soya bean products for human food and so forth is and always has been dutiable under the tariff. It is only for such special purposes as this that it has ever been free.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. If it is thought desirable we may take up the harbours board bill after recess.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do you want to sit again this day?


Charles Avery Dunning: This day, yes. I move accordingly.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed1, from Wednesday, May 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. 17, respecting the national harbours board.-Mr. Howe.-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 37-Amalgamation.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, when the committee had this bill under consideration on Wednesday last the amendment which I then moved to section 37 was held over for further consideration. That amendment reads as follows:
That section 37 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
(3)	That the board shall become and be liable to be sued in tort, and that in the case of any such suit in tort, the same procedure shall apply as that which regulates the conduct of similar eases between subjects, including such matters as discovery, the receiving and paying of costs by the board, and the like.
(4)	Service upon the board of any writ or process may be effected by personal service upon an officer or employee of the board at any of the harbours over which the board has jurisdiction.
I call the attention of the committee to the fact that this bill by section 3, subsection 3, provides that:
(3) The board shall have the capacity to contract and to sue and be sued in the name of the board.
National Harbours Board

But there is no express provision that the board may be sued in tort. Therefore a claimant who suffers damage from wrongful acts of the board, its officials or employees, is left in doubt as to whether he shall proceed by action against the board or by petition of right against the crown. On the second reading of the bill I suggested that such doubts should be removed, and in the committee I moved the amendment which I have just read, for the purpose of removing those doubts.
It is established by many judicial decisions which are binding upon the courts of this country that an action in tort does not lie against the crown, except under special statutory authority. In the memorandum prepared by the Deputy Minister of Justice, dated April 27, which the minister laid upon the table of the house at my request, I find that the deputy minister reports as follows:
In the debate on the second reading I notice that Mr. Cahan l-aised the question as to whether or not this harbour board as an agent of the crown would be liable in case of tort. As to this I may say that a servant or agent of the crown cannot be sued in tort with or without incorporation for a limited purpose if he is merely given the capacity to sue and be sued. In other words, such a provision does not give a right of action against the servant or agent of the crown for any act done by him as such servant or agent.
Then, after reciting certain decisions, the leputy minister proceeds:
The decisive question in all these cases is whether under the terms of the legislation the relationship of principal and agent or of master and servant exists as between the crown and the corporate body concerned, and it is necessary in this connection to inquire whether the purposes for which the corporate body has been created are such as are required and created by the government of the country and, therefore, are to be deemed part of the use and service of the crown.
But no doubt is left in this bill as to the relationship of this harbours board with the crown, inasmuch as section 3, subsection 2, provides that:
(2) The board shall be a body corporate and politic and be and be deemed to be, for all the purposes of this act, the agent of His Majesty the King in his right of the Dominion of Canada.
And by section 10, subsection 2, it is provided that all property acquired or held by the board shall be vested in His Majesty in his right of the Dominion of Canada.
I think it is clear, therefore, that this national harbours board is not liable to any action in tort, such as for negligence, nuisance and the like, except possibly on a petition of right under the very much restricted provision of section 19(c) of the Exchequer Court Act.

In recent years we have made progress in this respect. A few years ago it was asserted that the king could do no wrong, and without limitation or restriction no action in tort could be brought against the crown, because of the royal prerogative. But in connection with the government railways, -which then did not comprise the Canadian National Railways, in 1910, by chapter 26 of the statutes of that year, a limited right of action was given against the government railways, but the amount of the claim was limited to $200.
In 1913, by chapter 20, section 1, of the statutes of that year, parliament gave a limited right of action against the government railways, claims being limited to $500, and the same provision appears now as part of chapter 173 of the revised statutes, the act relating to government railways. Section 86 of that statute reads:
86. Subject as hereinafter provided, any claim against His Majesty arising out of the operation of the government railways, and not exceeding in amount the sum of $500, for damages alleged to be caused by negligence or made payable by statute, may be sued for and prosecuted by action, suit or other proceeding in any provincial court having jurisdiction to the said amount over like claims between subjects.
(2)	Any such action, suit or other proceeding may be commenced and prosecuted to judgment in the same manner and subject to the same rules _ of practice and procedure and to the same right of appeal as nearly as may be as in like cases between subjects.
(3) The said court shall have the same jurisdiction to order or adjudge the payment of costs either by plaintiff or defendant as in like cases in the said court between subjects.
Later there was a decision, The King v. Armstrong, reported in 40 S.C.R. 229, decided in 1908. An action arose to recover damages from the crown in consequence of a broken switch at a siding on the Intercolonial railway. Action was brought by the widow of the deceased, and in that case a decision was given for the claimant. But among those practising the legal profession in the dominion considerable doubt arose as to the application of that judgment, and so in the year 1910 the Exchequer Court Act was amended by a statute enacted as chapter 19 of the statutes of 1910, to include within the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada the following:
19. (f) Every claim against the crown arising out of any death or injury or loss to the person or to property caused by the negligence of any officer or servant of the crown while acting within the scope of his duties or employment upon, in or about the construction, maintenance or operation of the Intercolonial railway or the Prince Edward Island railway.

National Harbours Board
This clause extended the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada; so that since 1910 action lies for damages for death, injury or loss to personal property arising out of a negligence of any officer or servant of the crown, while acting within the scope of his duties in connection with the management and operation of the Intercolonial railway. This clause creates a right of action against the crown, and is unlimited as to the amount of claim.
We find that the term "Intercolonial railway" is defined by chapter 173 of the revised statutes as follows:
83. All railways, and all branches and extensions thereof, and ferries in connection therewith, vested in His Majesty, under the control and management of the minister-
And the minister is defined as the Minister of Railways and Canals-
-and situated in the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, are hereby declared to constitute and form the Intercolonial railway.
Therefore actions for damages of the nature and kind I have mentioned may be brought in request of the Intercolonial railway, and the claims may be unrestricted as to amount.
Of course, this extends the Exchequer Court Act. In the discussion Wednesday last I had in mind the difficulties which have arisen in relation to the railway known as the harbour board railway, operated by the harbour board of the city of Montreal. It is clearly not a part of the Intercolonial railway, under the terms of the section I have read, and therefore in cases of negligence in the operation of that road which give rise to actions for damages they may not be brought under the provision of section 19 of chapter 34, which I have read. Moreover, the railways included in the Intercolonial railway are those which are under the management of the Minister of Railways, and the harbour board railway does not come under his administration.
Then, again, a discussion arose with regard to the Canadian National Railways. At the time I had not my notes in hand, and therefore I was unable to do more than to say that the various railways held by the Canadian National Railways, by reason of the Canadian National Railways holding the stock of those roads, are subject to actions under contract or in tort, or otherwise, exactly the same as the Canadian Pacific Railway is subject to such actions.
If hon. members will look at the Canadian National Railways Act, chapter 172 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, first enacted as
Chapter 13 of the statutes for 1919, they will find section 12 providing that the name Canadian National Railways may apply;-
As a collective or descriptive designation of all lines of railway or railway works under its control, without, however, affecting the rights or liabilities of any of the respective corporations, including His Majesty, for any of their respective acts or admissions.
This clearly creates the inference that while some of those constituent railways were brought under the Canadian National Railways by reason of the Canadian National Railways holding the stock of the constituent or subsidiary company, nevertheless each of those companies was liable as theretofore for all actions in contract or in tort, as in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Section 33 of the same act provides that,-
Actions, suits or other proceedings by or against the company in respect of its undertaking or in respect of the operation or management of the Canadian government railways may, in the name of the company, without a fiat, be brought in and may be heard by any judge or judges of any court of competent jurisdiction in Canada, with the same right of appeal as may be had from a judge sitting in court under the rules of court applicable thereto.
2.	Any defence available to the respective corporations, including His Majesty, in respect of whose undertaking the cause of action arose shall be available to the company.
3.	Any court having under the statutes or laws relating thereto jurisdiction to deal with any cause of action, suit or other proceeding, when arising between private parties shall, with respect to any similar cause of action, suit or other proceeding by or against the company, be a court of competent jurisdiction under the provisions of this section.
In respect, therefore, of the companies constituting the Canadian National Railways, which appear in the schedule to the Canadian National Railway Act, the prerogative of the crown is no defence in actions for tort. This refers to the thirty-one railways enumerated in the schedule to that act. Therefore it is hardly a conclusive argument to suggest that what we are asking in the amendment is special and unprecedented legislation dealing with one branch only of government properties, namely the harbours board as it will be constituted under the bill now before the committee.
The provision respecting the Canadian National Railways which I have just read clearly discloses that all the constituent members now operated by the Canadian National Railways, except the three railways, if my memory serves me correctly, namely the Transcontinental, the Intercolonial and the Prince Edward Island line, are all liable to actions in tort in exactly the same manner as is the Cana-

National Harbours Board
dian Pacific Railway. That- is so by reason of what I might call a special enactment of the parliament of Canada. I suggest, therefore, that it is only equitable and just that parliament, in reconstituting the seven harbour boards under one act the declaring that the new board, the consolidated board I may call it, shall be empowered to make contracts and to sue and to be sued, should go further and declare that this great public utility, which is now being consolidated, should be liable .to actions in tort in exactly the same manner, to the same extent, and before the same provincial courts of competent jurisdiction, as the Canadian Pacific Railway is liable, as all companies owning and operating docks in the various harbours of Canada are liable, and as all railways which are specially incorporated and operated under the general Railway Act of Canada are at present liable. It was with this in view -that, upon consultation with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), I moved this amendment, which I think is worthy of all consideration, and which might properly be dealt with in this act because it is an act relating to all these harbours in just the same way and to the same extent as the Canadian National Railway Act deals with a large number of companies, now between thirty and forty in number, which are constituted as parts of the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Although I am free to admit that I have a good deal of sympathy with most of the views expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. Cahan), I will give one or two reasons why I have to join with my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Howe) in opposing this amendment.
The special way of dealing with the crown as a litigant has come to us through many centuries, and is based upon the theory, first, that the king is not responsible for his negligence nor for the negligence of his officers or agents, and, second, that the king cannot be brought -against his will before his own courts except through special Statutory provision.
My hon. friend has fully and ably presented the arguments which are usually set forth on behalf of those who think that the crown should be held responsible in tort as are ordinary citizens. He has quoted the remarks of Mr. Justice Davis, then on the bench of Ontario, now a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in which Mr. Justice Davis said that he had to apply the doctrine as it is, though he expressed the view that it should be repealed and that the crown should be

considered just like any other litigant with regard to torts as well as with respect to contracts which the crowin may have entered into with its subjects.
Sir Lyman Duff, Chief Justice of Canada, expressed the same view quite recently in the case of Dubois v. the King. In the case of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway Company an automobile had been destroyed by a train of the railway company, and although the courts of first instance had assessed the damages against the company, which is the crown, really, in the right of the province of Ontario, that decision was reversed on appeal because of no responsibility attaching to the crown.
I must, however, call the attention of the committee to the fact that if the accident had taken place on the public property of the Dominion of Canada, if it had been caused by the negligence of one of the servants or officers of the crown on a dominion public work, the victim or his representatives would have had a claim against the crown under the Exchequer Court Act, section 19(c), to which my hon. friend has referred. That section gives jurisdiction to the exchequer court to hear and determine every claim against the crown arising -out of any death or injury to the person or to property resulting from the negligence of any officer or servant of the crown while acting within the scope of his duties or employment upon any public work.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That action in the case of
a government railway such as the Intercolonial would properly have come under section 19(f), would it not?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.
There is a special provision for the Intercolonial railway and the Prince Edward Island railway, which applies now to the Transcontinental as well, but I mean any public work of any kind.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not like to interrupt
the hon. gentleman, but I say that very great difficulties have arisen with regard to the meaning and application of "public work."


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, I
know that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: So that at the present time it is very difficult for a lawyer to advise what is a public work within paragraph (c) of section 19, to which the hon. gentleman has referred, and that was one of the points I was very anxious to clear up.


Ernest Lapointe: So far
as I can remember, Mr. Justice Duff and Mr. MAY 26, 1936
National Harbours Board
Justice Mignault in a certain case-I cannot recall the name at the moment-decided that the definition of "public work" as it is given in the Expropriation Act-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And Public Works Act.


Ernest Lapointe: -should be applied.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The Supreme Court of Canada with another personnel decided just the contrary.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what we call the glorious uncertainty of the law. The interpretation of "public works" in the Interpretation Act will be very broad and will include harbours, ports and all public properties which would be under this bill.
In England, as well as here in Canada, eminent authorities have shared the views of my hon. friend and of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in thinking that there should be a change, more particularly because of the wide scope which government activities have taken during the last few years. Governments are undertaking all sorts of works which formerly were confined to private activity, and the old maxim makes the claims of injured parties more difficult of presentation. While the authorities agreed that some action should be taken, they found also that it is very hard to obtain agreement as to how this should be done. In 1921, Lord Birkenhead, then Lord Chancellor, appointed a committee to study this question. This committee was quite representative, its membership including Lord Hewart, Lord Chief Justice of England, as chairman; Lord Han-worth, Master of the Rolls; Mr. Justice Rowlatt; Mr. Justice Hill; the then Attorney General, Sir Douglas Hogg, now Lord Hail-eham; the Solicitor General, Sir Thomas Inskip, who has since been given a very high position in the government of Great Britain; Sir Patrick Hastings; the Right Honourable Sir Leslie Scott, and many other very eminent legal gentlemen. In order to show just how important this matter was considered to be, I should like to read from a letter sent by Sir Claud Schuster, Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor, to the Attorney General, dated November 16, 1921. He first stated that the Lord Chancellor was glad to learn that the Solicitor General and the Attorney General concurred in the view that a change should be effected in the position of the crown as litigant and then he went on to say:
So great a change, however, would require very careful consideration and many points of detail would arise, upon which reservations
and limitations would be required. Further the change would affect different departments in different ways, and would render it necessary in some cases to substitute an alternative machinery for that which was abandoned.
The Lord Chancellor thinks that any such bill as is contemplated could only be prepared under the supervision of a body of persons experienced in the subject matter, who would have the opportunity of hearing and considering any representation which those principally affected by the change might desire to put forward.
In 1924, Lord Haldane, who succeeded Lord Buckmaster as Lord Chancellor, wrote the committee stating that everybody was in favour of the change and that all that was required from them was merely the drafting of a bill which would be acceptable and which would surround the change to be made with all necessary safeguards and precautions. This bill was drafted and I have a copy in my hand. It is quite long, consisting of thirty-one sections which cover thirty-two pages. The mere reading of it shows how tremendously	important	this	change	was	considered to be by the legal authorities in Great Britain. I should like to call the attention of my hon. friend to the change he suggests in his amendment. The subject is liable for	discovery	and	must disclose orproduce all documents in his possession relating to the matters of the suit. The same rules would be made to apply to the crown itself, except that the crown would have the right to refuse to divulge documents on the ground that it would be contrary to public interest. This matter was fully considered by the committee in England and they drafted section 20, which is divided into four subsections.	Perhaps I	had	better	read	thissection in	order to show that the	same	precautions would have to be taken in anything we do, even with regard to litigation concerning harbour properties or concerning anything relating to the boards. This section reads:
Nothing in the provisions of this act shall operate to impose on any officer of the crown any obligation in the case of any crown proceedings to make discovery of documents on oath, but provision may be made by rules of court for authorizing the court to make orders requiring the crown, subject to the provisions of this section, to make and deliver to the other party to the proceedings, by such officer of the crown as the court may by the order direct, a list in the prescribed form of such documents, not being documents the existence of which it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose, relating to the matters in question as are or have been in the possession, custody or power of the crown.
That is only one of the subsections. The other subsections prevent the filing or even communicating of documents which it would
National Harbours Board

be against the public interest to disclose. Oral evidence is covered by this subsection:
Subject to the provisions of this section, a person who is required by an order made in any crown proceedings to answer interrogatories on behalf of the crown shall not be bound to answer any question if objection is taken in the affidavit made in answer to the interrogatories that it would be injurious to the public interest that the question should be answered.
It has always been the prerogative of the crown not to be compelled to disclose or divulge documents which it is against the public interest to disclose or divulge. Under the amendment of my hon. friend all this would disappear and everything would have to be made public. Might I refer to some other precautions which I think it would be well to take in any measure that would do away with the prerogative. For instance:
(a) Where in any proceedings against the crown any such relief is sought as might in proceedings between subjects be granted by way of injunction or specific performance, the court shall not grant an injunction or make an order for specific performance, but may in lieu thereof niake an order declaratory of the rights of the parties;
I believe that an injunction against the crown in a matter of public interest would be a dangerous thing. In a bill of this kind it would be necessary, I think, specifically to repeal the prerogative of the crown. I do not think we could do so without mentioning it, and that is what was done in the draft bill in England:
The provisions of this part of this act shall have full effect notwithstanding any right, privilege, or prerogative of the crown, rule of law. or enactment to the contrary, which existed or was in force immediately before the commencement of this act.
There are special provisions for execution of judgments and costs against the crown, or received by the crown, which also seem to require special consideration in any amendment of this kind.
There is another feature to which I would call attention, and it is this: If we took this action only in connection with this particular legislation, it would be doing something which would be discriminatory in its effect. In this bill we establish an agency to administer seven harbours in Canada; but there are many more harbours, and if my hon. friend's amendment were adopted, the rights of someone who might be injured on harbour-property at Montreal or Halifax would be different from the rights of a person injured on public property in connection with the harbour at Churchill, for instance, or Port Colborne, or Fort William, and many other places. So that this would establish a differ-

ence in treatment in connection with the various harbours in Canada.
Again, if my hon. friend's amendment were adopted, the crown would be sued in accordance with the ordinary procedure and before any court. I am not quite sure whether it would not be better if we did away, as I think we should, with the petition of right, fiat and all the special formalities surrounding litigation against the crown. I am not clear, however, whether we should not retain the exchequer court as the tribunal where all these actions for or against the crown should be instituted and heard. I am not sure that it would be a good thing that many of these cases should be heard by juries, as they would be, instead of by the exchequer court, where long jurisprudence guides the judges; and it would certainly make for greater uniformity in the law and the jurisprudence if these actions continued to be heard in the exchequer court.
Thei'b is another feature of the amendment to which I would direct attention, though it is one that might be easily changed. My hon. friend, in his amendment, proposes that:
Service upon the board of any writ or process may be effected by personal service upon an officer or employee of the board at any of the harbours over which the board has jurisdiction.
Possibly it would not be desirable, in important actions, if the writ or process were held to have been regularly served in the event of copies having been left in the hands of a doorkeeper or of a watchman at the gate of one of the harbour properties.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I might have made it more definite had I known what officers you were likely to appoint at the ports.


Ernest Lapointe: As I say, that is something which might be easily adjusted. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre is not present or he would say that the suggestion I am going to make is a typically Liberal suggestion, but this is, as I think I have shown, a momentous change. If we make it let us do it well. If they have taken the trouble in England to appoint a committee of the best legal men there, who have taken years to report and to draft a bill, a bill which is not even now on the statute books of Great Britain, I think this would be a queer way of changing what has been not only a tradition but the practice of centuries, without looking at every phase of the matter and surrounding the change with all the guarantees and means of protection which might be necessary.

National Harbours Board
Of course, I am going to vote against my hon. friend's amendment, though with some diffidence, because as I have said I believe that the method is an antiquated one and should be changed, but it should be changed all along the line and not only with respect to a particular part of the public property of Canada. I may say on behalf of my department and, I believe, of the government that before next session we shall prepare a bill which will cover not only the harbours but all public property. We shall try to meet the wishes of my hon. frieind, and we believe it would be better to enact general legislation doing away with the petition of right, and doing so with respect to all claims for torts and injuries against the crown in future.


Frederick George Sanderson: The amendment has not yet been read.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was read in the house on Wednesday and debated.


Frederick George Sanderson: It has not yet been read by the chair. It is moved by Mr. Cahan:
That section 37 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
(3) That the board shall become and be liable to be sued in tort, and that in the case of any such suit in tort, the same procedure shall apply as that which regulates the conduct of similar cases between subjects, including such matters as discovery, the receiving and paying of costs by the board, and the like.
(4)	Service upon the board of any writ or process may be effected by personal service upon an officer or employee of the board at any of the harbours over which the board has jurisdiction.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is very little I can add to what I have already said. The Minister of Justice has suggested that there should be a general revision of the law dealing with petitions of right, so as to enable claimants, in tort to litigate their rights as against the crown in respect of all activities of all departments of government.
I am pleased indeed to learn that the government will undertake the consideration of such a general provision as that, but the very sweeping nature of the provision suggested seems to indicate that it will be years before such a measure is likely to be formulated.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In the meantime I would be quite content with some form of amendment such as is made in the Canadian National Railways act, -which I read, which provides that actions, suits and other proceedings may be brought against any constituent members of the Canadian National Railways. That as drafted deals with particular activities and is expressed in a very few sentences. I may say
that the draft which I made and proposed as an amendment on this occasion was taken by me almost in toto, if I remember, from a lecture or other dissertation given not long ago by Lord Hewart, who was a member of the committee to which the hon, Minister of Justice has referred. We cannot, however, obtain uniformity in such matters, because in respect of actions for tort the law is not the same in the various provinces of Canada. Eor instance, as the hon. Minister of Justice will recognize, the law respecting common employment and acts of negligence arising out of common employment is different in Quebec from what it is in the other provinces of Canada, although the right hon. leader of the opposition suggested to me the other day that in one of the western provinces they had adopted a law similar to the civil code of Quebec. We cannot expect uniformity in such proceedings, but I suggest that, as we have proceeded in the case of the Intercolonial railway and the Prince Edward Island railway, as we have proceeded in connection with the Canadian National Railways, we could with clear justification adopt an amendment to this bill which is confined in its application tc the National Harbours board as created by thu bill. There is grave necessity for such an amendment. I know that it is difficult to rely upon memory after years have elapsed, but there was a time, five or six yeans ago, when my mind was quite clear in respect to causes of action arising against such a board as the Montreal harbour board. But I think I am right in saying that after this bill is passed any practising lawyer in the province of Quebec will have very considerable difficulty at times in determining whether the right' of action exists against the harbour board, or whether the action should be by petition of right, and when counsel comes to consider the question as to whether there is a petition of right in respect of the negligence or nuisance, he will find it very difficult indeed to determine whether, under the restrictive provision of section 19, of chapter 34, revised statutes, clause (e), a right of action exists. I say that without attempting to labour the question.


Ernest Lapointe: Has my hon. friend considered 19(c)? I admit that under (f) that will apply only to the railways, but (c) concerns any public work.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is (e), is it not? I am referring to (e) of the original act.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, I know, but (c) would cover it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would you please read (c)? Section 19(c) provides that the exchequer court shall havp exclusive and original juris-

National Harbours Board

diction to hear and determine the following matters:
(c) every claim against the crown arising out of any death or injury to the person or to property resulting from the negligence of any officer or servant of the crown while acting within the scope of his duties or employment upon any public work.


Ernest Lapointe: That is right. That is (c) now.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This is what I took, section 19 (c) of chapter 34 of the revised statute. I was mistaken in referring to it as (e), but I accept the correction, of course. I think very great difficulty arises under that clause, as in order to ascertain what is any public work and what is employment upon a public work we have had the Supreme Court of Canada on one occasion declaring that a public work was a work defined as a public work by the Public Works act or by the Expropriation act, and then we had a different personnel of the Supreme Court of Canada declaring that the definitions of the Expropriation act and of the Public Works act were not sufficient to define with accuracy what is a public work. Then we have again this case arising: At first there was a suggestion that an accident occurring on the Intercolonial was under certain conditions an accident occurring on a public work, that is, that the Intercolonial railway was a public work, and the supreme court decided accordingly, but that decision gave rise to so many protests that the parliament of Canada was asked by the Department of Justice in 1910-I think that was when the hon. gentleman was Minister of Justice-


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No? The parliament of
Canada was asked-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was in consequence of the Armstrong case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so, but there was so much protest against the Armstrong decision that parliament was asked to make a special enactment with regard to the Intercolonial railway and the Prince Edward Island railway. Parliament .having made a special enactment with regard to the Intercolonial railway and the Prince Edward Island railway, which are government railways, it left a clear presumption that in clause (c), to which the hon. gentleman refers, the term "public work" did not apply to railways. After that date, while I was practising law, I do not think there was a lawyer in Montreal who was giving attention to those matters who would give a firm opinion that negli-

gence on the harbour railway was negligence upon a public work within the meaning of clause (c). There are very grave difficulties about the matter, I suggest, and there is no reason in the world why every labourer or other person crossing this railway, if he suffers injury from negligence, should be placed in a position, where it is very doubtful whether he has a cause of action or not. It is to remove that doubt and confusion that I am suggesting this amendment. If there is to be a general revision I trust it will take place soon, but I cannot see why we should to-day wait upon a general revision any more than, in 1910 we declined to wait for a general revision, or in 1919 in connection with the Canadian National Railways, or any more than we declined to wait on several other occasions for a general revision of the Petition of Right Act and of the statutory jurisdiction of the exchequer court.


Mr. FINN:: I regret exceedingly that I was not in the committee when the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) proposed his amendment. I have not a copy of the amendment before me, and it seem3 impossible to get it. For that, of course, the hon. gentleman is not to blame. The port of Halifax is involved in the question raised by my hon. friend. I was not quite able to catch his meaning in his general statement in connection with rights of action, whether or not they would lie without obtaining a fiat by bringing an action against the railway as a public work or by bringing an action as you would against an individual, by simply issuing a writ and serving it. As it seems to be the only way I can find out, I would like to ask the hon. member just what that point is, not to raise any objection or criticism but just in order to be informed. I regret that I was ill and not in the committee the other day when the hon. gentleman .brought the matter up.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The amendment which I proposed and the explanation of it will be found on page 3001 of Hansard.


Robert Emmett Finn: I do not have Hansard before me. I came down to this seat where I am now in order to be able to hear the hon. gentleman.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think the issue is clearly stated in the memorandum prepared by the Deputy Minister of Justice and laid upon the table of the house, namely that while this bill states in express terms that the harbours board may make contracts and may sue and be sued, that provision does not permit of the

National Harbours Board
harbours board being sued in. tort, as, for instance, for nuisance or negligence. It was with a view to having that clarified, and to make it clear that the board can be sued in tort, although it is declared by the bill to be the agent of the crown, that this amendment was suggested.


Robert Emmett Finn: May I ask, is it only in reference to actions in tort? My hon. friend admits that action is possible by fiat being granted by the attorney general or the Minister of Justice at the present time?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think it is a matter of grave doubt. It will depend upon the nature and locus of the negligence complained of.


Robert Emmett Finn: That could be defined only in the statement of claim.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman will read the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice to which I referred it will be quite clear to his mind, if he accepts the statement of the deputy minister, which I think may be accepted without doubt, that under this bill no action in tort can be brought against the harbours board. I was suggesting that provision should be made that such action could be brought. In other words, no such action will now lie against the board.


Robert Emmett Finn: Taking for granted that no action will lie, I accept that although I have not read the opinion of the deputy minister; I believe his judgment is superior to mine. Unfortunately I have devoted more time to politics than to law, and therefore I am not as good a lawyer as I might have been. But I would like to ask my hon. friend: If the statement he makes is correct that there is doubt as to the right of bringing action for a wrong, which is a tort, does it not lie within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice or Attorney General of Canada to grant a fiat to permit a writ to issue for that purpose?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Unless there is a clear statutory provision authorizing such a claim by petition of right it is not within the discretion of the Minister of Justice or of the governor in council to grant a fiat on such a petition. There must be statutory authority somewhere.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Justice I think overlooks the fact that in England they have no exchequer court. We have an exchequer court in Canada and my colleague has pointed out that special legislation has been enacted conferring jurisdiction upon that court to deal with certain claims which may arise against the Canadian National Railways. Now, is that not the very sort of thing which
should be done with respect to actions in tort against this board? It would seem to me by analogy that is the very thing which should be done. The reason the English draft bill was so long was because it had to provide an entirely new code of procedure for dealing with actions against the crown. Such procedure has not heretofore been provided since the abolition of the old court of exchequer chamber. The proceedings contemplated under our Exchequer Court Act in actions brought in that court against the Canadian National Railways are not actions triable by a jury, but actions that are tried in consequence of the power being conferred upon that court to consider them. And as that court has its own rules and regulations it is not necessary to have a long bill concerning the procedure in that court.
I am not going over the ground that I went over the other evening when I gave an illustration in which I referred to a man working on a dock, and crossing over to a railway. In one case there was liability, and in the other there was not. There was action against the shipping company but no action against the operators of the railway. But I just put this case to you, Mr. Chairman, and then I shall have concluded all I have to say:
1.	We have created a corporation for the purpose of dealing with the harbours. Nominally that corporation would be liable to action, because it is one of the implied powers of a corporation to sue and be sued. That is a statutory provision.
2.	However we have said that that corporation is the agent of the crown, and as a consequence of that declaration the deputy minister has given the opinion that no action for tort would lie against the board.
3.	We having deprived the board of the ordinary implied powers of a corporation, by reason of declaring it to be an agent of the crown, it would be nothing more than right or proper that the law, in view of all the minister has said, should confer jurisdiction upon our exchequer court, to determine actions regarding persons or property to the same extent, in the same way, by the same form of procedure and in the same limitations as parliament, in consequence of the Armstrong case, conferred upon the exchequer court by statute in 1910. That is all I desire to say.
I can readily understand the minister not desiring to enact a general law at this time in view of the fact that if he does so he has to make a choice between conferring an open power upon the exchequer court over existing rules and regulations covering procedure, and following the British proposal and by a legislative act which confers the jurisdiction to
National Harbours Board

sue for tort also providing the method of procedure which shall be followed in enforcing the right. I can also understand the minister's hesitancy in singling out this particular class of case, to the exclusion of others. But that unwillingness or doubt is answered by the fact that in 1910 a former government enacted the section to which reference has been made, in consequence of the Armstrong case. Parliament having thus conferred jurisdiction upon the exchequer court-not an ordinary court as was at first suggested, but the exchequer court-it would be a reasonable and proper thing to say that for actions of tort this corporation, which we have deprived of the obligation incident to action being brought against it, could be sued just as we have declared that the Canadian National Railways could be sued.
My hon. friend and colleague fully appreciates the difficulty, but there is not the slightest difficulty in the suggestion as he put it to-night. I will put it in this way: A corporation deprived of the obligation of being sued, because it is made an agent of the crown by the statute creating it, should not be placed in a position where it is not liable for negligence in connection with a railway, when the liability attaches to those who operate the very facilities that now are under the control of the corporation only perhaps a few feet away. I think, instead of our waiting for a general law, this might be a proper case in which to exercise our jurisdiction as we did in 1910 in the railway case, and it would be a step forward in creating an obligation that is co-extensive with a right. That is, if we have limited the power of this coiporation, as we have done, then let us at least say that by so doing, having conferred extraordinary rights upon it with respect to taxation and matters of that kind, we are not going to put the unfortunate person injured by the operation of the railway, or a workman injured by the operation of the property, in a position different from the one he would be in if he worked for another corporation which was not an agent of the crown and had not these limitations imposed upon it. If the government has made up its mind that the legislation should not be enacted, then of course it is idle further to waste time in discussion. But at least it is our duty to place our position on record as concisely as possible.


Ernest Lapointe: I am grateful to my right hon. friend for his remarks, because they will help when we are to arrive at a decision upon what course is to be followed in connection with general legis-

lation concerning the matter. But I am afraid the course suggested does not lessen the present difficulty. My right hon. friend seems to be of opinion that all these actions should be kept before the exchequer court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that could be
done.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. If they are retained there, then the only thing that will remain is the petition of right, because at the present time there is no doubt-[DOT] and in this I differ from the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George-that the recourse exists under section 19 of the Exchequer Court Act. I admit that there has been for a time a difference of opinion among members of the judiciary, but the decisions of 1934 and 1935 are to the effect that public works are broad enough to include what my hon. friend has in mind, and that the definition of the Expropriation Act should be accepted.
With regard to the Canadian National Railways my hon. friends say: Well, the Canadian National Railways can be sued before all courts. Yes, but the exception was made and kept with regard to those sections of the railway which were the property of the people of Canada, when the absorption or amalgamation was brought about.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They are all the property of Canada, but three of them are vested in His Majesty.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes; but my hon. friend knows, too, that when the Grand Trunk became the property of Canada through special legislation it was private property at the time and it was thought better to leave to that company the law under which it had operated before. But care was taken not to include the Intercolonial railway and the Prince Edward Island railway, railways which had always been the public property of Canada, and even now, except in connection with the small claims to w'hich the hon. member referred, one has to apply for a petition of right. So I believe the whole matter will have to be considered as a whole, and revised. I repeat that so far as I am concerned I share the view' that this procedure should be changed. There is not the same reason to-day as existed in former days for the retention of this special procedure with regard1 to crown litigation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The crown was not engaged in business then.

National Harbours Board


Ernest Lapointe: It may have been to a very limited extent, but not to the extent it is to-day-for good or for bad, I do not know. However I think we might very well wait for the special legislation.


Robert Emmett Finn: It seems to me that in connection with legislation placed before the house there should be some clear understanding as to the rights of individuals in actions of tort, or in other actions. I never could see clearly, and I cannot see clearly to-day, why the crown should stand in any different position from that of an individual in reference to an action for tort. An individual is less able than the crown to stand any damages, and I think the crown should stand the gaff just the same as the individual.
So far as the Intercolonial railway is concerned, there is not that broad and generous construction given it that should be given under section 145 of the British North America Act. That railway was gobbled up by legislation which was brought down, not by hon. gentlemen at preisent opposite nor by the present right hon. the leader of the opposition, but by their party under Sir Robert Laird Borden, for whom I have a great respect. He brought down the railway act of Canada of 1919, which came into effect in so far as the Intercolonial railway was concerned. Under that legislation it was provided that the moment the Grand Trunk became part of Ithe Canadian National railway system the Intercolonial railway should become part of that system and subject to tlhe railway commission.
So to-day there is a multiplicity of reasons why in any legislation that passes through this house with reference to the national harbours of Canada, or the Canadian National Railways, or any other property of the crown, there should be clarity so that there would not be tlhe necessity of appealing to the courts from time to time, giving members of my own profession exorbitant fees at the expense of the public and in many instances at the expense of the government itself which after all falls heavily upon the people of this country. Speaking as perhaps a junior senior member of the profession, though not perhaps as a junior member of this house, I think that in enacting tthis legislation to-day, in view of what has been stated, and I think correctly, by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and by the former Secretary of State, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), we should know what we are doing and have it expressed in unmistakable legal phraseology,- 12739-199
I am sorry he does not represent a Nova Scotia seat for tlhen he would be nearer to the hearts of the people of that province, just as my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition would be nearer the hearts of the people of the province in which he was born if he represented a New Brunswick constituency-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hope yet.


Robert Emmett Finn: Well, hope deferred is never lost. I hope my right hon. friend has not any misgivings that he may not be able to represent again the constituency he now represents, but if it is a case of the wanderer's return we shall be only too pleased to see him come down to the maritime provinces.


Ernest Lapointe: Including Halifax.


Robert Emmett Finn: Including Halifax.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether your remark is addressed to myself or to the Minister of Justice.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is addressed to the hon. member for Halifax.


Robert Emmett Finn: I feel highly honoured. As I said, Mr. Chairman, there does not seem to be any clarity with regard to this legislation or with regard to your ruling. This bill respecting the national harbours has been brought down by the Minister of Marine, who is soon, under other legislation, to become Minister of Transport. He is not a member of the legal profession, but we have had the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice and of the right hon. leader of the opposition, who has referred to the Armstrong case. I do not know whether he meant the Armstrong defeat in Nova Scotia in 1925, or the Armstrong case in which a judgment was handed down either by the Supreme Court of Canada or by the Exchequer Court, and by the way it seems to me that all cases which other courts do not desire to handle are passed on to the exchequer court as a sort of left-handed compliment. I do not expect that the Minister of Marine should be able to answer legal questions because he is .not a lawyer, although if .he was one I am sure he would be a good one because he is a good engineer; but before we pass this bill and send it up to the other chamber, where there is astuteness, I think we should at least know what we are doing and where we are going, so that when they come and knock at the door we may know what they are going to say to us when they come in.

National Harbours Board


Clarence Decatur Howe: Might I say just one word of reassurance from a layman to the other laymen of the committee? I am reasonably sure of this, because I got a report on it from an officer of the Department of Justice. The legal position of Montreal harbour and of every other harbour under this legislation will be exactly what it was, is now and has been ever since the harbour boards were created.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is not so. In reply
to that I would refer to the act relating to the harbour commissioners of Montreal, chapter 48 of the statutes of 1894 which, by section 21, subsection 4, provides:
The corporation may institute and defend all suits, actions and proceedings in any court of justice in respect of the said property and the land comprised within the harbour as fully as can be done by proprietors holding lands by valid title, or as might be done by or on behalf of Her Majesty in respect of the bed or beach of the river St. Lawrence.
That is an entirely different position from anything contained in the present bill.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall section 37 pass?


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Chairman-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Robert Emmett Finn: I would like to ask the chairman of the committee in what way I am out of order. I would like to know the reason.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member is
not out of order providing he confines his remarks to section 37.


Robert Emmett Finn: I had not started to say anything before I was called to order. If I am to observe the rules of the house, the rules of the house should be properly interpreted.
When the Minister of Marine speaks as one layman to another, he is not speaking to hon. gentlemen who are of the legal profession. But this is a legal question. If it were a medical matter that was before the house we should look to members of the medical profession for guidance, and in legal maters we should look to the legal profe^ion. When this question is raised by the former Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) and by such an astute lawyer as the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), I think it is worthy of consideration on the part of the government and on the part of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I understand I am confined by the ruling of the chairman to the discussion of section 37, and I want to say that it seems to me

that the further we get into this, the more confused we are. Whether the confusion comes from the chair or from the floor, I do not know, but I think we should have an opinion from the Minister of Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: I have given it twice.


Robert Emmett Finn: All I can say is that we get one opinion from one court, and another opinion from another court, and that is why there is so much litigation in Canada and other countries. That is why in the United States the NRA is higher than the American flag ever flew. We should deal with these actualities from a legal standpoint and suggestions of a reasonable kind at least should be looked into and the bill held up in order that an intelligent interpretation may be made of the clauses and a further opinion obtained from the Deputy Minister of Justice, but whether that would be worth while I am not at the moment in a position to say. I have not had an opportunity of reading the other opinion, nor have I had an opportunity of seeing the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. I want to say-and I say it quite kindly-that there must be some sort of understanding in this house between hon. gentlemen. A few moments ago I was not permitted to see the amendment moved by the hon. member. When I sent a message to the Chairman I was told I could see it if I went up to the table. I do not think any hon. member should be placed in that position.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for Halifax is entirely out of order. I read the amendment from the chair.


Robert Emmett Finn: I could not hear it.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the committee ready for the question? The question is on the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Cahan) negatived.
Section 37 agreed to.
On section 16, subsection 4-Vessel may be sold.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Last Wednesday I directed attention to this subsection and the hon. gentleman said that he would take into consideration the suggestion I made in connection therewith. This subsection reads:
Such vessel may be seized and sold under any writ or warrant of execution or of distress issued by any court of record upon the judgment or conviction at the suit of the board against the vessel, the master, owner or person in charge thereof.

National Harbours Board
My suggestion was that the words "court of record" should be changed to "court of competent jurisdiction." The tariff board is a court of record, but we would hardly expect such process to issue out of that board. There are so many courts of record that I think this subsection should be restricted in some way.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no objection to that. I move that the words "of record" in subsection 4, of section 16 be struck out and replaced by the words "of competent jurisdiction."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Clarence Decatur Howe: With the unanimous consent of the house, I would move that the bill be now read a third time. The other chamber is anxious to receive this bill.


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Speaker, before this motion carries I should like to say that because of illness I was unable to be in the house when this bill was last being considered. I got out of a sick bed to come to the house the other afternoon when the bill was to be considered and I was informed on arrival that it was going to stand over for a fortnight. Only late this afternoon I learned that it was to come up to-night. The other day the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) moved an amendment which I read in Hansard, and my hon. colleague, who is not in the house-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, he is here.


Mr. ISNOR:: Yes, I am here.


Robert Emmett Finn: Well, all I can say is that two minds think alike. I can see that my right hon. friend is pleased that my colleague is here, and I am also pleased, but I would say to my hon. colleague that I had no knowledge that he was going away. So far as I am concerned it is immaterial to me whether he goes or stays.


Walter Edward Foster: I do not think the hon. gentleman's remarks are relevant.


Robert Emmett Finn: Of course, one may digress
for a moment, but what I was going to say was that my colleague moved or suggested an amendment the other afternoon. It was the afternoon I came into the house in order that I might have an opportunity if necessary to support him in that amendment. But as I had already pointed out on a previous 12739-1995
occasion, the amendment he then proposed would possibly conflict with sections that were already in the transcontinental act, and it might be well therefore not to proceed with it. I had not had, nor have I had an opportunity to consult with him or to discuss with him the subject matter of that amendment; all I know is that it was unceremoniously rejected. My colleague and I represent a constituency which is affected by this bill now before the house, for Halifax is one of the great eastern gateways of Canada. We should, therefore, be negligent in our duty if we did not see to it that the interests of these ports are protected with respect to the movement of traffic over Canadian territory and over Canadian lines to Canadian ports.
As regards the amendment that was moved by the Minister of National Defence, I read it in Hansard; in fact, I am under the impression that there were two. I am not quite sure just what was meant by these amendments, or whether they were in substitution for the amendment proposed by my colleague from Halifax, or whether they dealt with the same subject matter. The amendment which my colleague proposed was offered for the purpose of clarity and to protect the interests of our eastern ports, as I believe the Minister of National Defence would wish to see them protected, as well as the western ports of this great dominion. Before the motion for a third reading is put, I should like, with the permission of the chair, to ask the Minister of National Defence what was the purport and meaning of the amendments that were submitted by him to the committee.


Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: When this measure was first introduced, if I remember correctly, I commended the Minister of Marine (Mr. Howe), though the commendation was to some extent qualified. It is not my intention at this time to make a speech on the bill, but before the bill finally passed the house I wanted to crystallize a few thoughts that were in my mind.
There is one point I wanted to emphasize and it is this: I can read in this measure a certain degree of assurance that the new commission which is to be appointed is to be a body of civil servants or a body created from members of the present civil service. I do not think that is a commendable action as far as the government is concerned, and I want to voice my opinion against that action. I also wanted to take exception to section 3 whereby these members are to be appointed by the governor in council and shall hold
National Harbours Board

office during good behaviour for ten years. It was my intention at one stage, as the Minister of Marine knows, to move an amendment which would provide that we strike out, in the fifth line of that section, all the words after "governor in council" down to the end, and substitute therefor the words "who shall hold office during pleasure." I do not see why in a bill of this sort three men should be appointed for a definite period of time instead of a commission being created to hold office during pleasure. The Minister of Marine is not at all certain even in his own mind that the three men whom he might select for this commission are going to be-


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of order, how does the hon. gentleman know what is in my mind?


William Allen Walsh: I put it in this way: It is quite possible for even the Minister of Marine to make a wrong selection in connection with appointments to this commission: These men, it is assumed, are appointed for a period of ten years. During that time a new government might come into power to whom these men would not be acceptable: then we should have to put through this house a measure to get rid of them. AYe have the same difficulty at the present time in connection with the board of trustees for our railways. They were appointed for a definite period, and probably the Minister of Railways wishes at this time that that had not been done. In Hansard of 1931 is shown the attitude that was then taken on this matter by no less a person than the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). In no uncertain terms he condemned the appointment of the commissioners for a fixed period of time. I shall not read his speech, which was at great length and may be found on. page 2704 of Hansard, of June 16, 1931. He condemned most heartily appointments of this sort to a commission similar to this one, and yet we have the government which is now led by him bringing in legislation of the same kind. I cannot understand such action. I am very much opposed to any body of men being appointed by this house as commissioners for a period of ten years, binding the appointments on the present government and on future governments which may hold office during that period.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is a new light, surely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the present Prime Minister.


William Allen Walsh: I am referring to remarks which were made in this house in 1931 by the present leader of the government, when he took the same exception to similar appoint-

ments that I am taking to the appointment which is going through the house to-night. This emphasizes how the complexion of things changes according to the side of the house on which one finds oneself. If, as I hope, I may have the good fortune some day to be sitting on the right of the Speaker, I hope I shall not turn about face upon a matter of this kind.
I desire also to refer to a certain omission from the bill. We have heard it suggested, I believe by the minister himself, that it was his idea to have appointed, under the control of the commission, port managers. There is no mention of that in this bill. I contend that in a measure so vastly important to certain sections of Canada, particularly to the district I happen to represent, when a change of this sort is to be brought about, when port managers are to be appointed, there should be embodied in the bill some reference to such appointments and a clear definition of the duties of the appointees. I do not find any reference to this in the bill, and it follows that no duties are clearly or specifically defined. I do not know whether it was a point that was overlooked by the Minister of Marine, or whether it was deliberately omitted from the bill with some particular or peculiar motive in mind. I am1 not prepared to fathom the depths of wisdom that underlie the bill itself, but on this matter I feel that the house is entitled to have included in the bill something which will guarantee the integrity of our ports more surely than they are guaranteed by the measure that is now about to be passed.
I am a little concerned about the ultimate future of the port of Montreal. I feel that there are certain omissions from the bill and certain features of it that ultimately will jeopardize that port. I am sorry that there are not more members for the Montreal district present in the house. I should like to have heard their expressions of opinion as to whether they consider the bill in its present form quite satisfactory and not endangering in any way the future of our great national port. If Montreal is in danger-and I feel that it is being endangered by this bill-our national life is also to some extent affected. If the power and authority to control the ports of Canada were being placed in the hands of an independent commission, I would say that possibly that was a step worthy of some consideration. The bill does not do that. It pretends to do it, but in reality the power is centralized under the authority of one individual, and I for one do not want to entrust the future of the port of Montreal to even the present Minister of Marine, for whom I have the greatest esteem. I do not

Customs Tariff
think any one man, particularly a man so actively engaged in politics, should be vested with control of such vital interests as the national ports of Canada, and I refer particularly to the district of Montreal. To my mind the appointment of these three commissioners, presumably three civil servants, and the putting into their hands of certain authority. simply means that it will be impossible for them to act without having consulted with and received the approval of the minister. Then there is no mention in the bill of a port manager. He might be a mere puppet; he might be a glorified office boy; he might be anything at all.
There is nothing in this 'bill that either suggests or assures to me as a member from Montreal that the port is going to be satisfactorily managed under the conditions set up by the bill. I hope that when it is returned to this house we shall find some amendments have been added which will definitely provide for a port manager and clearly define his duties, rights and privileges. I hope also that this bill, before it comes back to this house, will be so amended that the power now placed in the hands of the Minister of Marine will be vested in some other authority. I should like to see this bill further amended so that the commissioners who are to be appointed will not be three men taken from the present civil service of Canada, but will be men of independent thought who have not been, as yet, members of the civil service.
I express these views before the bill receives its third reading in order to place myself on record as being unalterably opposed to certain features of it, and for the definite reason that it jeopardizes the prosperity and possibly the very existence of the port in which I am vitally interested, namely the port of Montreal, as well as the other national ports of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.




[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Customs tariff-663e.	Sea-weeds or seaplants, charred, whether powdered or not, for use exclusively in the feeding of animals: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is that about?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is powdered kelp used for stock feeds, and the British government is interested in a concession on that item for Great Britain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Northern Scotland.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-695.	Paintings in oil or
water colours and pastels, valued at less than $20 each, n.o.p.:	British preferential tariff,
15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 2J per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: Just "n.o.p." added.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-695b. Hand-made drawings, sketches or designs, but not including patterns, viz.:-drawings, sketches or designs of wearing apparel, including boots and shoes, wall or floor coverings and textile fabrics, when imported in single copies of each such drawing, sketch or design for use in the manufacture of wearing apparel, boots or shoes, textile fabrics, wall or floor coverings, or of patterns: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-696a.	Educational moving
picture films of all widths, silent or sound, positive or negative, and sound discs or records designed for use with such films, when certified by the minister as entitled to exemption from customs duty under the convention for facilitating the international circulation of films of an educational character; subject to such regulations as the minister may prescribe: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is requested by the Department of External Affairs in order to bring Canadian customs practice into line with the provisions of the convention facilitating the international circulation of films of an educational character.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-698.	All articles specially
designed for the use of the blind, whether for educational, recreational, industrial, personal or other purposes, when for blind persons and imported by, or on the order or certificate of, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, or other bona fide institution or association for the blind:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change in this item, is there? It has always been free.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is an entirely new
item. Certain articles have always been entitled to free entry, and this is bringing all such articles into one item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Customs tariff-703. (a) Travellers' baggage, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free: general tariff, free.
_ (b) Goods valued at not more than $100 included in the baggage accompanying residents of Canada returning from abroad after an absence from Canada of not less than forty-eight hours and acquired by them for personal or household use or as souvenirs or gifts, but not bought on commission or as an accommodation for other persons or for sale, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Provided that a resident of Canada shall not be entitled to the exemption herein granted within a period of four months from the date of the last exemption allowed, nor shall the exemption be allowed on alcoholic beverages in excess of one quart, or on tobacco in excess of fifty cigars, two hundred cigarettes and two pounds of manufactured tobacco.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is no change in
(a), but we should discuss (b) which is the $100 matter.


Mr. MALLETTE:: I should like to suggest to the minister that he direct his department, before the next session of this honourable house, to make an investigation for the purpose of finding out whether it would not be possible to extend the scope of that arrangement. As it is now Canadian tourists returning from abroad, so long as they have been away forty-eight hours, are permitted to bring into Canada duty free certain goods to the amount of $100. Besides those, quite a number of tourists leave Canada for less than forty-eight hours, for instance, people who go to the United States for an afternoon. They do not go very often, but certainly their number is greater than that of tourists who cross the Atlantic, or who go to the United States for a fortnight to enjoy the sea breezes at Atlantic resorts. These are poor people who journey for a day to the United States, and at seems to me that perhaps they should be given a little consideration, say in the next budget. I do not say that they should get the $100 exemption, but perhaps they might get a certain allowance. I understand, of course, that might lead to certain difficulties in the border cities, but at the same time the poorer class of tourists who go across for an afternoon or perhaps twenty-four hours should be given a little consideration.


Charles Avery Dunning: In connection with an
item of this kind the government will, of necessity, watch its operation with great care during the first year. I gather that my hon. friend is suggesting such a course with a view to considering any possible change

which experience might dictate at the next session of parliament. I assure him that preparations are being made to watch very carefully the working of this arrangement.


Mr. WHITE:: I would like to ask the
minister why it is that this exemption is being proposed. Has it any relation to the recent trade agreement with the United States?
Mr. DUNNING; Oh, yes.


Richard Smeaton White: Because the minister knows that American tourists in Canada or elsewhere have enjoyed for a great number of years, for several decades, the privilege of importing free articles purchased abroad. Was this item put in by the government on its own initiative, or is it related to the trade agreement with the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will perhaps remember that at the time of the negotiation of the Canada-United States trade agreement there was a supplementary note from the Canadian government to the American government, one of the undertakings of which note was that such legislation as is now before the committee would be introduced. My hon. friend is quite correct when he says that American tourists returning from abroad have had this privilege for some time, under fairly strict regulations, and there is overwhelming evidence that the ability to sell to American tourists visiting Canada $100 worth of goods which could be taken back free of duty has been of great advantage to Canada. Canada is anxious that that privilege to returning American tourists should be continued, and undoubtedly its prospects of continuance are improved by the fact that we are acting in a similar manner in regard to Canadian tourists visiting the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not quite the
same.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it is not quite the same as the American regulation.
Mr. MacNICOL; The wording of paragraph (b) is not like the regulations pertaining to Americans returning to the United States. This paragraph says, "acquired by them for personal or household use." The American regulations as I read them do not include articles for household use.
Mr. DUNNING; I have the wording of the American regulation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have it before me.
Section 39 provides that:
No exemption is allowed in any ease unless the articles claimed to be exempt were purchased or otherwise acquired merely as an incident of the trip.
Certainly household goods would not be an incident of the trip. I made a bit of a survey among Canadian merchants and manufacturers as to their opinion in reference to item 703.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid the hon.
member is not reading the substantive part of the American regulation. It is as follows:
Provided further that up to but not exceeding $100 in value of articles acquired abroad by such residents of the United States for personal or household use or as souvenirs or curios, but not bought on commission or intended for sale shall be admitted free of duty;
Provided further that residents of the United States shall not take advantage of the exemption herein granted within a period of thirty days from the last exemption claimed.
That is the substantive portion of the present United States regulation in that regard.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I had not read the next
regulation; the minister is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They may do this eleven times a year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is there any regulation
in the United States act for a forty-eight hour period?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Their act provides for
a thirty day trip, one trip within thirty days.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and ours is one
every four months.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I think that is an improvement on their act. If a motorist brought back a motor radio in his car, would it be considered as household effects, and would he be permitted to bring it in?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If it were included in the
baggage of a returning Canadian tourist, and if it were for personal or household use, or a souvenir or gift.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then the returning
motorist may bring back a radio in his car. Two radio manufacturing companies have informed me that would do serious damage to their business, and would result in a reduction in their sales. I have no doubt people in Canada will appreciate this privilege; as a matter of fact I want to get a motor
Customs Tariff
radio myself, and while I would rather buy in Canada, yet if I happened to be across the line I cannot say whether I might buy one or not. Do our regulations permit shipments in bond?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The tourist will have to
bring the article back with him?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.
Mr.	MacNICOL:	Under the American
regulations they may ship in bond; they do not have to carry	the articles back with
them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they have to make
a declaration.
Mr.	MacNICOL:	Then could a tourist
bring back $100 worth of cigars and cigarettes?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; there is a stipulation
in the item.


Charles Avery Dunning: The item states what
they may bring.
Mr.	MacNICOL:	A person may bring
back $100 worth of goods.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a proviso in the
item which deals with cigars and cigarettes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: While there is nothing
I can say to stop the regulation I cannot help feeling that it will result in material loss in sales on articles which could be purchased in Canada.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I do not believe the regulation will be as costly to Canadian industry as some people believe. I am of opinion that it will save many people from making false customs declarations. Many of the goods which will be purchased are now entering Canada but are not being declared, and in all probability the amount brought in under the new regulation will be so small or so relatively negligible that it will not be of great importance. People will not feel that by bringing articles into the country contrary to regulation they are doing something clever, and in view of the price levels of the two countries, in many respects comparable, I do not believe evils will result which hon. members to my immediate right seem to fear. Speaking on behalf not only of a large number of people in western Canada but of many whom I have met in eastern Canada, may I say that the regulation has been received with great favour. In view of the heavy tourist traffic entering Canada we are liable to he the gainers, because if we do not reciprocate in some way in this connection pressure sooner or later
Customs Tariff

would undoubtedly be brought to bear upon the American government to discontinue the privilege extended to tourists returning to their country. The matter has already been discussed in the United States, and1 in all probability this concession might save the people of Canada a valuable asset in American tourist purchases in this country.
A few moments ago reference was made to radios. I believe the majority of radios installed1 in automobiles and purchased in Canada are produced by foreign companies, many of which are American. To my mind the whole tariff situation in this dominion is one which cannot command support of intelligent Canadians. Actually we are protecting American, owned factories in Canada from American owned factories in the United States, and American owners of Canadian factories benefit to the extent of the increased prices equal to the duty charged by Canada. To my mind the regulation represents a step in the right direction,; it is welcomed by a great number of people, and I should like parliament to go even one step further and allow the privilege of importing $100 of personal goods to people who can cross the border for only twenty-four hours, or who cannot own an automobile or purchase a ticket to go abroad.


Grote Stirling: I wonder if the minister can tell us whether he has made an,y computation as to the loss in revenue that Canada will suffer?


Charles Avery Dunning: We do not know; we have no means of arriving at what the results will be. That is the reason why in a reply I made a few moments ago I indicated that the Department of National Revenue was making special preparations to check the operation of this provision, so that we shall have information in future.


William Allen Walsh: Several municipalities have what are known as sales or turn-over taxes. Of course some people do not think this particular clause is of great significance, but to a large city like Montreal, when we have a condition where tourists going to the United States in considerable numbers are permitted once every four months to bring back $100 worth of goods, a considerable amount of purchasing power is directed into another channel. The result is that not only do the merchants suffer, but the sales tax collected in the city of Montreal, upon which we depend to help pay our way, is being lost. Is the government making any effort to reimburse such cities for the losses they are suffering or to collect a tax from individuals on the amounts purchased to remit to the municipalities or provinces,

as the case may be? This matter is of great importance to the larger centres. Has the government anything to say in connection with that phase of the $100 regulation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the minister
answers may I ask this question: Does the $100 pay any sales tax, and does it pay the three per cent excise tax?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, neither of them.
With regard to the question raised by my hon. friend from Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh), there is no provision, as I think he knows, for any remission to the municipalities, but when he speaks of any business lost by his city I may say, without having statistics on which I can rely, that I am fairly certain that no city benefits more from the exemption which applies to American tourists returning to their own country than does Montreal. I know from correspondence with merchants in that city that they were very anxious that nothing should be left undone by the Canadian government to preserve for them what they regard as a valuable privilege. They were afraid some months ago, when rumours were circulated about what was going to happen to the privilege accorded to American tourists returning to their own country, and from no city in Canada have I received more representations than from Montreal that the government of Canada should go as far as possible to prevent this privilege to United States citizens being withdrawn, because of the great value it was to the merchants of that city.


William Allen Walsh: I quite appreciate that fact, and I do not want to minimize the amount of revenue obtained by the merchants of Montreal from the tourist trade. It is an important and considerable item, and I quite appreciate that fact. But when the previous government was in office prior to October, 1935, I hardly think that this question of the $100 exemption was raised by the United States. I think it has been raised as a result of the trade agreement. I want to point out to the Minister of Finance through the Chairman, one important fact.


Charles Avery Dunning: Before my hon. friend leaves that point, I would say that certainly the $100 exemption was under discussion between the governments of the two countries before we came into office.


William Allen Walsh: But as a result of the negotiations for the trade agreement.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, of course.

Customs Tariff


William Allen Walsh: I think it was the negotiations for the trade agreement that raised the point because this exemption granted to returning American tourists has been in effect for a considerable time and there has been no question of doing away with it.
There is one feature of this trade which, I think, should be emphasized and brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance. Purchases made by Americans visiting Canada are of a different category from purchases made by Canadians in the United States. For instance, Canadians going to the United States purchase boots, clothing, wearing apparel and goods of that kind, but Americans for the most part purchase quite differently when they come to Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a very wide
range of purchases.


William Allen Walsh: There are major exceptions; there is no doubt about that, but generally Americans purchase, not the products of our factories, but other products of Canada, whereas Canadians go into the United States for the most part to purchase products of their factories, and in that way our working men in this country lose to a certain extent. I do not want to overemphasize a point that might be minor. I do not want to cry havoc in the midst of depression or anything of that sort.


Charles Avery Dunning: What does my hon. friend suggest we ought to do?


William Allen Walsh: When the department is
giving careful consideration to this enactment which it is suggested they are going to do during the next year, I think attention should be paid to the peculiar features of this interchange of trade carried on by American and Canadian tourists returning to their respective countries in order that the actual effects in connection with the purchases which are made on either side of the border may be noted, so that we may see if there is any difference between purchases made by American tourists in Canada and those made by Canadian tourists in the United States.


Charles Avery Dunning: No doubt there is.


William Allen Walsh: And see if our factories
are being jeopardized to any extent by purchases made in the United States by Canadian tourists; if there is an overbalance in purchases as between the two countries.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the hon. gentleman what experience he has had of purchases made by Americans in Canada and by Canadians in the United States?


William Allen Walsh: I would not like to take
up the time of the committee by relating my personal history in answer to that question.


Jean-François Pouliot: A very easy answer. Just listen to the hon. gentleman, who is a professor in Montreal. He says that Americans who come here do not buy any goods from our factories but that Canadians who go to the United States buy goods from American factories. What evidence has he of that fact? He knows very well that tourists buy knick-knacks in every country.


William Allen Walsh: I said, "buy the products
of American factories," not "buy goods from American factories."


Jean-François Pouliot: What is the difference?
The hon. member is splitting hairs.


William Allen Walsh: I have not many left to
split.


Jean-François Pouliot: Do we see any American
tourists coming here to buy our raw products? Do they buy and carry back in their cars hides, or flour, or grain, or hay, or straw? No. Our lion, friend is a young man. He comes to this house, and every time he speaks he is a depository of the revealed truth; he is a professor in Montreal. Now he says something very vague, very obscure, something that no one understands, but it comes from him and it must be very deep, just as deep as the deep sea because he said it. It is most interesting because it is so obscure, and if anyone understood what he did mean, it would be zero, nothing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may well be that because of the increased cost of production in the United States this item will not be as serious as it might have been some years ago, but on the other hand the United States did not grant any such concession until after they had, if my memory serves me aright, a population of upwards of fifty millions of people, and successive Ministers of Finance in this country have concluded that it was not possible for us to venture upon the same course without running too great a risk from the introduction of free goods. It will be recalled that during the last few years a bill was introduced in congress to take away this privilege from tourists returning from countries which did not reciprocate, and one of the members from Buffalo in a speech indicated the extent to which the United States market had been lessened by Canadian importations and importations from other than transatlantic countries. I was very much surprised at the extent of this; it was very great. But there had never been any serious threat
Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend tell me the relative prices of sugar in the two countries?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot say what the price of sugar in the United States is this week, but it was cheaper there than it was here because we had a one cent tax. That was one of the reasons. I have not the advertised retail prices for sugar in United States towns, but it is to some extent cheaper than in Canada. That is not a matter of very great importance for the moment; it is only an illustration of an item upon which one cent per pound revenue would be lost if the sugar can be brought in. A farmer might bring in only 200 pounds of sugar which would represent an expenditure of something in the vicinity of $10, but this would mean a loss of revenue to this country of $2. The government has not seen fit to repeal that tax of one cent per pound despite all that was said during the elections. That tax still remains as does the three per cent tax, despite all that was said about it. These goods are to come in free of that one cent per pound tax, free of the three per cent tax and free of the eight per cent sales tax. Every $100 worth of goods brought across the line will be free of $8 in sales tax. There are some items exempt from this sales tax, but it will be recalled that they are very few in number. The minister pointed out the other day that there were very few items exempt from the sales tax either partly or in its entirety.
To that extent I think this is a very difficult time to yield to the desire which is always in the mind of every man who travels in another country to bring back goods free of duty. I repeat that we are all glad to know that when you return from another country no question will arise as to the value

of your goods. There will be no necessity of keeping invoices or matters of that kind as long as you can satisfy the customs officers that the goods you bring in are worth under $100. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has said, this will result in perhaps a clearer appreciation of the obligations made. There will be no foreign declaration, it is true, but one must not forget what this freedom from sales tax, from the excise tax of three per cent and from the specific taxes will mean. In some items there will ibe a sales tax of eight per cent, an excise tax of three per cent, and a specific or ad valorem tax of twenty per cent. This might mean a total of $8, plus $3, plus $20, or a total of $31 on $100 worth of goods brought into Canada after a stay of forty-eight hours in a foreign country.
I have been concerned about this. I pointed out in tihe budget debate that there is nothing new in this matter. A gentleman who was finance minister longer than anyone else in this country was pressed on many occasions to give effect to these proposals. My memory is that the United States proposals have been in force for upwards of thirty years; they were put into effect when their population was over 50,000,000. When this was first done Canada was not particularly concerned; it was more to deal with overseas purchasers. But the situation was changed wthen tourists began to come into this country in large numbers. It will be recalled that there is a certain type of blanket which is made in this country and which is purchased in large quantities to be taken back to the United States. There are other articles indigenous to Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: Such as furs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is one item I had in mind.


Charles Avery Dunning: And china.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is much less the case now than it was at one time.


Charles Avery Dunning: And linens.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since linens have come
in free under the British preferential from northern Ireland they have been imported in substantial quantities. 1 only point out that when Mr. Fielding decided that this privilege could not be granted, he did so for reasons to some extent similar to those I am giving now, although they were more strongly presented at that time by those who discussed the matter with him. Succeeding ministers of finance were confronted with the

Customs Tariff
same problem, but they felt that they could not accede to the requests for the reasons I have indicated.
From one standpoint I believe that this is an opportune time to enact such regulations. The cost of production of certain commodities is higher than it has been for some time and there will be no incentive to purchase. There are other commodities which can be purchased for the same price and there will be some incentive where there is a specific tax on items such as sugar. The freedom from the three per cent tax is something and the freedom from the ad valorem or specific tax will be substantial. I think the average duty last year on taxable items from the United States ' and other foreign countries was something in the vicinity of seventeen per cent. That is my memory; I may be under the mark and it may be nearer twenty per cent, although I believe the figure was 17 [DOT] 88 per cent. That was arrived at after taking the figures for a limited number of months. This means that this much revenue will' he lost on every $100 worth of goods brought into Canada. While one is delighted to think he can spend forty-eight hours in another country, whether it be Great Britain, France or the United States, and be able to bring back a tankard which does not cost over $100 without paying any duty of any kind, without paying any sales tax or excise tax-


Charles Avery Dunning: It amuses me to hear
of my right hon. friend bringing in tankards.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It amuses me too, but
it did not amuse me when I had to pay a fifty-eight per cent tax. At any rate, the volume of goods coming in will be very much limited at first.


Charles Avery Dunning: It has been so far.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason for that is
quite simple. The people have not the cash with which to buy goods. When one buys in this country he can sometimes buy on credit, but when he spends forty-eight hours on the other side, he has to pay his hotel hill and pay cash for any goods he purchases. In certain sections of the country the people have not the money with which to buy, but conditions may change.
As I say, if only half a million people each purchase $100 worth in a year, this means the enormous volume of $50,000,000. It is amazing how rapidly it counts up. Only half a million people, crossing a border 3,000 miles long, buying $100 worth each in 300 days, excluding Sundays and holidays, means
that a tremendous volume of trade is affected. Fifty million dollars worth of trade bears an appreciable relation to the entire import trade from the United States during recent years. That is the reason why I ventured to mention the matter in the way I did. I felt that we could not form any estimate by mere conjecture, but the fact remains that if only half a million people cross the border and decide to make purchases amounting to $100 each during the year, the revenues of the country will be tremendously affected. The instruments of production, whether they relate to cotton, clothing, radios, electrical appliances, groceries or food, will be affected also as from the very nature of things, their being produced in the United States, it will be cheaper to buy them there. I say again that this privilege is something we would all desire to have, but I do not think our economic condition is such as to warrant our being able to grant it at this time.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think the observations of the leader of the opposition are very much to the point, but there are one or two considerations which I might mention in addition to the one to w'hich he referred. The rising cost of commodities in the United States was very much in the mind of the government. WTe also considered the fact that because such articles did not pay a sales tax in this country it did not follow that they were free of taxes in another. If I remember rightly there are at present state sales taxes in the states of New York and Pennsylvania. I have not in mind the exact rate levied-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Two per cent in New York city and two per cent in New Jersey.


Charles Avery Dunning: These factors will tend to operate, of course; but in the main it appeared to us to be the time at which we could make this concession, especially having regard to the great desirability of retaining the United States concession in its present form. When it is said, and said truly, that the United States concession to its own citizens has been in effect a great number of years, I would call attention to the fact that it has been seriously hampered by restrictive regulations, until comparatively recent years. It is only in comparatively recent years that we have seen notices in Canadian stores reminding American visitors of their right to return with $100 worth of goods. Formerly the restrictions were of such a hampering kind as to render the privilege not nearly so useful and available to returning Americans as it is to-day.
Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: The thirty day limit has been in force for some time.


Charles Avery Dunning: For a long time. We ask the committee to accept this provision and, as I said before, we are making all arrangements possible to check carefully and completely the manner in which it works. So far we are astonished at the comparatively small degree to which the privilege is made use of.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any understanding on the part of Americans that they will regard this as satisfactory? I have some reason for asking the question. As our concession was not as generous as theirs, an effort might be made to demand that we should make it so, or they would make theirs as restrictive as ours, on the one hand, as to the period of time within which one had to stay in the country, and on the other as to the number of times in a given year. It must be remembered that the insertion of the forty-eight hour privilege necessitates the Canadian expending money in the United States, which is a factor with respect to invisible balances; and in the second place, the limitation as to three times a year, as against eleven on their part, may afford an opportunity, which some members of congress living in nearby cities have sought, to press that the arrangement should be reciprocal.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have no indication of dissatisfaction, and there was no undertaking on either side that the concessions should be either reciprocal or identical. Both countries recognized the different conditions that prevailed on either side and have recognized the right, indeed the necessity, of each being free in the matter.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like to have
from the minister an explanation of his statement that care was being taken to check up these imports. Is it intended to take an inventory of the goods imported so that they may be classified, and will there be a detailed declaration or something of that sort to enable the department at the end of the year to give statistics covering the different classifications, in regard to food and clothing, for instance?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what is contemplated. So far nine different groupings are being worked out to give the information required. It is impossible to make it applicable to every individual item of the tariff, but so far as groupings can be arranged to give information upon which judgment can be exercised as to the manner in which the arrangement is working, that is being done now.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And the returning tourist will have to make a declaration more or less in detail.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Smeaton White: The returning tourist will make his declaration to the frontier officer, who will note the kind and value of the goods declared to him and make a return to the customs house which he serves, and for statistical purposes this information must be compiled.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Mr. LAWSON:: Under paragraph (a) of the item with respect to travellers' baggage, under regulations to be prescribed by the minister, are there regulations now in existence or are these regulations still to be prescribed? In either event, is the $100 covered by paragraph (b) of the item in addition to that prescribed by regulations under paragraph (a) ?


Charles Avery Dunning: The (a) item appeared only because of the redrafting of the whole item consequent on the inclusion of (b). There is no difference at all in the treatment accorded under what is described as (a). It is already in the tariff and is being administered under regulations which have been in existence for a considerable time, and there is no change in what is contemplated under (b).


James Earl Lawson: With respect to (b), goods valued at not more than $100, included in the baggage accompanying residents of Canada returning from abroad, does that mean that each member of a family returning may bring back a maximum of $100 worth, assuming that they are all returning together?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is correct, but they cannot pool it. If my hon. friend has a large family, he could not take them all over and buy a car and pool the $100 for each member of the family.


James Earl Lawson: There is something else to which I would call attention. Under the last proviso clause limiting the quantities or values of particular goods that may be brought in, there is a provision that exemption shall not be allowed on alcoholic beverages in excess of one quart. Is it not now illegal, by the law of every province of Canada, for a private individual to import alcoholic beverages? If so, I want to suggest something in that connection.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct. Under the provincial laws it is illegal for an individual to have in his possession liquor other than that purchased from a liquor commission.

Customs Tariff


James Earl Lawson: I fear then that this provision may be the cause of a good deal of difficulty, which I am sure the minister does not wish to see arise. I have always regarded customs officers as law enforcement officers. I am not suggesting by that that they should be policemen and arrest people for offences other than those under the Customs Act; but I have always thought it their duty if, for instance, I were bringing in something which it was illegal for me to have, to prevent me from entering the country with that article. I would have an opportunity of leaving it or going on at my hazard. I have known cases in the past where customs officers have reported to the provincial or local police that in their opinion breaches of provincial law were being made. Here we are providing for each Canadian returning to this country a declaration form, and unquestionably, I take it, there will be printed on that form a copy of these very provisions for the guidance of the returning tourist. I am sure the average layman is not aware of the fact that it is illegal for him to have in his possession in any province liquor not purchased from the provincial liquor commission, and surely he is going to be misled by a statement specifically contained in a dominion law, from which he will draw the conclusion that it is quite right and proper for him to bring in a quantity of alcoholic beverages not exceeding one quart.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend said that he had a suggestion.


James Earl Lawson: My suggestion is this, alternatively, that in view of the fact that it is illegal according to the law of every province to have liquor in one's possession, surely the words are entirely superfluous. Why not cut them out entirely? You gain nothing by putting this in, and you deceive the Canadian public. The minister shakes his head, but-


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member says that we gain nothing by putting it in.


James Earl Lawson: Not by putting it in. I think the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley), who is a lawyer, will agree with me-


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, as a lawyer, yes.


James Earl Lawson: -that if it is illegal for any person to have in his possession in Canada alcoholic beverages not purchased from the liquor commission of the province in which he has them, then obviously your customs official at the border would confiscate alcoholic beverages in the possession of any person endeavouring to import them, or warn him that he must not bring them into the country.
Therefore I say that if you leave that provision in, you may be the cause of deceiving some lay mind. In any event I am unable to see where you gain anything by having these words in the exempting proviso.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Ini reply to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, let me point out the language of the proviso. It is as follows:
Provided that a resident of Canada shall not be entitled to the exemption herein granted within a period of four months from the date of the last exemption allowed, nor shall the exemption be allowed on alcoholic beverages in excess of one quart.
That proviso has no necessary connection with any other legislation. It has no necessary connection with the legislation passed by the various provinces. All this says is that from this time on we do not propose to allow them to bring in a hundred dollars' worth of liquor. We do not, as a revenue matter, propose to do that, and we have to put that proviso in. So far as we are concerned the exemptions shall not extend to more than one quart of liquor. If the importation of that quart is prohibited by some other law, that is something with which we are not dealing in this particular legislation. The law of a province or any other law of this parliament that deals with the importation of liquor is another matter; it may last a long time or it may last a short time. But our revenue provision, the negative or restrictive provision, enacts that in exercising their right to this S100 exemption travellers shall not expend that full one hundred dollars in liquor; they shall be limited to one quart. Of course if the provinces have an objection to this quart of liquor coming in they may undertake to prosecute, or they may indicate that it is their intention to regard this as an infinitesimal thing, as a mere trifle. If it be their intention to prosecute or to take exception to the admission of this liquor, the returning Canadian cannot bring it in while their law and their attitude remain what they are. But our position is just that we limit that exemption on liquor to a quart.


James Earl Lawson: It requires no legal argument of the Minister of National Revenue to convince me as to what the .provision means. I realized what it meant as soon as I read it. But I say that you are handing to the average man coming back to this country, who is not a lawyer, something to read which he thinks tells him what is legal and what is illegal for him to do in respect to bringing goods into Canada. He reads that he cannot bring in more than a quart of liquor. Does he not naturally infer that he can bring in a quart? I suggest that the department gains nothing
Customs Tariff

by pointing out to people that qua dominion government you can bring it in, when in truth and in fact, because of the laws of the provinces, you cannot bring it in at all.


John Gordon Ross: The provinces
may change the law any time.


James Earl Lawson: That would be easy to
provide for.


Richard Smeaton White: If the clause were omitted,
even though a question were raised by the United States government, in view of the fact that we have these provincial laws, it surely could be satisfactorily answered. The whole point of the Minister of National Revenue is met by striking out the words "in excess of one quart," and simply prohibiting the importation, even to that extent, of alcoholic liquor.


An hon. MEMBER:: If that item were
struck out and any one of the provinces of Canada changed its law in regard to the importation of liquor by any body other than a liquor commission, I take it that a hundred dollars' worth of liquor could come in.
M.r. LAWSON:	No; there would still be
a complete prohibition left against bringing in any liquor. If you struck out the words, "in excess of one quart," your section would read, "nor shall the exemption be allowed on alcoholic beverages or on tobacco in excess of fifty cigars," and you make it perfectly plain to anyone who reads it.


Herbert Earl Wilton: There is already evidence
that this $100 exemption clause is detrimentally affecting Canada. Canadian newspapers are carrying Buffalo merchants' advertisements opposite railway advertising offering reduced rates from Ontario points into Buffalo on Fridays and Saturdays. The Buffalo business men advertise special bargains and inducements, and as a result Canadians are flocking over in great numbers for the week-ends. The railway companies of Canada, combined with the business men of Buffalo advertising in Canadian papers, are certainly making it hard for our business men.


Charles Avery Dunning: Canadian business men
have been doing that for years in connection with the American tourist.


Herbert Earl Wilton: It is only recently that
Buffalo business men have been advertising in Canadian newspapers offering Saturday bargains.


James Earl Lawson: I suggest that the minister consider striking out the words, "in excess of one quart."


James Lorimer Ilsley: We have considered it. .
Progress reported.


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