1936-05-19

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the first reading of Bill No. 61 (from the Senate) to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 62 for the relief of Pedro Alfonso
Baptista.-Mr. Jacobs.

Customs Tarifl
Bill No. 63 for the relief of Louise Isabel Sutherland Chaplin.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 64 for the relief of Clara Violetta Dodge Connolly.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 65 for the relief of Marie Consuela Hill Montabone.

Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 66 for the relief of Lona Marie Vaughan Burnett Gravina.-Mr. White.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Customs tariff-35. Hops, per pound: British preferential tariff, 6 cents; intermediate tariff, 10 cents; general tariff, 16 cents.
Mr. BARBER:: When the committee rose last night I was discussing this item. I am interested in it from the standpoint of employment because it means a considerable amount of employment to those working in the industry in the district I have the honour to represent, and it is also of importance to neighbouring cities. In the harvesting season we employ in the industry about 3,000 people and hundreds are employed the year round. There is no branch of agriculture in which as much employment is afforded per acre as hop growing. I appreciate the remarks the minister made last evening with regard to encouraging this industry, and I hope he will do his best to see that Canadian hops are purchased by the consumers of this country.
There is just one other point I should like to raise. I notice that a little further on a grant is made by way of reduction of tariff to the brewers of the Irish Free State. It occurs to me that some years ago an agreement was entered into between Ireland and, I think, New Zealand, whereby there was a removal or reduction of the tariff on products of the brewing industry entering New Zealand, and on the other hand New Zealand hops were admitted into Ireland on more favourable terms. When the time comes to consider the empire agreements, perhaps Canada may be enabled to sell to the brewers of Ireland a certain quantity of our hops. I hope the minister will bear this in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-79b. Flowers and foilage, natural cut, whether in designs or bouquets or not, n.o.p.:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, 40 per cent.
Provided that, if any foreign country imposes on such goods the produce of the Dominion of Canada duties or charges more onerous than are prescribed by this item, duties equivalent thereto shall be imposed on the like goods imported into Canada from such country.
Mr. BENNETT:: We on this side of the
house have already said, in connection with another item., what we feel as to the sufficiency of the countervailing provisions. I observe also that the present tariff is free in respect of both British preference and intermediate. The Minister of Finance made some observations as to there being no provision for intermediate and British preference, and this schedule shows that these articles are free under both categories.


Mr. STEWART:: What is the effect of
the Canada-United States trade agreement on the tariff with respect to cut flowers? Would that put the item on the free list?


Mr. DUNNING:: Under the intermediate
tarifl, yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Which was free?


Charles Avery Dunning: Which was free.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And prior to that the
duty was at what rate?


Charles Avery Dunning: Forty per cent. It shows in the schedule.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is being restored to
what it was before the Canada-United States trade agreement?


Charles Avery Dunning: So long as the United
States tariff remains at forty per cent, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-83. Potatoes, as hereunder defined:-(a) In their natural state, per one hundred pounds:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, 75 cents.
Provided that, if any foreign country imposes on such goods the produce of the Dominion of Canada duties or charges more onerous than are prescribed by this item, duties equivalent thereto shall be imposed on the like goods imported into Canada from such country.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the minister inform the committee what was the rate of duty on potatoes that came into Canada before the Canada-United States trade agreement
Mr, DUNNING: Under the general tariff, seventy-five cents.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does this restore it?


Charles Avery Dunning: It has that effect, so
long as the United States duty remains at seventy-five cents.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not suppose there is much use in further discussing this method adopted with respect to countervailing duty. Here is a case where, before the Canada-United States trade agreement, there was a rate of duty of seventy-five cents per hundred pounds
Cmtoms Tariff

on potatoes. Under the provisions of the agreement they were put on th'e free list. Now it is desired to restore the protection to the rate of duty that existed prior to the agreement. I have no objection, as a matter of policy, to that; I think it is in the interests of the agricultural producers of this country that there should be some protection. But again I say, why not go at it in the straightforward way of imposing a duty, instead of taking this roundabout means? I wonder if the reason is that this government has been preaching reduction of tariff so long that it desires to conceal any case in which there is an increase in the tariff or an imposition of duty. We heard the minister talking about the consumer. Well, surely here the consumer is interested; a pretty substantial duty is imposed upon a very ordinary and common article of food, but this indirect, roundabout way is adopted, the method of countervailing duty. I can only repeat that I think it is not the straightforward way of doing it. We ought to be able to face a situation of this kind. When in the interests of Canadian producers a duty is desirable it ought to be imposed. Tariffs should be made here, by the Canadian people, in their own interest; they should not be controlled or regulated by the tariff or other action of any foreign country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-99c.	Raisins and dried
currants, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 4 cents; general tariff, 4 cents.
When in packages weighing two pounds each, or less, the weight of such packages to be included in the weight for duty.
Mr. STIRLING:: What is the reason for this alteration?


Charles Avery Dunning: It restores the position as regards Australian raisins to what it was before the expiration of the period. There was a lapse of, I think, one month during which the preference to Australia was reduced. This restores it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The former government undertook to do this.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. Parliament did not meet in time to act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-113. Cocoanut desiccated, sweetened or not, per pound: British preferential tariff, 3 cents; intermediate tariff, 6 cents; general tariff, 6 cents.
Charles Avery Dunning: As regards this item, I am asking my colleague the Minister of

Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to move an amendment striking out tariff item 113 wherever the said item, enumeration or rates of duty occur in such resolution. I ask this because I am a little concerned lest the reduction proposed on budget day in favour of desiccated cocoanut imported under the British preferential tariff worked to the disadvantage of the trade in cocoanuts under the same tariff between the West Indies and Canada. Representations have been made on behalf of certain of the West Indian colonies to the effect that this might be the result, and rather than dislocate the existing trade in whole nuts, I prefer to delete the item from the tariff proposals.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Item 113 is out altogether?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, this item is out. The tariff remains as it is. This item will come out altogether, and the tariff will remain as it is in this respect.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I move
that resolution No. 5 be amended by striking out tariff item 113 wherever said item, enumeration or rates of duties occur in the said resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that involve any
collection of duties, or matters of that kind?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I am advised tnat
there is no difficulty in that connection. If any duties have been collected of course they will be refunded.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it will mean the
collection of a larger sum. Under the British preference the rate now is 5 cents, and it was proposed to reduce it to 3 cents.


Charles Avery Dunning: It will be just the
opposite to what I said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assume that under
such circumstances the crown would be powerless to secure the larger amount. While the resolution came into force on the first of May it is quite obvious that the amendment just moved cannot become effective until the bill is assented to, so that any importations at the lower rate will continue until such time as the statute is passed and assented to. As the minister knows, that is one of the penalties we pay for changing tariff items.


Charles Avery Dunning: AH that my right hon.
friend has said is perfectly correct, but in this case I gather that the desiccated article comes from as far distant as Ceylon, fortunately, which rather helps to overcome the difficulty.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-142.	Tobacco, unmanufactured, for excise purposes under conditions of the Excise Act, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by the minister:-
(a)	Of the type commonly known as Turkish:
[Stage Direction]
(i)	Unstemmed, per pound:	British preferential	tariff,	20	cents;	intermediate	tariff,
40 cents: general tariff, 40 cents.
(ii) Stemmed, per pound:	British preferential	tariff,	30	cents;	intermediate	tariff,
60 cents; general tariff, 60 cents.
(b)	N.o.p.:-
(i)	Unstemmed, per pound:	British preferential	tariff,	40	cents;	intermediate	tariff,
40 cents; general tariff, 40 cents.
(ii) Stemmed, per pound:	British preferential	tariff,	60	cents;	intermediate	tariff,
60 cents; general tariff, 60 cents.
Provided that the duty under this item shall be levied on the basis of "standard leaf tobacco" consisting of ten per centum of water and ninety per centum of solid matter.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is only a reduction
in the British preference?
'Mr. DUNNING:	There is a considerable
amendment both in wording and in rates. Perhaps I had better read my notes, in order that the committee may be fulled seized of the matter and so that there may be no misapprehension as to the effect.
Up to the present time unmanufactured tobacco enumerated under tariff item 142 has been free of duty upon all tariff. That is to say, it has been imported nominally free of customs duties, but immediately under the Excise Act became subject to excise duties of 40 cents per pound on unstemmed leaf and 60 cents per pound on stemmed leaf. To carry out an undertaking given to Southern Rhodesia under the conference agreements of 1932 it is now proposed first to establish a preference on both stemmed and unstemmed tobacco of the type commonly known as Turkish or Oriental, and second to transfer the duties from the excise to the customs realm. It will be remembered that when we were dealing with the excise amendments these excise taxes were cancelled. The proposal to transfer this item to the customs realm is of course inevitable if the undertaking to Rhodesia is to be carried out, since it would seem to be undesirable if not indeed impossible to provide preferential treatment in the excise field of taxation as distinct from the customs field.
It is proposed therefore, in brief, to divide the item in such a manner as to separate the so called Turkish type of tobacco from all other types and, in respect of the Turkish type, to reduce the British preferential rates of duty from 40 cents to 20 cents per pound on the unstemmed and from 60 cents to 30 cents on the stemmed. The requirements
of the Canadian tobacco industry and therefore of the Canadian tobacco consuming public demand the use of a certain amount of the Turkish type of tobacco. It is estimated that the Canadian use of tobaccos of the Turkish type amounts to about 300,000 pounds per annum, all of which up to the present has been supplied from non-empire countries, chiefly Macedonia, Greece and Abyssinia. I do not suppose we are getting much from there just now, but this has been one of the few articles we have imported from that country. In recent years Southern Rhodesia has established quite a reputation for Turkish type tobacco, and the Union of South Africa is known to be producing tobacco of this type which has gained commercial favour. The Rhodesian product is finding acceptance in the British market, and in establishing the preference now proposed the government feels that it may be giving Southern Rhodesia a greater opportunity to cater to Canadian requirements in this particular product. There is no reason to feel that the preference now being granted under the British .preference to Turkish type tobacco will react in any way whatsoever on the Canadian production of those types which Canada has demonstrated her ability to produce and sell. It is, however, confidently expected that empire sources of supply will fill the demand of this market and that by accepting tobacco from Southern Rhodesia Canada may make it possible for that country to provide a wider market than at present for certain Canadian commodities. I am assured that the change here proposed has no bearing whatsoever on the Canadian production of tobacco, which is of an entirely different type from that now being given a preference.


Mr. DONNELLY:: The excise tax has been removed completely?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory is that this is in accordance with the arrangement that was discussed with Southern Rhodesia-


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -but we declined to give effect to it until we were satisfied that by so doing we would not interfere with the production of Canadian tobacco. Once that was settled definitely we were prepared to give them a preference. I think that was the arrangement, if my memory serves me aright, and this is to give effect to it, as I understand it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.
Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: They had our promise that as soon as we satisfied ourselves that Canadian interests would not be adversely affected we would bring about that change. The only difficulty was just how it was to be done. The cancellation of the excise tax and the transference of it to the customs tariff was the suggestion of one of the officers of the department, who doubtless is responsible for its being done in this way.


James J. Donnelly: What is the excise tax on ordinary tobacco?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is 40 cents a pound.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-147.
(a)	Ale and beer, when imported in bottles, per gallon: British preferential tariff, 30 cents; intermediate tariff, 50 cents; general tariff, 50 cents.
(b)	Porter and stout, when imported in bottles, per gallon: British preferential tariff, 15 cents; intermediate tariff, 50 cents; general tariff, 50 cents.
Provided, that six quart bottles or twelve pint bottles shall be held to contain one gallon.
Charles Avery Dunning: The only difference is in connection with the stout item, with which I dealt in the budget. The Irish Free State requested some consideration with respect to this product of Ireland, and in view of the balance of trade that exists between the two countries we were pleased to find a few commodities, even though only a few, on which we could give a preference to the Irish Free State.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: Will that saving be passed on to the consumer, in the opinion of the minister? In some cases, in connection with some of these other items, the saving is retained by the dealer.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is rather a difficult question for me to answer, in view of the fact that the sale of this commodity, as in the case of all other liquors, is under the control of the various provincial governments, and of course it would depend upon their action as to whether Guinness stout will become any cheaper to the consumer. That is what my hon. friend has in mind, I know, and I am informed that it is a very good article, especially for invalids like the hon. gentleman.


Mr. McIVOR:: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this reduction, for very reasonable reasons. I think the tax on anything that tends to put on fat and does not develop muscle and brain should be as high as possible. Also, coming as I do from the Green Isle, I know that porter and stout do not tend to develop manhood and character. Not even an Irish-

man can carry much of it and be his normal self. Anything that tends to make a man or a woman less a man or less a woman should be taxed to the very highest point. I do not like to be "agin the government," but in this case I am convinced that the tax should not be reduced. If any of the hon. members wish to go out to-night and see our baseball game-


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I was just going to use the illustration of athletes who get along without the use of stout. That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, because I do not believe in talking when I have finished.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-163a.	Prune wine, not
sparkling, when containing not more than thirty-eight per centum of proof spirit, per gallon: British preferential tariff, 25 cents.
Provided, that six quart bottles or twelve pint bottles be held to contain a gallon for duty purposes under this item.
Grote Stirling: Does this mean that it is a prohibited article under the intermediate and general tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: From any other country it will come under item 163. But we are advised that southern Ireland is practically the only producer of this article.


Mr. STEVENS:: Do they grow prunes in Ireland?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is rather taxing the extent of my knowledge, but I gather it is not necessary to grow the prunes in a particular place to be able to make the wine there by some process which is peculiarly Irish.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What will the rate be under the intermediate and general?


Charles Avery Dunning: Fifty-five cents.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-168. Malt flour containing less than fifty per centum in weight of malt; malt syrup or malt syrup powder; extracts of malt, fluid or not:	grain molasses-all
articles in this item upon valuation without British or foreign excise duties, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, 25 per cent; intermediate tariff, 5 cents per pound and 30 per cent; genera] tariff, 10 cents per pound and 35 per cent.
Mr. GLADSTONE:: I was hoping this item might not be reached until to-morrow. I wish to present the viewpoint of Standard Brands Limited of Guelph, manufacturers of

Customs Tariff
beverage malt and bakers' malt, by quoting from a letter I have received from them, as follows:
Under the new British preference rates malt extract for home brew use can be imported and pay a lower rate of duty and excise than the excise duty paid on domestic malt extract of the same type.
We pay a duty of six cents a pound on malt plus ten cents a pound on the syrup produced. In the manufacture of malt extract one and a quarter pounds of malt are required to produce one pound of syrup. Domestic manufacturer therefore pays on each pound of syrup: one and a quarter pounds at six cents equals seven and a half cents, and ten cents, making a total of seventeen and a half cents.
The importer pays twenty-five per cent on an average valuation of 7-77 cents

Which figures are taken from Trade of Canada, 1935, page 198.
That amounts to 1-94 cents per pound plus excise tax, 10 cents, total 17-94 cents per pound.
But we pay in addition to the Department of Excise a supervision fee of $300 per month. Our production of duty paid malt extract during 1936 to date averaged 34,375 pounds per month. Supervision fee equals extra excise imposition of 0-901 cents a pound. Our payment therefore on a pound of syrup totals 18-4 cents as against the importer, British preferential, who pays only 17-94 cents, and is actually subsidized to the extent of almost half a cent a pound.
Imports from the United Kingdom under the old tariff rate have been not inconsiderable, as the annual reports of Trade of Canada show:
Year ended Dec. 31
1928..	.
1929..	.
1930..	,
1931..	,
1932..	.
1933..	.
1934..	.
1935..	.
Value

We fear that since this trade prospered so under the old tariff rate it will be given a great stimulus under the new rate and that Canadian manufactures will be excluded from home-brew malt market in Canada. This will result in lowered volume and hence increased costs in our bakers' malt field, with increasing advantage to the United Kingdom manufacturers as compared to ourselves, so that eventually there will be no malt extract manufactured in Canada.
The imports shown above include both duty paid home-brew or beverage purpose malt and bakers' malt. We are left with twenty-five per cent protection on bakers' malt, and this is too little for the industry in consideration of the cheapness of coal and labour in the British isles as compared with our costs. But we have no protection, in truth we are paying more tax on domestic goods than on imported goods, in the beverage malt field. Our trade is divided about one-fifth beverage malt syrup and four-fifths all other malt syrup. Elimination from the beverage malt field would increase our costs on the other syrups quite considerably.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have of course received a copy of the letter from which my hon. friend has just read, and I gave to the representation therein contained such consideration as could be given. The facts and figures upon which we base the proposal now before the committee I must say justify my taking the view that the Canadian manufacturer, as represented by the writer of this letter-there are in Canada only two which are known-will still be able to function even if this request of the British government be granted. There will still be a twenty per cent ad valorem duty against Great Britain under the amendment to the tariff now before the committee, that is if the excise is equated. The effective duty last year under the British preference was forty-seven per cent on these various malt derivatives.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the British preference, three cents a pound and twenty per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, by adding the specific duty evaluated in terms of ad valorem it amounted to forty-seven per cent on the value from Great Britain. The specific itself made 27 per cent on the value.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Three cents per pound.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and weighing all the factors we are of the opinion that this is a request which might well be granted. It does not come from any industrial or commercial concern, but is one of the requests of the British government which, I believe, has been under consideration by the Canadian government during the past three years. Our best judgment is that the ill effects feared by the Canadian industry, as indicated in the letter from Standard Brands, which was read, will not occur. Of course these things are a matter of opinion. Imports from Great Britain under the tariff as it existed last year were valued at $24,000; from the United States $17,000 worth was imported. The total Canadian production amounted to $622,000, which, I am advised, was divided between two firms.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-173. Books for the instruction of the deaf or dumb: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change in the item. Why do we have a separate item? It has always been free.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have taken out the portion of the item referring to the blind, and are making it a new item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Customs Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Customs tariff-178. Advertising and printed matter, viz.:-Advertising pamphlets, advertising show cards, illustrated advertising periodicals; price books, catalogues and price lists; advertising almanacs and calendars; patent medicine or other advertising circulars, fly sheets or pamphlets; advertising chromos, chromotypes, oleographs or like work produced by any process other than hand painting or drawing, and having any advertisement or advertising matter printed, lithographed or stamped thereon, or attached thereto, including advertising bills, folders and posters, or other similar artistic work, lithographed, printed or stamped on paper or cardboard for business or advertisement purposes, n.o.p., per pound: British preferential tariff. 5 cents; intermediate tariff, 121 cents; general tariff, 15 cents.
Provided, that on importations under the intermediate or the general tariff, the rate of duty shall be not Jess' than: intermediate tariff, 271 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Mr. MacNICOL:: Would the 271 per cent intermediate rate be on the pound price of the advertising matter, or the cost of the art or other work which enters into the production of the material mentioned in the item?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am reading the small print in the item in an effort to answer the hon. member's question. In the item I find these words:
... produced by any process other than hand painting or drawing, and having any advertisement or advertising matter printed, lithographed or stamped thereon, or attached thereto.
There is no change in the wording in that regard. The change is in the rates, with a provision of a minimum ad valorem duty of 271 per cent under the intermediate tariff. Prior to September, 1930, the rates were 10 cents, 15 cents and 15 cents per pound. Under the budget of September, 1930, there was added to the item a proviso that the minimum duty under the, general tariff should not be less than 35 per cent ad valorem. Following the imperial conference of 1932 the British preferential rate was reduced to 5 cents per pound. The result of the extension of the intermediate rate to the United States on January 1 of this year was that imports of printed matter, n.o.p., from that country dutiable under this item paid a specific duty of 121 cents per pound, but-were, not subject alternatively to any minimum ad valorem imposed.
An analysis of the imports from the United States under the item shows that, in the fiscal year 1935, had these imports been dutiable at the rate of fifteen cents per pound without any ad valorem, they would have paid $315,700 in duty. Actually however they paid duties of $373,800, on a declared value of $826,000. Thus the ad valorem incidence of the double rate on imports from the United States under the general tariff in 1935 was
	, [jj
something over forty-five per cent. If we assumed that the same volume and value of imports enter at the existing intermediate specific duty of 121 cents per pound, they would pay a duty to total $263,000, or 31-8 per cent ad valorem. In other words the ad valorem equivalent of the intermediate duty of 121 cents per pound would be, on the volume and value of last year's imports from the United States, somewhat less than thirty-two per cent. However, the fact must be remembered that a specific duty on a poundage basis has a varying and unequal effect when spread over a wide field of printed matter, such as is covered by this item. It might represent a relatively high rate ad valorem on certain printed matter, and a ridiculously low rate on other matter. Having regard to the unequal incidence of a specific duty on the very great volume of goods covered by this item, and also the wide disparity existing between the intermediate and general tariffs, we desire to impose under the intermediate tariff a safeguarding minimum ad valorem of 271 per cent, which I feel is not disproportionate to the minimum ad valorem of thirty-five per cent formerly effective under the general tariff on imports from the United States.
I should point out of course that the duty now proposed is not in any sense a double or compound duty, but is alternative in that the specific duty applies, except in those cases where it would have an ad valorem incidence of lower than 271 per cent, in which event the minimum ad valorem becomes effective.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have two observations
to make. One is that this is an effort to secure some revenue from advertising which comes into this, country from other countries. Having abandoned half a million dollars in revenue from advertising, we are now endeavouring to secure something by increasing the intermediate tariff on advertising such as is mentioned in the item. It will be observed that we are still continuing to secure something from illustrated advertising periodicals. The late government provided that, commencing at a twenty per cent advertising content, an increasing quantity of money should come into the exchequer from that source. That having been abandoned, the item we now have is to substitute in favour of those countries enjoying the intermediate tariff, which would mean the United States and other countries, a 271 per cent rate instead of a thirty-five per cent rate which was paid on advertising from the United States at a time prior to the trade agreement. Because at that time advertising from the United States came in under the general tariff.

Customs Tariff
When the minister says that it meant a payment of forty-five per cent I cannot quite follow him, because the maximum to be paid was only thirty-five per cent; it did not matter what happened.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not less than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, not less than that;
it is the maximum.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was a higher duty previously.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I am trying to
point that out. If computing a duty at fifteen cents per pound you did not get the thirty-five per cent, you imposed the thirty-five per cent rate. That is, if fifteen cents per pound was not the equivalent of the thirty-five per cent rate, you imposed that rate in the alternative.


Charles Avery Dunning: But if it was more-


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it was more there was no rebate, that is all.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, that is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So that so far as the 35 per cent is concerned you cannot tax it higher than that rate, and you must not tax it lower.


Charles Avery Dunning: No less than the rate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You must not tax it less.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, but you may tax it more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unless 15 cents per pound amounted to more.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was the condition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was not the condition in regard to some items however, because the value of goods was about $800,000, 35 per cent of which would be between $280,000 and $300,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: They paid $373,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, they paid $373,000; therefore there must have been a substantial body of goods which came in on which 15 cents per pound amounted to more than 35 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which is not in the alternative, at all. It is a flat rate of 15 cents per pound which must be paid on all goods, if it is equivalent to 35 per cent of the value. But where it is less than 35 per cent of the value the addition has to be made up so that it will be 35 per cent. For instance, if we take an article worth only 10 cents per pound and compute 15 cents, the rate will be much more than 35 per cent. But if you take another article worth $10 per pound and add 15 cents
12739-188}
to it you have to impose the 35 per cent rate. That is all there is to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the real difficulty, as I might point out to my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is only a question of
administration.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my right hon. friend will permit me-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is only a question of administration. Under our arrangements with the United States what would happen would be that they would get their goods in for 124 cents a pound under the intermediate tariff, as it stood, or until we make this amendment, but at not less than 35 per cent in any case.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not under the intermediate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the intermediate as it was prior to the first of January or whatever date it was. We now say that instead of getting their goods in at 124 cents a pound there shall in no case be paid less than 27i per cent ad valorem, as against the general tariff. That is the effect of it. There is a reduction of 7} per cent as between the intermediate and the general. It still leaves us in the position of not receiving any revenue whatever from the largest body of advertising that comes into this country. I am not going over the ground again; I did it yesterday and two days ago, but we have now given up that enormous body of advertising as a source of revenue which last year yielded us half a million dollars.


Charles Avery Dunning: I desire only to explain the reason for the item. I thought I had developed it, but apparently I did not do so completely. When we extended to the United States the intermediate tariff this was one of the items in connection with which a great change from the administrative point of view immediately took place. Under the general tariff there had been provided under the former government a rate of 15 cents per pound, with a rate of 35 per cent ad valorem. When that change was made no change was made in the intermediate column; the intermediate remained at 12i cents per pound. Now this tariff per pound is applying on printed matter of all values, and just imagine the difference between the value of a draft of a simple advertisement, on the one hand, and a highly developed piece of art work for advertising purposes, on the other. Yet under the intermediate tariff both were taxed at so much per pound, regardless of the fact that the value of one might be and often was fifty to a hundred times the value of the other.
Customs Tariff

Representations were made to me by those in Canada who produce the finest type of lithographic work that their products should not be placed in quite the same class for duty purposes as the cheaper products of the printer's art. It just amounted to this, that on the finest type of art work the degree of tariff worked out ad valorem to slightly under five per cent, whereas with respect to advertising in bulk of the cheaper type it might well run up to and did go as high as from thirty to forty per cent. By the means adopted here, of a specific duty but with a minimum ad valorem, it is hoped to equalize that factor.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I followed the hon.
gentleman; he need have no misapprehension in that regard. I only point out that we have reduced the duty payable on imports from the United States by 74 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: More than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be a little more having regard to value, but it still remains .124 cents a pound; there is no change in that It used to be 15 cents a pound under the intermediate, so there is 24 cents a pound less on advertising coming in from the United States, plus a reduction of 74 per cent ad valorem, if the conditions mentioned were to obtain; that is, a minimum of 274 per cent instead of 35 per cent. Now if our importations for the year ended March, 1935, from the United States, paying a minimum of 35 per cent and 15 cents a pound, were as large as the hon. gentleman indicated, not the whole $800,000 but a substantial part of it, I question whether ample protection has been given to the Canadian industry against the class of competition it has to meet. I recall pretty definitely that when we increased the rate it was in consequence of the advertising competition we had to meet; we made a minimum rate of 35 per cent as against the old rate, and that increase did have the effect of adding to employment in Canada and developing to no inconsiderable degree the artistic talents of Canadian workmen and workwomen in the various advertising agencies in the country.
The trade agreement, of course, necessitated our dealing with the intermediate tariff instead of the general. The United States had been on the general and are now on the intermediate, and dealing with the intermediate we have provided that they shall pay a rate of not less than 274 per cent ad valorem; but the base rate, instead of being 15 cents a pound, as it was for the year ended March 31, 1935, has become 124 cents a pound. So we have really done this: We

have reduced the base rate from 15 to 124 cents a pound on advertising coming in from the United States, which amounts to a considerable reduction, and then in addition we have said that in any event the duty paid on this advertising shall not be less than 274 per cent of its value, whereas for the year ended March 31, 1935, the ad valorem provision was 35 per cent. The two together must mean a very substantial additional competition to foe met by Canadians with a limited production as against the mass production of their great competitors.
Has the minister the figures of the United States imports as distinguished from other countries?


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports from the United States for the last few fiscal years expressed in dollars are as follows: 1931, $2,044,000. There appears to be in my figures a jump to the year 1934, when the imports amounted to $649,000; there was an increase in 1935 to $826,000, and for the fiscal year 1936 an increase to $943,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Three months of 1936 would be under the agreement.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, three months would be under the treaty and therefore not subject to the limitation which is now being imposed. Production in Canada amounted in 1934, the last figures we have, to $2,000,000 for catalogue production, and for printed advertising matter, $13,100,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I confess, Mr. Chairman, that I was more surprised at this item than at almost any other item with which I have had to deal in the tariff. The Canadian business in this one item amounts apparently to $15,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: Enormous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: An enormous business. I could hardly credit it when it was first brought to my attention. I scarcely [DOT] thought it possible that we were producing so much, apart altogether from newspaper advertising. Our production amounted to $1,250,000 or $1,500,000 a month. I think it would have been well to leave that intermediate tariff at 35 per cent, having regard to what our own experience was. I have heard the reasons adduced against it, but I doubt, and there^ is some reason for it in the figures the minister has given, whether this will be sufficient protection. For three months of the period for which the minister gave the figures the duty was 124 cents a pound, without restriction, and it may well be that the steps now taken will tighten that up; I believe they will,

Customs Tariff
but whether or not it is ample for the maintenance of our $15,000,000 business, I cannot say. It did strike me, when I was looking at it, that it was questionable whether it was sufficient. I know that the minister is dealing with it from 'the point of view of what he thinks fair for the interests concerned, and if he thinks 27J cents is ample he must have good reason for so thinking. But having regard to my own experience and the magnitude of the item, of which I had no idea until it was first brought to my attention, I doubt whether we are warranted in substituting for the old 35 per cent rate a 27i per cent rate, added to the fact that we have made the poundage rate 2J cents less against United States imports. That is my fear; I hope I may be wrong.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have gone into the matter with some care, particularly having regard to the figures. As a matter of fact, there was a surprisingly small increase in the first three months relatively to what might have been expected.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was $900,000 in the year.


Charles Avery Dunning: Compared with $826,000 in the previous year. I find there are one or two things operating in connection with this item. One is the rising price level in the United States, which is of considerable importance, and another is the important psychological effect of our regulations that American printed matter shall have on it "printed in the United States." There is no doubt that this does have an effect-


Richard Bedford Bennett: A very marked effect.


Charles Avery Dunning: A marked effect, yes. It has a marked psychological effect in the business. Having regard to the fact that there was $943,000 worth of imports out of a total business of $15,000,000, I felt, after examining all the factors, and not losing sight of the excise tax as-an additional consideration, that this was fair; and I must say I have had no representations to the contrary from any of the interests affected since it became known that this proposal was to be made. By and large, I think it will hit the mark.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I assume that the discrepancies in value for duty purposes on the poundage basis were not apparent prior to this change in the United States agreement.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, because the government of which my hon. friend was a member, in dealing with the problem, adopted the principle which we are here reinstating in connection with the intermediate tariff.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But under the tariff as it existed before the trade agreement with the United States, when this was put under the preferential rate, there was not such a discrepancy in the rate on the poundage basis as there has been since it has come under the preferential tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, yes; it immediately reverted to what it had been previously.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: While you had the poundage basis and the percentage rate, there was not the same difficulty as there has been since.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course not, because of the wide disparity in the value of the articles dealt with under the item.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: IIow long has that provision "printed in the United States" been in force in connection with advertising of this sort?


Charles Avery Dunning: Many j^ears; I cannot say how long. I do not remember personally when it was not in effect, but it has had a cumulative psychological effect.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-180a. Photographs for use only as news illustrations, under regulations by the minister:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: The only change is in the wording, which permits agencies to bring in news illustrations for the use of small newspapers. "Sent to the press" was the old wording-photographs sent to the press for use only as news pictures. The new item is photographs for use only as news illustrations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not the plates, but merely the photographs.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-180d. Photographs, paintings, pastels, drawings and other art work and illustrations of all kinds, whether originals, copies or proofs, for reproduction in periodical publications enjoying second class mailing privileges (other than daily newspapers): British preferential tariff free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: I have an amendment to offer. The change proposed in this item, as compared with the printed resolution in Votes and Proceedings, is the addition of a proviso which will explain itself:
Provided that goods which are entitled to entry free of duty or at a lower rate than as indicated in this item shall not be entered at the rates specified in this item.
The item itself is a rather confused one in its development. The intent of the budget
Customs Tariff

resolution was of course to provide relief rather than to add burdens, and we wish to be sure, by means of the proviso, that that will be the effect. I would ask the committee to note that the item is restricted in its operations to reproduction in periodical publications enjoying second class mailing privileges.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Other than daily newspapers.


Charles Avery Dunning: These are the publications most vitally affected.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But why single them out as against the daily newspaper, which now does give us illustrations of important world events? Is this our publishers again?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will notice that item 180a immediately preceding deals with photographs for use only as news illustrations; they are free. The daily newspaper of course uses that-the ordinary newspaper. Paintings, pastels, drawings and other art work and illustrations of all kinds, whether originals, copies or proofs, for reproduction, are dealt with in this item and are intended for an entirely different class of publication.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word "photographs" appears in both; that is the point.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, there are photographs and photographs. The amendment also drops the phrase "for daily newspapers," which eliminates the possibility of duplication of the two items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does eliminate those words?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: I beg leave to move the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The proviso is rather amusing-provided that goods covered by another item Shall not be included in this. It is a rather amusing way of putting it, is it not? If you amend item 2 of- the tariff and say, "provided that items under 1 and 3 shall not come under this item"-well, it is rather strange.


Ernest Lapointe: It has to be done only once to be of any use.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Charles Avery Dunning: The qualification has appeared in one or two other places in the tariff in the past.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but it is an amusing way of putting it.


Charles Avery Dunning: It has the effect of avoiding unexpected trouble in the way of an up-

ward movement in some article when as a matter of fact a downward movement is really intended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In that regard I was
going to direct the minister's, attention to this fact. He will observe that the general tariff is 25 per cent, which is the maximum under the present general tariff in any way that you may arrange the item. With respect to the intermediate there are three tariffs: one is free and the others are 22i per cent. With respect to the British preference there are three-free, 15 per cent and 15 per cent. I take it that this is a consolidation of all, and they are all made free. That is what it looks like.


Charles Avery Dunning: Extracts from them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The extracts include some of the free?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And some of the 22i
and some of the 25?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the point.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That strikes out the daily newspaper? It no longer exempts the daily newspaper from the benefits of the item?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-183. Newspapers, or supplemental editions or parts thereof, partly printed and intended to be completed and published in Canada; comic and pictorial sections, nonadvertising, to be inserted in or folded with periodical publications entered for mailing purposes as second-class matter: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It appears to me that
this item should have been divided in two. The last part, "comic and pictorial sections, non-advertising, to be inserted in or folded with periodical publications entered for mailing purposes as second-class matter," should have come in under another item, perhaps coupled with 473a, which will be referred to later. After the budget was brought down I visited a number of printing and publishing houses in Toronto and got some information with reference to the last part of item 183. One printer told me that he had purchased many thousands of dollars' worth of machinery to print just the kind of articles that are mentioned in the last half of this item and which are now to be admitted free.


Charles Avery Dunning: The pictorial sections,
you mean?

Customs Tariff
Mr. Ma-cNICOL:	Yes. I have in mind
a well known magazine, although I cannot at the moment recall the name of it. I was *told that in the case of that magazine the front page, which includes the back page, will come in free under this item, and that were it not for this item those particular pages would be printed in this country. But as on the other side they print a great number of the front pages to be sent out as window *displays, to attract public attention to the magazine, and all they have to do is to run off a few more copies, 1,500 or 2,000, and ship them into Canada to take care of the Canadian trade. That particular printer thought that this was a hardship to Canadian publishers, and it strikes me that way too. Again, if the original plates or electrotypes from which the articles in the last half of item 183 are printed were imported into this country, they would have to pay under item 473a, a 74 per cent duty. It does not seem reasonable that the finished article should come in free while the electrotype or plate that is imported for printing in Canada will have to pay a 74 per cent duty. The combination of those two items cannot do other than deprive Canadian workmen of employment. In fact I was told in the course of the conversation I mentioned that this item, in conjunction with the provisions of the Canada-United States trade agreement pertaining to the printing of American magazines, has resulted in the releasing in Toronto alone of 250 girls who were employed for binding, and in conjunction with this item an additional number of pressmen have been and will be laid off. I was in business for a long time, and I cannot see any other result of the adoption of this item than the reduction of employment in Canada. I know the minister does not want to do anything like that. I realize his sincerity and I am convinced that he, as much as anybody else, wants to provide work for Canadians. But here is a tariff provision which means reducing employment in Canada. I cannot see it in any other way. The American people themselves are convinced that it is going to work considerable benefit to them. I remember seeing a few days ago in one of the Toronto papers a dispatch from New York dated March 30 which had been republished in Toronto. One part of it reads as follows:
One striking result of the recently initiated reciprocal trade agreement with the United States has been a tremendous increase in sales of American magazines in the dominion, one magazine alone showing a gain of 125 per cent over last year. As a consequence the advertisement of American products in Canada has increased proportionately, and it is expected that this will result in a corresponding stimulus to American sales of all kinds.
If that be true-and I have no reason to doubt it-an increase of American sales in Canada as a result of these glorified catalogues which are now flooding our market cannot fail to reduce employment in Canada. I suggest to the minister that the item be divided in two. Let the first part of it end at the words, "published in Canada," and then make a new item covering "comic and pictorial sections, non-advertising, to be inserted in or folded with periodical publications entered for mailing purposes as second-class matter," and place whatever the minister considers to be a reasonable duty against the importation of these comic and pictorial sections, because if these latter are published in Canada it cannot result otherwise than in providing employment in printing, in the production of paper and ink and whatever else is required to produce them. In all sincerity I put that to the minister. I believe every member wishes to increase employment in this country, although all do not see the problem in the same way. I have tried to demonstrate, however imperfectly, that the item as it now appears cannot but result in reduction in employment in Canada, but if it were divided, the latter half taken out and a duty placed on the matter therein referred to, employment in Canada would benefit. I do not know whether the minister can do anything at the present time, but I hope that if he cannot he will do something about it later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can cover what I have to say before the minister replies. I regret that he has not seen fit to alter this item. Few items gave more concern to the late government than this one. It involves the question: are we doing the young children of Canada a service by putting on the free list the Katzenjammer kids and the Jiggses and that form of illustration that is coming into this country? Like most public men I am not unmindful of the effect of the influence of such pictures upon children from five to eight or nine years of age. I once was talking to a distinguished public servant

by the party of my hon. friend he is regarded as very distinguished, and is still in the service of the state-who told me that he did not permit these supplements to be placed in the hands of his young children.
In 1930 or 1931, I forget which, when we dealt with this item we dealt with it as we did for two reasons. The first was that these supplements represent additions to the Sunday newspapers that I do not think the most case hardened member of this committee would regard as being the very best literature for the children on Sunday morning. I have listened to an exposition over the radio based
295S
Customs Tariff

upon one of these coloured supplements, and while I am not an authority at all I have observed the effect upon children of the reading of them. Take one of these coloured supplements, for instance. It leaves an entirely wrong impression as to the relations between a man and his wife. It places a premium upon fraud, lying and deceit. These two Katzenjammer youngsters of whom you see the pictures are elevated to a position of great importance because of their ability to escape the just retribution of their own misconduct. And so it goes; I could give others as well. There are some, of course, that are quite the opposite, that have some value from the standpoint of teaching children the habits of wild animals and matters of that sort, but after much consideration this item was dealt with as indicated.
The duty we imposed amounted to 15 per cent, 22J per cent and 22J per cent. Now these supplements are to enter free when they come into this country prepared for use as supplements to our newspapers, which was the second point dealt with by my hon. friend for Davenport. The hon. member dealt with that question so fully that I am not going to attempt to repeat what he said, but there is no doubt as to what will be the result in regard to employment. There are weekly newspapers in Canada that print these coloured supplements themselves, but the greater number of them are syndicated from the United States, already printed; they are shipped here in great quantities and then folded in with the Sunday newspapers. There is also another supplement, reproduced on calendered paper-


Charles Avery Dunning: Rotogravures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, rotogravures, which also would be covered by this item as it now stands, I take it. I do know that a substantial amount of revenue was derived from that source. I happen to know that one newspaper imported those supplements, printed the name of the paper upon them and added them to the Sunday issues, and that newspaper paid us substantial sums in the way of revenue. In a sense those are educational, in a general way, containing as they do pictures of current events of world wide interest, and broadly speaking I think they are to be commended. But when you get down to the others, I do not know whether Moon Mullins adds greatly to the store of knowledge of young and growing children. I am not an authority upon that-
Mr. EULER; You are pretty familiar with him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am. Fortunately I have reached an age when the formative period is past and it is not likely to be very injurious to me. If it were I should think it highly undesirable that I should be here. That, however, is the reason that governed in placing the duties on the items in this schedule.
Then there is the other question. Is it necessary to add to the profits of the Sunday newspapers by supplying employment to people out of Canada in order that Canadians may purchase these works of art under the circumstances indicated? I think not, and I did hope that the government would not attack that item at this time. It is just one more of those unconscious influences that are moulding the character of the next generation. If we look abroad and see the lack of discipline that obtains in some sections of this continent I think we will agree that there was never a moment of greater necessity for the imposition of those safeguards that were thought desirable in days gone by in order to shape, form and mould national character along lines that at least would reflect something of the genius of our civilization, the civilization that was built up by the generations that have now gone to their rest, rather than the idea that man owes no duty to his fellows and that an undisciplined horde constitutes a nation. I think that is a very improper conception; I know it is not shared by the minister, by the government, by the supporters of the government or by any hon. member in this house, but I cannot help thinking of the effect of this change. When we were putting on this duty I explained the matter at great length; as a matter of fact I think I took too much time, but in those days I said that we could not measure unconscious influences. All we can do is speculate, but we do know what the effect has been in some countries. Let me repeat that it cannot be good for youngsters to believe that there is merit in deception and fraud, as many of these pictures indicate, and that the reward of the deception of parents and of a lack of discipline is happiness, satisfaction and pleasure. That is all I have to say about it, but I feel very strongly though I am not directly affected by this change. I believe it is a bad thing for Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, Mr. Chairman, with the sentiments expressed by my right hon. friend with respect to this matter I am quite sure there will be no disagreement in the committee. I am only compelled to point out to him again, however, as I have on former occasions, that although he did place a duty of 15 cents per pound against the Itatzen-

Customs Tariff
jammer kids and all the other pictures of which he speaks and which he deems to be injurious to the morals and the proper intellectual development of our children-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say the morals.


Charles Avery Dunning: -there was no diminution in the supply of that kind of material. If we are going to approach this problem from, shall I say, the very lofty standpoint taken toy my right hon. friend, we must choose other machinery than that of levying an impost upon this literature for the benefit of the treasury. Surely that is evident from the experience of the last five years.
It is said sometimes by the ladies that an old maid always knows a great deal more about bringing up children than a mother knows, and while I thought of that as my right hon. friend was speaking I did not think of it in any ribald sense at all; rather, speaking as a father, I was quite appreciative of the understanding displayed by the right hon. gentleman. It is rather difficult, you know, to raise children by the method of prohibition. I suppose my right hon. friend may be finding that out now. I venture to suggest to him that during his own youth the prohibited thing had a certain value in his eyes if he even became aware of its existence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had parents who saw that prohibition meant prohibition.


Charles Avery Dunning: As long as the iron hand of discipline was on my right hon. friend prohibition meant prohibition, and by the time he attained to years of discretion the lessons'then learned had become so ingrained that he has continued to follow them throughout his life.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason he sits here six hours a day.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the reason he is capable of doing so. However, my reason for rising to speak was not for this rather pleasant interchange, but to deal with the question the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNieol) asked with respect to employment. I know the hon. member will not forget that the newspaper comes in free at the present time, because there was no duty under the intermediate tariff formerly effective, and once the United States obtained the privileges of our intermediate tariff newspapers from there came in free. That is one point. With respect to the inserts to which the hon. member referred, may I point out that representations are made to me by those interested in the printing of American magazines in Canada that the privilege of importing inserts
will in some cases at least have the effect of retaining in Canada the printing work of certain magazines, and will also involve work for Canadians in the printing on the other side of a highly artistic insert and also the facing page. Indeed one of the objects of this proposal is to meet the representation that it would be helpful in retaining in Canada this printing work with respect to the magazines to which my hon. friend refers. I am referring now not to the pulp type of magazine, the low grade kind of which so much has been printed in recent years in this country, but the higher type of American magazine which has been printed here during the past few years and the printing of which in some cases at least may be retained in Canada by reason of the liberty to import the inserts, the remaining printing on the insert as well as the facing page being done in Canada as part of the arrangement for printing the magazine here.	_
Frankly I am not sure myself that it is altogether good to have the printing of all sorts of magazines brought into Canada. I know these things give a certain amount of employment, but there are other factors. Prior to 1930, before the duty was imposed, hon. members will remember how time after time in this house we were exhorted to put on a duty. What for? To keep out literature which was described many times in this house as derogatory to the building of character and as productive of a bad effect all round. In fact samples were produced here from time to time and we were told to impose a tariff in order that our young folk, and older folk too for that matter, should not be exposed to the slimy temptation of this sort of reading matter. Now, everyone knows that the introduction of the tariff did not achieve that end.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but we do know that the publishers in Canada struck out of the Canadian editions offensive sections published in their home editions.


Charles Avery Dunning: Maybe they were not so bad, but I venture to say that my right hon. friend's cheeks would blush at much of the literature produced even in Canada during the past five years. Be that as it may, it is certain that the liberty to produce it here under the shelter of a tariff did have the effect of creating in a measure a vested interest in the production of that class of magazine in Canada. We must recognize that. We are hearing about it every day now. I am not inclined seriously to regard the future in that respect, particularly as under the general provisions proposed, of which this is one, the higher type American magazine will have some incentive to continue publication in Canada.
Customs Tariff

The advantage will not of course apply to those of the cheaper order, because they do not use inserts of the kind described.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have listened attentively to what the minister has said. During my survey among the printers I found support for item 178, which is already passed, and I am under the impression that the minister is confusing the remarks I made in reference to the last half of 183 with the endorsation he received from the printers of 178. During my survey a number of printers told me they had written to him, or proposed writing to him, in opposition to the last half of 183, whereas I have no doubt that some of them had also written endorsing 178. But in no print shop did I find any sentiment in support of .the last half of 183. That is one reason why I did not rise when 178 was under discussion, because my information from the printers was generally in favour of 178.


Mr. MARCIL:: I have had opportunity on several occasions of discussing the moral aspect of this matter. The economic side has been thoroughly discussed and explained. We are not interested just now in knowing the amount of revenue that will be received by the government-although heaven knows we need all we can get-but what we are chiefly interested in is to bar out the class of literature which should not come into Canada at all. There are two ways by which it reaches Canada, one through the post office and the other by railway or aeroplane. I should like to know what censorship exists over that class of reading matter. Is there real censorship in the minister's department or the Post Office Department to prevent that class of reading matter from coming in? No matter how high the tariff against it may be, people who are inclined to read that rubbish will pay the price to get it. In the interests of the younger generation it should be barred from the country. I discussed this matter many years ago with Mr. Hocken, who frequently made references to it in the house; I shared his views, and I know the house realizes that this is the greatest service we can render to the younger generation. I should like to know from the minister whether there is a real censorship, and under what department it operates, to keep this class of matter out of Canada.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Item 1201 of schedule C of the customs tariff, which is the schedule of prohibited goods, reads as follows:
Books, printed paper, drawings, paintings, prints, photographs or representations of any kind of a treasonable or seditious, or of an immoral or indecent character.

This item is administered by the Department of National Revenue, the organization set up in the department being continued just as it has been during the past few years. This matter was dealt with when the estimates of the Department of National Revenue were before the house; but I do not know whether the hon. gentleman was present on that occasion.


Charles Marcil: How many publications
have been barred, say during the last year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would have to get that information.


Charles Marcil: Does the post office exercise any supervision? As far as I am concerned that is the important point. The question of revenue is secondary.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a provision in
the Post Office Act, with which I am not very familiar, but which empowers the Postmaster General to deny the use of the mails to such matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I agree with the Minister of Finance that perhaps it is impossible through the tariff to exercise censorship over the publication of certain types of supplements to newspapers and magazines. May I draw his attention, however, to what strikes me as an anomaly in the schedule? Under item 183, the one under discussion, we place on the free list newspapers, supplementary editions and comic and pictorial sections to be inserted. But, under item 473a, printing plates of all kinds for periodical publications enjoying second-class mailing privileges, and matrices, metal bases and copper shells therefor, carry an intermediate duty of per cent and a general duty of 25 per cent. It appears to me that these items represent a contradiction of the principle of tariff making, if I may so describe it. The finished product is admitted free, but the materials with which Canadian firms might and indeed do produce these publications carry a tariff. I am not suggesting that item 473a should be entirely on the free list, but I suggest, as did the hon. member for Davenport, that item 183 ought not to be completely free. I believe there is more in the question of employment than would appear on the surface. Men working in the printing trades in Canada have been having difficult times, just as have men in similar trades in the United States. There is no question about that. There has been a sharp falling off in newspaper circulation and commercial printing, so that printers generally in common with many other classes of workmen have been going through difficult

Customs Tariff
times. It does not appear to me that the admission of comic and pictorial supplements would be any contribution to the consumer of Canada, as is very often argued. In other words there would be no great loss if the present tariff were continued. On the other hand, without any doubt there would be a definite loss in employment. I have listened with care to the minister's views on the point, but I fail to appreciate the force of his argument, because I cannot see how there could possibly be as much printing along the lines he indicated, where partly printed sheets were shipped in and Canadian printers did the remainder of the work. I do not believe there would be anything like as much labour or employment as exists at present where these publications are produced substantially in Canada.
I shall admit frankly that there would be an inconsistency in the position I am now taking if one were dealing with the matter from the point of view taken by the leader of the opposition, because I am suggesting that we should allow matrices to come in under item 473a. That I suggest should be permitted until we are ready to clean house in connection with publications of this kind. On the other hand I should like to urge upon the minister that item 183 be returned to its former position. I have not read the treaty arrangements with the United States, but I do not believe this is one of the items. I do not think our friends to the south of the line would consider that in any sense we had violated the spirit of the treaty; certainly I would not wish that to be the case. It is highly desirable that we should stimulate friendly relations between these two neighbouring countries. But on both sides of the line I am sure it is recognized that where any action affects the employment of its people the country affected should have the right to control its position.
I do not believe anything one can say will alter the situation, but I have no doubt the minister is impressed with the views so happily put forward by the hon. member for Davenport, the leader of the opposition and other hon. members. I am adding my word in the hope that even yet the matter might be reconsidered and the duty left on this particular item.


Charles Avery Dunning: Possibly without the
intention to do so, the hon. member has helped me. Referring to item 473a he has refreshed my memory in connection with a review I made of the situation. I do not wish to be out of order in my observations, but the 'hon. member's remarks afford me an opportunity
to develop my point respecting the employment aspect of the problem. There is no doubt in my mind that if we had made printing plates of all kinds for periodical publications free under the intermediate tariff, it would have been very helpful to the printing trade. But I am also sure it would have been very harmful to an industry which does employ a good deal of labour at this time in the production of the plates described in item 473a. The hon. member does not suggest I should do that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member does suggest that a duty should be put on the material mentioned in item 183.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Viewed again from the standpoint of employment, my information is that there is only one plant in Canada producing this class of article, and that all other newspapers in the country have to import for insert purposes the material described in item 183. And remember, only one plant developed that class of business even in the five years during which the tariff prevailed at the former level. That being so the employment aspect of item 183 i3 indeed limited. On the other hand all newspapers in Canada are in competition with American newspapers containing supplements. This is an item which requires careful consideration from the point of view of many different kinds of employment. The hon. member is correct when he says it is not a treaty item, but it arises directly out of the operation of the treaty, because the adoption of the intermediate rate in so many cases brought about considerations which had to be taken care of. This was one of them, namely between the printing trade on one hand and those who produce lithographs, plates and so forth, on the other. I must say that by and large I have had very little complaint and some commendation with respect to the way in which this matter has been dealt with in the proposals now before the committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I appreciate the minister's observations. Would it be at all objectionable to him if the general tariff in this instance were restored? At present most of this business has been between Canada and the United States, but the general tariff has been there against other countries, and importations may start from other countries as to whose possibilities in this class of trade we have now very little knowledge. It might be well therefore to leave the duty under the general tariff until we learn something more about that future trade.
Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: I would not have any
material objection except that it would be ineffective for the reason that the only larger countries which are now under the general tariff, speaking from memory, are China, Mexico, Turkey, Greece, Abyssinia and Russia. The element of language enters into the possibility of importations under an item such as this, and while the intent behind my hon. friend's suggestion is sound, the practical effect of adopting it would I think be quite negligible.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the minister's
objection to dividing the item? I quite appreciate what the minister has said about newspapers with regard to the first half of the item, but what is the objection pertaining to periodicals under the last half?


Charles Avery Dunning: I thought I had stated
that. The importation of inserts is represented to me by those producing magazines in Canada as one of the factors which may help them to retain the printing in Canada of the higher type of American magazine, which is the type of magazine that uses inserts. Being produced in the United States a piece of art work for insert purposes can be shipped into Canada to be bound with the remainder of the magazine printed in Canada, and it involves in practically all cases some printing in Canada on the insert itself and on the facing pages. It is represented to me by some of those who produce these magazines in Canada that admitting these inserts under the conditions set out in the item may help to retain in Canada the work of printing some of these magazines. I think on the whole the item had better go through as it is. I must say that I have had very little difficulty from outside with regard to the item during the two weeks since it first became public.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister has had
some representations?


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, yes, but they have
been pretty well divided. I was just asking the commissioner a moment ago. It apparently depends on the class of work the printer is engaged in whether he commends this item or one or the other part of it, or recommends that it be reconsidered. On the whole I think my hon. friend will find it is a pretty fair solution of a somewhat difficult technical problem.


Mr. WILTON:: Is there any regulation in
effect or are any efforts made to prohibit the bringing into Canada from the United States of communist or red literature which is being circulated widely throughout Canada?

This kind of stuff is published in New York, shipped in here almost daily, and distributed throughout the whole of Canada, to the detriment of the youth of the country and Canada generally. It is literature of a type that is opposed to law and order, tends to drag down the best things we have, to -wreck government institutions, and opposes almost everything that is good, and yet it is allowed to be circulated throughout the whole of Canada. In the city I represent handbills and various other types of printed matter, which comes in from the United States, are frequently distributed, usually at night, which is when they do their work, like rats in a hole, carrying on their nefarious work after dark. What is being done to protect Canadians against that kind of rotten literature?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, the item in schedule C of the customs tariff which I read a few moments ago in reply to an inquiry of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) prohibits the importation of books, printed paper, drawings, paintings, prints, photographs or representations of any kind of a treasonable, seditious, immoral or indecent oharacter, and if literature arrives at one of the custom houses of Canada and there is any reason for considering it treasonable or seditious, it is held and examined, and perhaps prohibited. As the hon. gentleman will appreciate, there is often disagreement as to whether a publication is of a treasonable or seditious character. What he considers treasonable or seditious might be regarded by one of his colleagues to the left as merely enlightening and educative, and for that reason the Department of National Revenue has difficulty from time to time in making decisions which meet with the approval of everyone. However, if the hon. gentleman will bring to my attention the publications ,he has in mind, or will send them to the office, we will make a ruling on them, and if we decide that they are treasonable or seditious they will be prohibited entry into Canada. But if they come in secretly or illegally, that is something the Department of National Revenue cannot control, and in such an instance would, I suppose be a matter either for the preventive service or for the police of the province in which the publication circulates. There are other provisions for the control of such publications, such as the provisions in the criminal code which prevent the publication of what are called seditious libels.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is for domestic purposes.

Customs Tariff


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, if they are published within the country and delivered by one person to another.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what is meant by that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps I am wrong about that, but if they are published in the ordinary sense within the country it is a violation of the terms of one or more sections of the code. I believe also, though I cannot speak with much certainty as to this, that there is a provision in the Post Office Act which enables the Postmaster General to deny the use of the mails to certain types of literature such as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Wilton) has mentioned.


Herbert Earl Wilton: There cannot be any doubt as to the class of literature I refer to being seditious. It prints "down with the government" and that kind of thing. I do not think there could be any doubt in the mind of any intelligent person that it is seditious. I am of opinion that perhaps it does not all come in regularly through the customs but finds its way through secret channels that have no right to exist, and a closer check-up on the [DOT]part of the officials of the department or by the police responsible could stop it. That kind of stuff is being circulated, I think, in all our cities-I know it is in Hamilton,-and, as I have said, is usually distributed at night. From information I have received I know it is distributed from headquarters in New York not a stone's throw from Times Square, where in a basement they prepare, publish, and send out this rubbish to the various branches of the red element throughout Canada. It seems to me that an effort should be made on the part of the secret service to check-up on this kind of thing which is undermining and against the very best things we have in the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My attention was directed not long ago to an editorial in a weekly newspaper published in New York, an old paper, referring to His late Majesty King George V in terms so offensive that no decent British citizen could read it without a feeling of strong resentment. That one editorial of itself would undoubtedly have justified one, had one known of it before hand, in taking steps to prevent that issue from entering Canada. But inasmuch as the newspaper circulates and there is no repetition of anything of that kind, I think we are powerless to deal with the matter. I do not see how under the existing law we could. The minister is more familiar with it than I am, but I could not see any way of dealing with that particular
situation. We could deny the publishers the privileges of the mails as a punishment for a past offence, but that is not the general principle of the law. The article was a most scurrilous one and I will show it to the minister some day. I have never seen anything quite as bad. I wonder what action we can take that will adequately deal with such offences, because we cannot prosecute under the criminal code or any other statute, though we could deny the publishers the mails as a punishment for having thus insulted us. But, as I say, that is not the general principle of the law. I am uncertain on that point and I was going to speak to the minister about it under this item.


Mr. NEILL:: I would remind the minister that it is not only from abroad that seditious or immoral literature is circulated in Canada; there is a good deal of such literature originating in this country itself. As regards the latter literature it may be said that we can prosecute, but one of the greatest difficulties is to find out who publishes such matter. About ten years ago, as a private member, I succeeded in getting through the house a bill compelling all publishers to keep a record of those who had employed them to publish any article or pamphlet. The bill went through this house unanimously, the members understanding its purpose; but unfortunately it met an untimely death in the other chamber. I have seen in Canada literature which it would be a disgrace to anyone to read. We had a pretty shrewd idea of the town in which it was published but there was no way of bringing it home to the offenders because we could not find out who had printed it. In drafting the bill to which I have referred I followed the British law, which provides that for a period of six months the printer shall keep a record of all those employing him to publish any article, and if such article is found to be seditious or in any other way undesirable the publisher, as a means of avoiding liability himself, must disclose the identity of those for whom he has printed the offensive matter. There is a good deal of seditious literature published in British Columbia today, and it would be of assistance to the forces of law and order if it were known who published this literature. Sometimes it is actual print and sometimes it takes the form of mimeographed matter, but the law would apply in either case. If the government would introduce a bill, and the leader of the opposition would use his influence in another chamber to get it through, it would help to put a stop to the publication in Canada of such offensive literature.
Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want to hold up the item, but what the hon. gentleman has said does come home with peculiar force when one is occasionally the subject, as I suppose all of us are at times, either jointly or individually of scurrilous and anonymous pamphlets. In the light of a recent experience I am impressed with what has been said. I should like very much to find out who was responsible for the printing of a certain elaborate pamphlet which was circulated throughout Canada. My right hon. friend is involved along with myself. I know he will not appreciate being in my company in such a publication-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The feeling is entirely mutual.


Charles Avery Dunning: The feeling is entirely mutual, and the publication illustrates the point. I mention it only for that purpose and not to direct public attention to something not worthy of it. The writer had not the courage to sign his name or in any way to acknowledge authorship; in fact, he apparently took great pains to conceal his identity. That speaks for itself. It seems to me that we should ask ourselves what machinery we have or can create with respect to publications of that kind. I feel sympathetic to the remarks of my hon. friend, but so far as I am concerned it is not a matter of making law; it is a question of how to enforce it when once it is enacted. My legal friends tell me that there is a law with respect to the matter about which I have just been speaking, but obviously you must catch your hare before you can cook it, and in this instance it appears impossible to trace the authorship.


Alan Webster Neill: The bill which I managed to get passed through this house was simple, because on the pamphlet the name of the person publishing it had to be printed.


Charles Avery Dunning: But suppose he does not do that.


Alan Webster Neill: The printers in the town are generally fairly well known, and when the publisher's name must appear on the pamphlet the discovery of the author is simplified.


Charles Avery Dunning: But the kind of man we are speaking of would not obey that part of the law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because he has already committed a greater offence. Since the minister has mentioned this matter I may make a few observations. I agree with him; we should overhaul the law in that regard. There is a magazine that persistently attacks
	.
not only members of this house but others; it does so in the sacred name of liberty and of freedom of speech and of criticism, and it is circulated rather extensively. It is true that one of the proprietors was convicted and sentenced to a term in gaol, but nevertheless the magazine continues to be published. Nothing more libelous or false could be published than some of the references in that publication. I did not know anything about it until I received a letter from someone in British Columbia stating that he had read something in that magazine. I did not know what he meant and I asked him to send it to me. The assertion was that $1,300,000 had been given by a certain interest connected with the Montreal harbour bridge to one of the political parties; that the other political party was sharing equally in the spoils, and that I personally should have been punished because I permitted Gundy to sell bonds to the extent of $19,000,000 when the law said that only $6,000,000 worth could be sold. Obviously that sort of thing greatly incenses people. This gentleman wrote to me saying that he would like to have an explanation. The assertion I have cited was mild compared with other statements in the magazine. I remember someone showing me the document to which the minister has referred, a most scurrilous attack on the hon. gentleman. To write a letter to the newspapers denying this rotten sort of thing is only to provide the publicity which the author seeks.
I fear that the remedy suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni would fall far short of adequacy, for the reason that in the very circulation of these mimeographed or printed copies the perpetrators are committing a greater offence than that of failure to indicate the name of the publishers. I am going to be perfectly frank about this. There is among political, parties a habit of rejoicing in being able to circulate information and attacks of this sort, and that is the reason amendments are made to the law. Then we hear the cry of liberty and freedom. Attacks of this kind are not limited to any one party; do not think I am in any sense trying to attribute them to one party. But unless the people of this country are willing and prepared to take some steps to protect their rights, they may find them entirely disappear. That has been the history of other countries. The right is not the right of abuse; it is the right of free criticism. The right of free criticism is entirely distinct from the right of abuse-


Charles Avery Dunning: Anonymous scurrilous
abuse.

Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: -of an anonymous kind. I do not wonder at the resentment expressed by the Minister of Finance; I saw enough of the details to know that I would have resented the pamphlet. But think what I have been subject to in the last five years as compared with that! At odd moments I have even been called a murderer.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not as bad as that.
.Mr. BENNETT:	Oh,	yes. Anonymous
documents to which the hon. gentleman referred were circulated from one end of this country to the other charging me with the murder of a poor unfortunate man in Regina. That was quite a commonplace observation, and that sort of thing does make one wonder where law is. The late W. F. Maclean, who was in this house for many years, stated that we must do something to clothe the federal power with authority to carry on prosecutions for contraventions of federal statutes. In the United States they have their federal marshals, their federal courts, and their federal prosecutions as distinguished from state prosecutions.


Charles Avery Dunning: One of Mr. Maclean's
last speeches in this house was devoted to this subject.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was it? I was not in
the house at the time, but I recall his having very strong views about the matter. To mention one instance; take the statements made by Arthur Evans. Yet the province had the right to say whether he should be prosecuted; the province says that he is not to be prosecuted, and that is all there is about it; he goes free. It is true that nine others have been prosecuted and convicted. But this has nothing to do with the great and fundamental principle that if we are going to maintain rights we must enforce the law against those who try to deprive themselves and us of it in the name of liberty and freedom, because freedom does not mean licence, neither does liberty. Attacks of the kind referred to are being made in this country at the present time. I am sure that the very discussion which has taken place this afternoon will be the subject of lampoons and attacks that will be anonymously circulated from one end of the country to the other.


Charles Marcil: One great argument of the late Mr. Maclean had to do with the administration of the federal system and the weakness of its laws. The laws are passed here but they are put into force by the provinces.
If the provinces take no action the law becomes a dead letter. That- has been the great objection to the federal law as it now exists. As the leader of the opposition has said, at the present time the enforcement of federal laws rests largely with the provinces, and if a province takes no action that is the end of the story. I have often heard discussed in this house whether we should not have an officer, with something of the standing of the Lord Chamberlain in England, who would exercise general censorship all over Canada, and have authority from the dominon and the provinces to control theatres and matters of the kind to which reference has been made. There has always been this controversy between the provinces and the dominion. Of course it is primarily a matter for legal gentlemen to discuss, but undeniably it is one of the weaknesses of our federal system.


Mr. MacINNIS:: If we go too far into censorship there is a danger of falling short of providing the protection that is essentially required. We should keep in mind that probably there is no country in the world where the government is more secure than in Great Britain, and there is no country in the world where freedom of speech and freedom of the press are so strongly established as in the British Isles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not that kind of speech.


Angus MacInnis: It seems to me that that fact is proof positive that very little danger need be feared from sedition or seditious utterances, whether by word of mouth or by the printed word. I am no more than any other member in favour of the circulation of what is termed communist or scurrilous literature in so far as it is scurrilous or libelous or misleading. I have had the distinction, which is possibly shared by very few members of this house, of having been opposed in the last election by a communist, so that perhaps I can speak with some little authority on the matter. As regards the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) I think something should be done. I have in mind something that happened in the Ontario provincial election of 1934. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or some adherents of that party published a weekly paper for some few weeks at the beginning of that year. It went out of business, I believe, in February. But in June, during the campaign, an issue of that paper appeared, bundles of which were sent to all the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation committee rooms, although certainly neither the
Customs Tariff

federation nor any one belonging to it printed or paid for that paper. Those who did so had not the courage to put their signatures on it. They did it in order to mislead the electors. We were not altogether free from that kind of thing in British Columbia during the last election. I think that is of more importance than even seditious literature, because it is misleading and it deceives the very people who should be truthfully informed on the issues of an election. If something could be done to curb that sort of thing I should be glad to support it. But as regards banning things that we are not in favour of, just because we do not like them, I think we should go very carefully in that direction, because what is seditious to-day may not be seditious to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-197d. Tissue paper made from mulberry pulp, not coated nor impregnated, when imported by manufacturers of stencils for duplicating machines for use exclusively in the manufacture of such stencils in their own factories:	British	preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a very peaceful item. The mulberry pulp referred to is produced only in Japan for a special kind of duplicating paper.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-199b. Containers wholly or partially manufactured from fibreboard or paperboard, per pound:	British	preferential
tariff, 1 cent; intermediate tariff, li cents; general tariff, 1J cents.
Provided, that in no case shall the rate of duty under the intermediate or the general tariff be less than: intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Mr. McKENZIE (Lamfoton):: Under the
present intermediate tariff, containers enjoyed a protection of li cents a pound. That was not enough for the box makers or the carton manufacturers, so the item was increased to thirty per cent, which was quite a sizeable increase. The old rate under which manufacturers of boxes and cartons operated should be plenty of protection for them. This item is not so favourable to the men who manufacture articles which, in order to sell them, they must put into containers of this kind. It works a handicap on them because the thirty per cent duty almost invariably means thirty per cent additional costs. I have in mind, as relevant to this matter, a particular manufacturing concern that has to buy raw material upon which there is twenty per cent protection, and to put its product into boxes or containers on which there is thirty per 
cent protection. A competing article is brought into Canada in a finished state, in a container, and pays a duty of only 7J per cent. Surely that is manifestly unfair, and I think there should be some way of putting it right.


Mr. WALSH:: During the course of some
remarks earlier in the session I drew attention to the fact that certain items of the tariff bore a specific duty, and certain items an ad valorem duty. This is one of the items I had particularly in mind, and I am glad th&t my hon. friend brought up his suggestion, which I want to emphasize. After careful investigation I am firmly convinced that the paper-box manufacturers of this country are overprotected at the present time. With this specific duty their protection was quite adequate at the prices for which paper-boxes and containers were selling when the duty was first imposed. To-day this same duty represents almost fifty per cent. The result is that the people who use these containers and boxes have to pay more than they would otherwise do. I would not favour reducing the duty sufficiently to admit paper-boxes or containers from another country; they can and should be manufactured in Canada. I feel that the Canadian manufacturer of paper-boxes is overprotected at the present time and is taking advantage of that overprotection with the result that the user of that material in Canada, who has to put his finished articles into those boxes, is paying almost fifty per cent more than he would pay if the duty were reduced to normal protection.
In connection with the adjustment of the tariff as a result of the agreement with the United States I have in mind a manufacturer who had the tariff on his finished article reduced by 2J per cent. That does not sound very much, but I can assure the Minister of Finance that it meant a considerable amount to that particular industry. He is a manufacturer selling very close to the line, and when this additional advantage of 2^ per cent was given to his American competitor, in order to keep out the American product he had to reduce his price to the point where he could not make a reasonable profit. On top of that he is forced to pay a high price for containers in which to place his finished product.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance if it would not be possible to make this an ad valorem duty instead of a specific duty, and to make that ad valorem duty twenty-five per cent rather than what it is at the present time. This specific duty raises the price of these paper-boxes made in Canada by almost fifty per cent, and the manufacturers are taking full advantage of that to the detriment of other manufacturers who are forced to use these

Customs Tariff
containers. So I would ask the minister if he would give some consideration to that suggestion so that these people who have suffered because of the trade agreement with the United States might have their difficulties ameliorated to that extent at least.


Mr. WOOD:: I should like to make a little contribution to this debate, and perhaps the minister could answer us all at the same time.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will if I can keep it all in my head. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me to clean up this point, because I am inclined to believe that his question may have a different bearing, and at times I get a little confused when I have too many things to remember.
This paper container item is one of the items resulting from reports of the tariff board on references by my predecessor in office. The committee must realize that there are paper containers and paper containers. Such a wide disparity in value had the effect last year, under a specific duty, of creating an ad valorem range as great as from five per cent to forty per cent. That was the actual condition revealed by the inquiry, that a tariff incidence of a specific duty, translated into ad valorem terms, on the articles actually imported showed a range as wide as from five per cent to forty per cent because of the wide range of values involved in containers wholly or partially manufactured from fibre-board or paperboard. What I bring to the attention of the committee to-day is the result of the investigation by the tariff board, at which representations were made both by the users of all classes of these containers and by the manufacturers. The only change suggested by the tariff board report is an ad valorem rate which will equalize the bearing of the specific rate now in force. The recommendation is as set out in the item, that while the duty should remain at li cents per pound by weight it should not be less than thirty per cent ad valorem.
My hon. friend from Mount Royal and my hon. friend from Lambton-Kent have in mind manufacturers of specific commodities who put them into some type of paper containers. Naturally, in drafting the tariff item, the tariff board had to have in mind the whole range of paperboard and fibre-board containers, and also the whole range of manufacturers using those containers, and I should point out that while I have heard the representations made this afternoon by the two hon. members, I do not think I have had any other complaints. I may have had one or two among the thousands of letters I have received, but there has been nothing 12739-189
which has impressed itself on my mind as a complaint with reference to the finding of the tariff board in connection with this particular item. The commissioner tells me that he knows of none at all. When I inform the committee that within the last two months I have had 3,261 separate communications with regard to the tariff, it will be seen that anyone who has had any complaint has been fairly active in supporting it by written representations and otherwise. If, therefore, the cases mentioned have to do with manufacturers of specific commodities which go into these containers I am sorry I cannot accept that view as against the considered opinion of the tariff board that heard all the interests affected.


William Allen Walsh: I have the complaint in
my hand; it was more in connection with corrugated boxes and containers of that type. While the minister was speaking I was wondering whether the item could not be changed to bring it more into line with the type of tariff imposed upon textiles, a small specific duty and a balancing ad valorem duty, making it a combination item.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what it is.


William Allen Walsh: But the thirty per cent is
too high. The Canadian manufacturer of these boxes, as far as my information goes, does not require more. than twenty-five per cent protection, and at the present time he is getting fifty per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend's
information come from the man who makes the boxes or from the man who fills them?


William Allen Walsh: It comes as a result of an
investigation by a man who uses the boxes.


Charles Avery Dunning: But it is his point of
view.


William Allen Walsh: It is his point of view, but his point of view is that this manufacturer making these corrugated boxes made about four hundred per cent on them last year, which to my mind is pretty high. I feel that the user of these boxes as well as the manufacturer should get some consideration. We are all interested in lowering the price of commodities, and if the paper-box manufacturer is going to hide behind a high tariff -well, personally I am a tariff man as everyone knows; I believe in the tariff; I believe in protection, ample protection, but I do not believe in protection at such a level that the consumer pays more for his article as a result of that protection. In this case the paper-box manufacturer is being given too high a

Customs Tariff

premium, and we as consumers are paying for it. For that reason I should like to see it placed at a maximum of twenty-five per cent. I do not know what representations were made before the tariff board, I do not know what influenced them in their findings, but I am convinced that the information I have is correct; that the representations that I received from this manufacturer were made in good faith, and that he is anxious to get this amelioration. It is in the interest of his business, which at the present time is just running on the border fine; it may mean to him the difference between a profit or no profit, and possibly a loss. I am making the suggestion that the protection should not amount to more than twenty-five per cent, which I feel is ample.


Charles Avery Dunning: Now that my hon. friend has identified the commodity as the large, heavy corrugated box he has thereby defeated his own argument, for the heavy corrugated type of container is the type to which the thirty per cent ad valorem would never apply, because the weight factor involved would ensure that the specific duty would always produce a rate as high as or higher than the one he has just specified as a minimum. That was all developed before the tariff board. I may point out further that it is the old tariff rate; there is no change there. In fact, under the Canada-United States trade agreement there was a reduction of one-quarter cent a pound in favour of the manufacturer to whom my hon. friend refers. My hon. friend's suggestion of a reduction of the minimum ad valorem to twenty-five per cent would not help his friend, because the duty is now levied upon that particular commodity on a weight basis. Surely there must be a difference in the basis of value for duty between that large corrugated paper container and the little paper container which holds a tube of shaving cream. How could you possibly assess value for duty by the pound on paper containers for tubes of shaving cream as compared with the large corrugated paper container which takes, for example a dozen or score pairs of boots or shoes or things of that sort? That is why after a thorough and rather difficult examination the tariff board reached this conclusion. This very instance demonstrates the value of inquiry by some body outside this committee into matters of this kind. Of course all of us are affected by representations made to us by concerns or individuals. Hearing their side of it we naturally feel that an injustice is being done, and as members of the committee we voice our views. But this

emphasizes the value of having in addition the guidance of an independent examining body which has examined all the parties interested, or all who care to appear. I do not want to be in the position of holding *the tariff up, goodness knows, but when an independent examination has been made and the suggestion is made by the tariff board, following a reduction under the Canada-United States trade agreement, that what is required in this case is a qualifying ad valorem to equalize the bearing as between the heavy but cheap type of paper board container and the light but expensive type, then I am inclined to place reliance upon the body which heard the evidence and which discussed the matter with all the parties affected.


George Ernest Wood: I have been interested in this discussion primarily because it is refreshing to hear the hon. member for (Mount Royal asking for the tariff to be lowered on one item at any rate. It is a pretty good indication that on the other side the high protection idea is at least beginning to crumble.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a tariff board item.


George Ernest Wood: I am also interested in the matter of containers. While tin cans may not come under this particular item, the same principle is involved. There is in my constituency an industry that has to pay 27i per cent duty plus 3 per cent excise on containers in which its commodity is put up, while the Americans can send in their containers filled with the same product at 17i per cent. That is something the minister might well look into. I do not see why our own people who are putting up this commodity should be discriminated against, in view of the fact that a reduction of tariff would reduce the cost. As the hon. member for Mount Royal ably pointed out, a high tariff does increase the cost of production; he has given that contribution to the discussion from that side and helped us to convince parliament that such is the case. What applies to paper cartons would also apply to tin containers or any other kind of container by which the Americans get an advantage of having their goods come in here at 17i per cent while industries in this country have to pay 27J plus 3 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: I recognize the difficulty on that point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-200a. Regenerated cellulose, and cellulose acetate, transparent, in sheets, not printed, and manufactures of regenerated cellulose or of cellulose acetate, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.

Customs Tariff
Charles Avery Dunning: It is just the addition of the letters "n.o.p.", made necessary because of the succeeding item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that cellophane?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What were the importations under this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: They amounted to $148,000. There is a new item 696a which renders it necessary to create this "n.o.p." item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-206. Dragon's blood; fuller's earth, in bulk only, not prepared for toilet or other purposes; litmus and all lichens, prepared or not prepared; musk, in pods or in 8rain:	quassia juice; saffron, saffron cake,
safflower, and extracts of; quinine, salts of; cochineal; ferment cultures to be used in butter-making: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: The only change in either rates or wording is the deletion of the reference to vaccine and ivory vaccine points. This is essential because of the next succeeding item. I have an amendment on the next succeeding item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-206a. Biological products, animal or vegetable, n.o.p., for parental administration in the diagnosis or treatment of diseases of man, when manufactured under licence of the Department of Pensions and National Health under regulations prescribed by the Food and Drugs Act: British preferential tariff, free; intermedate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: The amendment is to
cover veterinary products of the same type and intended for the same purposes in animals as the biological products in the printed item are intended for human beings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that the correct
description of the administration? Is it "parental"?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a typographical
error.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest the word
"parental" is used improperly.


Charles Avery Dunning: I understand "parenteral" is the correct word, and it means to give food other than through the alimentary canal.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move:
That tariff item 206a, as contained in resolution No. 5 of May 1, 1936, be amended by adding thereto the following words:-"; and biological products, animal or vegetable, n.o.p., for parenteral administration in the diagnosis or treatment of diseases of animals or poultry, when imported under permit of the veterinary director general."
12739-1891	.


Charles Avery Dunning: When I saw the word
"parental" in the item I made inquiries, because I was sure it was not the proper word. A check was made by the Department of Public Health, and it is shown that the word is not spelled correctly in the item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am informed that
"parenteral" is the correct word.


Mr. McCANN:: Yes, that is the correct
word, and the process is known as parenteroc-lysis.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-208h. Ethylene glycol, when imported by manufacturers of anti-freezing compounds, to be used exclusively in the manufacture of anti-freezing compounds in their own factories until September 1, 1936: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Thereafter: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This item will place
ethylene glycol on the free list for four months. For whom is this done?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sure my right hon. friend knows the answer better than I do. The item has offered some difficulty for several years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know there has been
difficulty for several years, but I should like to know whom this is for.


Charles Avery Dunning: Offhand, I cannot say.
The commissioner informs me that it is for the Canadian National Carbon Company. I was not aware of the fact myself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are making the concession for the months of May, June, July and August, and then we are going to impose the tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: Which has been done in each of the last three years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am asking because I thought the matter was settled. I thought the period of probation had passed.


Charles Avery Dunning: No doubt my right hon. friend is familiar with the position taken by the British in that connection, under the conference agreement. Great Britain would not consider allowing a longer period than ia provided under this item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not understand it yet; I never did.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Customs tariff-208i. Animal glands and animal glandular organs, and extracts thereof, wet or dry (whether alcoholic or not), when imported by manufacturers of pharmaceutical or medicinal preparations for use exclusively in the manufacture of such preparations in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the difference between the two items. I must say that I find it difficult to follow these items, and I cannot understand why a new item should be prepared simply to change a single word, and then have put against it a duty of sixty per cent when it was free before. This item had a sixty per cent levy against it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, these very glands, because they were carried in alcohol. This entirely new item is inserted in the tariff for the purpose of facilitating the work now being carried on in certain Canadian universities and medical schools in the field of medical research. These activities may be illustrated by the research in biochemistry proceeding under the guidance of Doctor Collip at McGill university. Certain experimental work under the direction of Doctor Collip is being carried on, in conjunction with the activities of certain commercial laboratories whose facilities have been placed at his disposal. I have before me a technical description of the glands in question. The fact is that in the past they have been imported in ethyl alcohol, and because of that they carried a rate as high as sixty per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were they imported wet or dry, because if they were imported wet they were in alcohol, and if dry they were not?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have before me a note which indicates that fractions were imported in preservative alcohol, and that the duty rate in such case was sixty per cent, sixty per cent and sixty per cent. While the alcohol is there purely as a preservative vehicle and is not used upon arrival, nevertheless the Department of National Revenue have ruled that a duty must be imposed upon a commodity in alcohol.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not going to take up the time of the committee in a long discussion, but I have always objected to the attitude of the department in this connection, and to the ruling that when you use a preservative you must tax the item so preserved at the rate prevailing for the preservative. I never could and still do not understand that ruling. The ethyl alcohol was used for purposes of preservation, but the department says: We are going to tax at the rate of

sixty per cent, because the alcohol carries that rate. I say that the thing preserved is the thing being imported, not the preservative. But I must admit there was no use arguing with them.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course the attitude taken by the Department of National Revenue is that the alcohol could be and has been extracted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But very seldom, at the present price of alcohol.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can see my right hon. friend has been through the whole course of instruction from the administrative department which a Minister of Finance must take in these matters.


Grote Stirling: The new item gets over the difficulty?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By putting them all on
the free list. It is all right now, because it is all on the free list; that rectifies the alcohol, and everything else.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-219d, agreed to.
Customs tariff-219e. Chloropierin, cyanides, or mixtures containing either chloropierin or cyanide, for use in combating destructive insects and pests:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: I have an amendment
to move. The purpose of the amending resolution is to include reference to a new fumigant to which attention has been directed by the Department of Agriculture since the budget was brought down. It is called ethylene oxide, and at this stage of the proceeding we insert those words. The new item is introduced in view of the fact that the dominion entomologist has suggested that it would be to the advantage of users of fumigants in Canada to have ethylene oxide included within the scope of the item. It is not made in Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move:
That tariff item 219e, as contained in resolution No. 5 of May 1. 1936, be amended in wording to read as follows:-219e: Chloropierin, ethylene oxide, or cyanides, or mixtures containing any of these, for use in combating destructive insects and pests.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-224. Sealing wax: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 22j| per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
Charles Avery Dunning: There is no change in
rates or wording, but there is provision for the elimination of paraffin wax formerly in this item. It is now taken out and put into the gasoline and oil item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-259.	Lard oil and neat's
foot oil:	British preferential tariff, 15 per
cent; intermediate tariff, 22| per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: The same thing here,
with the exception that sesame seed oil is taken out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-259a. Sesame seed oil: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 22\ per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I move, Mr. Chairman,
that the words "sesame seed oil" in item 259a be amended to read as follows:
Sesame seed oil, crude.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any importation to any extent, and where from?


Charles Avery Dunning: About one thousand
dollars' worth was imported, $466 from Japan and $314 from the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is this used for?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is one of the important vegetable oils, and is used in combination with other vegetable oils, the commissioner advises me. I have a memory of sesame seed oil in some other connection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ruskin had something to say about it at one time, I remember.


Charles Avery Dunning: Here is the dictionary
definition:
Annual herbaceous tropical and subtropical plant with seeds used in various ways as food and yielding an oil used in salads and as laxative; its seeds; open sesame, magical or mysterious means of commanding access to what is usually inaccessible.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-259b. Rapeseed oil, crude or refined: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is a new item
which permits free entry under all tariffs of rapeseed oil, crude or refined. It was formerly an unenumerated commodity coming in under item 711. Under the Canada-United States trade agreement free entry was accorded to blown rapeseed oil, which is
refined rapeseed oil further processed. Certain plants in Canada using rapeseed oil have expressed a desire to do the blowing themselves, and free entry is being provided.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there much of it
used in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is used as a base in
lubricants.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair for the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the criminal code (death penalty).
Ernest Lapointe: When this bill was last before the bouse for second reading I moved the adjournment of the debate for the purpose, as I intimated then, of trying to secure information from the various places where the method suggested by my hon. friend is in force, and also for the purpose of communicating with the attorneys general of the various provinces of Canada, because the administration of justice, including criminal justice, is under the control of the provinces.
We communicated with the five states of the American union where the method of lethal gas for the execution of condemned persons is in practice. These states are: Nevada, where they have had the system since February, 1924; Arizona, since November, 1933; Colorado, since 1934; Wyoming, since 1935; and North Carolina, since the early part of 1935. In every one of these states there is a central place of execution, namely, the main gaol of the state.
The method is not at all a complicated one nor is it expensive. It is administered by the government of the state itself and the guards in these prisons do whatever is necessary to carry out executions. This method does not require the services of any technical expert, for almost any guard in the prison is able to do what is necessary.
As to the humaneness of this method of execution, that of course is a question of point of view; but in those states where it has been

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
in practice the officials claim that it is a far more efficient and a more humane method than the other system. As to whether, as a deterrent, it is as efficient as the other, that again is a matter of opinion.
We also communicated with the various provinces, through the law officers, the attorney general or rather the deputy attorney general in every province, who answered our queries. They are to a large extent reluctant to express their opinions, though most of them would rather favour the change if it were proved to be more efficient and more humane. Some of the provinces would like very much to have only one place of execution. For instance, both the attorney general of New Brunswick and the attorney general of Nova Scotia strongly recommend that instead of having executions carried out in the various gaols in these two provinces they should be carried out at the penitentiary, which is in Dorchester, New Brunswick, for the maritime provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be very unfair to the inmates of the penitentiary.


Ernest Lapointe: Maybe; that is one of the possible objections to the [DOT]change and it would have to be investigated. I instructed one of the officers of the Department of Justice, Mr. Plaxton, to visit those places in the five states which I have mentioned. He has prepared a report giving all the details and the opinions of physicians who have something to do with executions, and on the whole I must say it is rather favourable to the change. This, however, would involve such a radical departure from the present law and practice in Canada that I am of the opinion that this matter should be thoroughly studied and further investigated, at least until the next session of parliament, so as to give public opinion in the country time to express itself respecting the question' what it would be best for us to do.
Of course, if the change suggested by this bill were aocepted, there would have to be one place of execution in the maritime provinces, one in Quebec and Ontario, and one in the west, and there is the objection to which my right hon. friend has just alluded. Then there is this other fact to be considered. As the situation is to-day, under our law, apart from the exercise of clemency where the federal government has to advise the representative of the crown, the death sentence is executed absolutely independently of anything that this parliament or the federal government may do. The matter is entirely under provincial jurisdiction. The province is re-

sponsible for carrying out the execution, the sheriff in every district being the responsible officer in charge.
There are in certain quarters many delusions as to the law and the practice. In days gone by and even this very year I have received as Minister of Justice letters from persons applying for the position of hangman, such persons evidently believing that it is a federal office; and if there were a vacancy some people would be quite willing to be appointed. We have nothing to do with that. The sheriff of each district where an execution takes place is entirely in charge. He retains the executioner, whoever he may be, and the executioner is not in any way connected with the federal authorities nor is he a federal officer. If a change were made, and if instead of having the executions in every district, they were to take place in the penitentiaries, arrangements of some kind would have to be made if the province were still to be responsible. I admit that I would prefer that the present system, as far as responsibility for carrying out executions is concerned, should remain under the provinces rather than be under the federal authorities, where the exercise or the refusal of clemency lies. I think it is a good thing that these two matters should be under different control.
All these considerations will have to be studied; every phase of the matter will need to be investigated. I would suggest that a committee of parliament should deal with the question, look into every consideration, if necessary hear witnesses, including experts. But obviously that could not be done this session, and I would suggest that my hon. friend withdraw his bill for this year and reintroduce it at the next session of parliament.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition)':	I am sure we have listened
with great satisfaction to the observations of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), indicating as they do that he has given a great deal of consideration to the subject matter of the measure that has been introduced by the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair). Under our constitutional system this parliament determines what acts constitute crimes, and this parliament awards the punishment for a violation of the statute which it thus makes. It rests with the provincial authorities to carry into effect any sentence that may be imposed, whether it be death or imprisonment or otherwise, but it is for the federal authority, on the one hand, to provide the penitentiaries, and, on the other, for the provinces to provide the gaols in which

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
imprisonment is made. That is one of the anomalies of our constitutional system.
The form which punishment for murder or any other offence punishable with death should take has been a subject matter of discussion, I suppose, ever since there has been law. There are two factors to be considered. One has to do with the punishment, which is determined by this parliament; the other has to do with the effect of that punishment upon society. One is intended to operate as punishment of an offender, the other as a deterrent against the repetition of such acts by other members of society. There is no doubt that the form which punishment takes has been regarded from the earliest dawn of history as important in determining the value of punishment as a deterrent. It will be recalled that in the very early days death was inflicted sometimes through stoning the offender to death, in other cases by beheading the offender. But hanging was always an ignominious form of death. Hence it was that when men in military service were convicted they pleaded that they should not be hanged but that they might be shot, because one was such an ignominious form- of death as compared with the other. My reading induces me to believe that hanging is far, far more effective as a deterrent than any other form of punishment which has been devised. While the putting to death of a convicted criminal by suffocation, by asphyxiation or in a lethal chamber may indeed be a very humane method, with all deference I have to say that it is not humanity we are concerned about in the inflicting of punishment, it is the preservation of society from those who have offended against it, and the method of punishment that we resort to is not to find the most humane method by which to punish the offender, but in the same act to punish and to deter. I frankly say I do not know of any method that we have yet had upon the statute books of any country, that is more calculated to operate as a deterrent than is hanging. Whether we like it or not, that, at least, is the evidence of history, and it cannot lightly be disregarded. It arises from the ignominy that attaches to that form of punishment. For instance, in the days when a prisoner was beheaded, it will be recalled that very frequently the body was put in irons, taken to a near-by tree and suspended there, and left hanging as an example to all who might pass that way as to what was the ultimate reward of the felon. In some cases the bodies were quartered, and they were buried under conditions that we should regard as revolting, as for example, when a stake was driven through the corpse. One who reads
the Calendar of Newgate will find there striking illustrations of the facts to which I allude.
I think we can derive some lesson from what the practice in England has been. There is no country in all the world in which there is a higher regard for law than there is in the British Isles, and to this day the punishment of the man convicted of murder is hanging. We adopted it when we founded our criminal jurisprudence. In one part of the United States they have followed the practice of hanging. I believe that in one state of the union they still shoot the offender, and there are countries in Europe in which the murderer is shot to death. As those will remember who have read a recent book published by the warden of Sing Sing, electrocution was introduced into the United States, as it has been into other states, and it has been found to work satisfactorily. Yet when one reads of it, and realizes the steps that are taken to make it effective, I think one will conclude that the method which is adopted as part of the criminal jurisprudence of Great Britain and is still followed here is the most satisfactory method, having regard to the second branch of the purpose of the execution of a criminal. So, when I heard the Minister of Justice make the observation he did, I felt that he properly reflects public opinion. There is such a thing as a maudlin sentimentality with respect to the criminal that has brought about a condition in society which is not to be desired. It must be recalled that those who are punished for sins against society and for crimes against the law are, in the words of a great authority, like the mad dog or the wild wolf. They are destroyed not because of resentment or because of any feeling of animosity against them, but because, by their conduct and actions, they have made it essential for society to destroy them in order to preserve itself, and in the effort to preserve itself it necessarily must have recourse to methods which sometimes are not, shall I say, the happiest or yet the most pleasant. Therefore I repeat that I heard with much satisfaction the observations of the minister.
I would not for a moment venture to make a suggestion to the hon. member for Wellington North with his wide knowledge as a physician and his earnest desire to save human suffering, but we must never forget the person who was killed. I recall, when we had to deal with capital cases, receiving petitions signed by tens of thousands of people pleading for clemency. The rule that, I think, is the sound one is that if a murderer has been convicted

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
by due process of law the sentence should not be interfered with by the executive, not having seen the witnesses, because you cannot tell the weight that is to be attached to the evidence of witnesss without having seen them, without having observed their demeanour and without being in any way able to appreciate the frankness or otherwise with which the testimony was given. But when we have to consider the question of the method to be pursued we must not forget that the murderer was not very careful about the method he selected to destroy his victim. We must not forget that those about whom we are so solicitous were not solicitous for those whom they destroyed. When they wreaked their vengeance, by murder dark and foul, they were not thinking of the pain they caused or the injury they did; they were not thinking of the sorrow they caused to those who survived. In this age there are always manifestations of our becoming victims of maudlin sentimentality and thinking in terms of the pain and suffering of one whom we are removing from society because of his offences against it, but at the same time I suggest that we should never forget those who have suffered because of the offences which have been committed.
I commend the minister for not endeavouring to change the established system at this time, and for deciding to await some stronger manifestation of public opinion than we have yet seen realizing that a practice which has been followed so satisfactorily in the country where law is more highly respected than in any other part of the world is a method from which we should not lightly depart in Canada, where it has been followed for so long. I am not unmindful of the other difficulties to which the minister has referred, and which are real ones. To establish a central point at which all criminals would be sent from two or three provinces would be to put the provinces to an increased expenditure, and that burden is already great in connection with the administration of criminal justice. In my opinion this would tend to lessen the value of the effect that attaches to the second branch of all punishment, namely as a deterrent against the performance of similar acts by others.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, without going into the matter in any further detail from either the historical or any other standpoint, I must say that I am greatly pleased that the minister has taken the view he has expressed. I cannot but hope that when all the facts have been reviewed by the hon. member for Wellington North, having regard to the

effect that it is always purposed to achieve by punishment, he will agree that, consistent with humane methods and the deterrent effects, hanging has served a great and useful purpose as a method of depriving of life one who has been convicted, usually for taking the life of another. It is true under our criminal code, there are other offences, notably treason and rape, for which death is the punishment, but usually the fact is that death is awarded as a punishment-automatically it is true-when the verdict has been that the accused is guilty of murder. It will be found that in the many years during which hanging has been the punishment imposed for murder in Great Britain and other parts of the British dominions it has been a satisfactory method of taking the life of a human being by process of law, alike for punishment and for deterring others from perpetrating similar acts.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot permit the observations of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) to pass without a protest. Twice he .used the words "maudlin sentimentality." I suppose some of us will be classed as maudlin sentimentalists-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had no personal reference at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am just suggesting that that great, sweeping phrase probably is sufficient to include almost anyone who differs from the view expressed by the right hon. gentleman, and I was going to say that in spite of that I feel that I want to say a few words	with regard	to	this
matter.
The right hon. gentleman spoke of hanging as being effective as a deterrent, and he mentioned the evidence of history. Well, I do not pose as a great student of history, but I say that the evidence of history is not in favour of the effectiveness of hanging as a deterrent. They used	to	hang people	forsheep stealing, for robbery, for nearly a hundred offences if my memory serves me aright, in that old England	of	ours, and	it	waslargely because hanging did not prove to be a deterrent that it was	given up	in	the
majority of cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The right hon.
gentleman has his view with regard to that. He has read history, but he is not the only

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
one who has read history. Some of the rest of us may interpret that history in our own way. I do not profess to question the fine points of law as presented by the right hon. leader of the opposition, though I find that he can argue on both sides equally well. But I am not talking about law; for the moment I am talking about history, and, as the right hon. gentleman suggests, in times past we have had all kinds of punishment, boiling in oil, drawing and quartering and a great many others. I hope he does not suggest that we should return to barbarities of that kind. He has selected the one which has persisted, that of hanging. It is true that this practice exists in England, but it is also true that there have been committees of the British House of Commons which have protested against it and have advocated something else. I think that was indicated by my hon. friend from Wellington North (Mr. Blair) in his presentation of his bill. While I have a great regard for what is being done in England I do not think we in this country need follow everything that is done there. If there is a better way of doing things we should be willing to adopt that way. I do not think we should abandon the suggested change as with a sweep of the hand.
As to the attitude of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), it is characteristically Liberal, that is, the kind of Liberalism we have here in Canada. Do nothing. Wait. Appoint a committee. That is what we are always being told. Do nothing. Wait. Appoint a committee. Do something later.


Ernest Lapointe: Know
something before you act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All right, know something, but this matter has been discussed the world over for a great many years, and there is no particular reason why we should continually postpone action along almost every line. If the method proposed by this bill is more humane, why not adopt it? The leader of the opposition suggests that we should not adopt it because another method would not be as great a deterrent, would be emphasizing too much the humane side. I submit that the humane side of this matter is of the greatest importance, if punishment is to be a deterrent. People are getting sick of the idea of vengeance and retribution. I submit that the greatest thing we can develop in this country is a respect for law, and that the way in which the law has been administered and to a certain extent is being administered is not developing a respect
for law. There is not the impartiality in the administration of law that we should have. Unless we develop a respect for law the whole foundation of our public life is undermined. I submit that criminals as a whole may be said to be either born or made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are dealing with murderers here.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All right; all kinds of criminals are either born or made. It used to be considered that there were certain criminal types; there may be; I do not want to go into that. There may be criminal types, as stated some years ago by some outstanding criminologists. If that is the case then we cannot very well blame the criminals; they are criminally insane; we can put them out of the way in the most humane manner possible or shut them up. In my judgment instead of adopting another method of capital punishment we should abolish it altogether; that would be the best way, and that is not maudlin sentiment. In my judgment the great majority of criminals to-day are not bom that way; they are made that, way by social maladjustments.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tut, tut!


James Shaver Woodsworth: "Tut, tut," says someone. I would advise my hon. friend some evening to read that outstanding novel of the criminal world, Les Miserables, with its great character, Jean Valjean. It came to my notice as a youth many years ago, and I have never forgotten it and I hope I never shall. If some who lightly brush aside these matters would read a little more carefully the history of criminals, they would understand that to a considerable extent criminal instincts 'have not been inherited by these people, but criminal tendencies have been fostered by poor training in childhood and the difficulty later on of finding the way into a satisfactory manner of living in our society as it is to-day. Under those circumstances I urge that it is for us to do one of two things: If law breakers are criminal in type, to take steps to prevent criminals coming into the world. That is surely more sensible than allowing them to breed, knowing that they breed true to type.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If some legislation were introduced to prevent so many of those of lower mentality from perpetuating themselves we would not have the difficulty we are having to-day. I know that doctrine is not acceptable to some hon. members in this house, but it needs to be stressed. It is-

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
nearly twenty years ago since I had the duty of making some investigation of mental defectives for the governments of the three prairie provinces, and I had occasion then to trace a large number of case histories, as well as to a certain extent go into theoretical considerations. I discovered the enormous cost being imposed upon this country by the perpetuation -of those who are unfit to develop into good citizens, as well as the enormous amount of misery entailed upon themselves and others. If, instead of concerning ourselves quite so much in getting some people out of the world, we should consider more carefully whether certain classes should ibe allowed to c-om-e into the world


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to find a few hon. gentlemen saying, "hear, hear" to that. For those who are not bom criminals, the thing to do is to arrange our social affairs so that they may not develop criminal tendencies. That is why I am so often on my feet advocating social changes. I think I am perfectly scientific in doing so. If instead of spending so much in the building of bigger and better penitentiaries, we spent a little more in providing work and recreation and decent surroundings we would not have anything like so many criminals.
The leader of the opposition suggested that society must destroy certain people in order to preserve itself. Of course society must seek to preserve itself; I quite agree that -the statement is true in those general terms. But I submit that if we simply set to work to wipe out a few individuals who 'have proved dangerous to society we are not really curing the social evils which we find about us to-day. Capital punishment may be the last desperate remedy, if you like. But if my reading of history is correct; if we disregard the welfare of any considerable section of the community, it is not very long, as historical time is measured, before those people in some form or another take their revenge on society.


An hon. MEMBER:: You cannot do it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hear someone say, "you cannot do it." I know we can do a good deal more than we are doing to-day. I know there are many young fellows just on the verge of becoming criminals whom we could save if we set forth to save them; there is no doubt whatever in my mind as to that.
In closing, because I do not want to argue this matter, I want merely to protest against the observations of the leader of the opposition. If we are going to discuss capital punishment at all it seems to me we might

discuss these broader issues as well. If we must resort to capital punishment it is all to the good to see that it is effected in as humane a way as possible. We are not out for vengeance on the poor fellow who has committed the crime. As to vengeance look at some of the photographs being circulated to-day showing the mutilations which took place in Ethiopia, that is if you want to get stirred up in that way, have all the vengeance you like, as in some of the southern lynchings. But surely we do not want that; the leader of the opposition does not want that. If the punishment is to be a deterrent, let it be effected as humanely as possible; place it on a high plane. If certain people may no longer be safely allowed in society and for that reason have to be either put out of life or put away where they can no longer endanger society, let it be done with dignity and mercy.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Last
week in Toronto one of these executions took seventeen minutes. Last year in Montreal a woman had her head torn off. There is a demand in the country to have the present system improved or to get a more humane system.
While this bill is before the house I also wish to register a complaint about an execution last week from which the press were excluded, the first time I have known this to be done. That is contrary to sections 1065, 1066 and 1067 of the criminal code, which relate to the place of execution, the persons who shall be present and the persons who may be present. Publicity is one element of the administration of justice.
Some more humane method should be adopted. The medical council and the judges should be consulted, and probably 'by next year the minister could find a way for Canada to carry out its executions as a federal authority instead of leaving them to the provincial authorities. The government of Canada now seems to be administered from the provincial capitals. Section 1067 relates to the persons who may be present, the latter including any justice for the district, and such relatives of the prisoner or other persons as it seems proper to the sheriff to admit. In this case they were out on the street walking up and down, and the sheriff had no discretion; he was instructed to exclude even the representatives of the four Toronto papers, something never done before. This inhumane method of execution is just another example of the fact that Canada is at t'he rear rank of the procession as far as any effort for law reform is concerned in the British empire to-day.

Criminal Code-Death Penalty


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I am almost afraid to rise to speak on this question because of its bearing upon our life, and especially our criminal life. Forty years ago I debated this subject, that capital punishment should be abolished, and I have never heard a debating club win which took the side that capital punishment should not be abolished. Invariably the abolition of capital punishment is favoured. The bon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) used the argument against hanging that it was those who carry out the execution who were being punished. I have heard guards, coming out pale-faced after an execution, saying, "God pity men who have to witness a thing like that. I would rather resign my position than have to go through that again." I am not one who believes that hanging, or any mode of execution whatever it may be helps to make our country more law-abiding. I am convinced that the enforcement of law to a great extent depends upon the character and calibre of our judiciary. Our judges and magistrates, and even our lawyers represent the enforcement of law and order in Canada.
I am convinced that criminals are not born; they are made. Otherwise I could not preach the old gospel, and neither could I take part in constructing laws for the betterment of society. If I believed that criminals were born, not made, then I would lean towards the old doctrine of fatalism. I am convinced, too, that criminals might be used in a way better than that of simply putting them out of business by coarse measures. Medical science is always exploring and attempting to find ways to help humanity. I believe it would foe a good thing if a person convicted of foul murder might have his life used for experimental purposes, so that young doctors could conduct their experiments for the betterment of humanity.
Hanging is perhaps the worst form of execution. When we condemn a vile murderer we often hear the statement that hanging is too good for him. But as I said, the form of execution does not help in the administration of justice. We like to live in the Old Testament days and observe the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But we are not living in Old Testament times, times when things were at a standstill. We are living in a new day when we regard human life as sacred. If a criminal is put out of existence, then he is just in hell a little sooner than otherwise.


Herbert Earl Wilton: Mr. Speaker, to a certain extent I believe I am qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject of hanging, not because I was ever hanged, or expect to be, but because it was my unfortunate duty on one occasion some years ago, while engaged in newspaper work, to witness a hanging. I assure you, sir, that any person who has witnessed a legalized killing of a human being by the method of hanging would have no desire to see a second one.
Even if the present system of hanging were continued there are certain conditions surrounding it which I suggest should be eliminated. At the hanging to which I refer the prisoner was brought from his cell and paraded from that point to the place of execution, during which time he passed his own open grave. That in itself was perhaps worse than the actual hanging. I know it seemed to take more out of the condemned man than did even the ascension to the scaffold and the actual hanging.
Hanging as I have known it from personal experience is cruel, barbarous and everything it should not be. While I am not suggesting that we should discard the death penalty, the fact is that we are in a complex situation when we attempt to follow the divine law which stipulates a life for a life, but reject the law which says, "Thou shalt not kill." However, as long as we take a life for a life I suggest that we should do it along lines no worse than we would adopt towards animals. The society for the prevention of cruelty to dumb animals surrounds its work with more humanity than do we, as human beings, in the disposal of human lives by hanging.
For example, if a man were to hang a dog I have no doubt public sentiment would rise in indignation and protest strenuously against his action. I should not be surprised if he were brought before a court and fined for cruelty to animals. At the hanging it was my unfortunate duty to witness the man was not pronounced dead until fourteen minutes after he had been dropped. Quite recently I read of a hanging in Toronto where seventeen minutes elapsed before the death pronouncement was given. I have before me a clipping from a Kitchener newspaper stating that a man had been fined in court for cruelty to chickens. These chickens had been deformed in some way, and he had not given them the proper attention.
The laws under which human society functions give greater protection to dumb animals than we as a government give to the men whom we condemn to death. If a man breaks

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
a law and as a result is condemned to be hanged, then that is the law of the land, but I have never been able to believe that the law has any right to add to that man's torture further than putting him to death, in whatever way is decided. As I said before, when bodies are not claimed by relatives and are buried in the courtyard or gaol yard prisoners are marched past their open graves. That in itself at least needs correction even though the present system remains. The system of putting human beings to death by hanging is barbarous; it is antiquated; it is cruel, and we as modern people trying to live up to modern conditions, priding ourselves on being a nation of modern people with modern ideas, still continue to follow this barbarous method of putting men to death by hanging when we have the evidence before us that it takes from fourteen to seventeen minutes, and sometimes longer, after the hanging before death is pronounced. As I said before, anyone who has ever witnessed the legalized killing of a human being by hanging will forever after be opposed to it on the ground of common humanity as something inhuman, barbarous, and not in keeping with modern civilization.
I have before me another clipping here, to the effect that a man in Toronto kept his dog in the basement of his house; the humane society, believing that that was not just the proper place to keep a dog, had the man brought into court where a conviction was registered against him on the charge of cruelty to animals, and he paid a fine. Every possible precaution is taken to protect dumb animals from suffering, to prevent human beings from inflicting on them torture of any kind, and still we as a people and as a government stand by and say nothing while the state puts men to death by a method that inflicts possibly more torture than any other yet invented. Whatever system is adopted it seems to me that there are several ways of executing the death sentence which would be more humane and more in keeping with modern conditions than by putting men to death by legalized killing through hanging.
I want to put myself on record as being absolutely opposed to the system of killing by hanging. So long as the laws of this land demand a life for a life, the death sentence should be executed in at least a humane way, in a way that is as nearly painless as possible, and not surrounded with any of the gruesome details which always accompany death by hanging.


Hon. J. E. LAWSON (York South):: Mr. Speaker, at the very outset I want to make it plain that I realize that the legally trained mind probably approaches this problem from

a very different viewpoint from that of the theologian as illustrated by my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) or from that of the medical man.
The point at issue in this bill is not the abolition of the death penalty. The point is: Shall we substitute the lethal chamber for hanging? The greatest deterrent to crime in any country is the certainty of prosecution if crime is committed, and the certainty of punishment if the prisoner is convicted on that prosecution. Once a man has been convicted of murder the death penalty must be imposed, and, as I stated, the point in this bill is not as to whether we shall have the death penalty, but as to the method by which the convicted criminal shall be put to death.
A considerable number of the members of this house dwelt upon the fact that life was not pronounced extinct for a given number of minutes after the criminal in question was hanged, but if we are to consider this matter on the basis of humanity the question as to how long a time may elapse between the actual dropping through the trap in a hanging and the pronouncement by a medical man of life being extinct has nothing whatever to do with the matter. What we are interested in is: How long does it take from the moment the criminal is taken from his cell, knowing certainly that he is going to be hanged, until unconsciousness is produced? I asked both the mover (Mr. Blair) and the seconder (Mr. Howden) of the bill as medical men, when they moved and seconded this bill, if they would tell me the length of time required to produce unconsciousness from the moment the man drops through the trap and the neck is broken, which we believe is the method by which hanging is executed, thereby putting upon the spinal column a pressure which in turn produces unconsciousness. But neither gentleman saw fit to answer that question. As against that I asked the length of time which elapsed from the time a condemned murderer is taken from his cell until unconsciousness is produced in a lethal chamber.


Mr. HOWDEN:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct a remark which the hon. member made a moment ago. It is true that he asked me with regard to the time which would elapse before unconsciousness occurred, and I told him at the time that unconsciousness would probably immediately follow the dislocation or breaking of the neck.


James Earl Lawson: I am quite willing to
accept that.

Supply-National Defence


John Power Howden: That is what I said
before.


James Earl Lawson: In that even I retract
my statement in regard to the seconder of the bill. Quite frankly my recollection is that his answer at the time in the house was quite different. The answer he has now given is what he told me over a cup of tea one day in the cafeteria, but that is neither here nor there.


Mr. JACOBS:: Oh, yes, it is there.


Ernest Lapointe: H my
hon. friend from York South will permit me, I have statistics as to the time it takes before the sentenced prisoner is officially declared dead in executions by lethal gas, and I notice that it is about the same time as in hanging. Unconsciousness comes after one minute or about one minute, but it takes from twelve to fifteen minutes before the man is pronounced dead.


James Earl Lawson: That is exactly what I
thought.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hour for private bills having expired the house will revert to government orders.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
Miscellaneous-adjustment of war claims

National Defence, $68,971.
John Ritchie MacNicol: What does this include?


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: This includes about
$29,000 for the historical section, and the remainder is for the adjustment of war claims: deferred claims for war service, gratuities, some amounts for headstones, and items generally of that sort.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Defence-salaries, $441,082; contingencies, $52,600.
Angus MacInnis: This is a large amount for salaries. Perhaps the minister will tell us how many officers and men are concerned.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is an increase of $10,263, which is more or less accounted for by certain new positions- aeronautical engineers-and various promotions within the service.


Angus MacInnis: Does this item cover the staff?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, the civil staff, but not the military.


Mr. MacNEIL:: Does this include salaries for any military officers?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; it is for the civil staff of the National Defence department.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does it include provision for staff at district headquarters?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is under the permanent force vote, the general vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This does not cover
Brigadier Caldwell.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.
There is a variation from the estimates of last year. The vote for administration last year was separate, but the amount for administration will be found in the general vote for permanent force.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister say what the policy of the department is in regard to defence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a difficult question to answer, but I may tell the hon. gentleman at once that the policy of the department is not necessarily a policy that changes with a change of administration. Discussing the supplementary estimates of the department the other day, I said that the policy of the department was naturally and essentially concerned with the defence of the dominion. Those who have acted as technical advisers for many years and who have studied the question have said that the defence of Canada is concerned with four possible developments. In the first place there is the defence of our own coasts; second, the defence of our neutrality in the event of war between other nations; third, the possibility, which I hope is a very remote one, of Canada being compelled at any time to dispatch an expeditionary force in order to fulfil her obligations under the terms of the covenant of the league, and in the fourth place the possible dispatch of an expeditionary force consequent upon any contingent developments in relation to our position in the British commonwealth. In my own judgment, however, the position of the defence forces of Canada comes within the first two: that is, with reference to policies which should be adopted for the defence of our own coasts if necessary, and, second, for the defence of our neutrality, the defending of focal points of trade routes in case of war between other nations. Canada's defence policy is not in the slightest degree based upon aggression; it is essentially

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
a policy of defence. In the last few years, as a result of economic necessity and the stringency of the times, our defence forces have been to a certain extent inevitably neglected, and a very modest attempt is being made this year to get at least an efficient force. The duty of the minister in charge, no matter what party is in power, is, I submit, to see to it as far as possible that the defence forces shall carry out the purposes for which they exist.


Angus MacInnis: Having stated the
functions of the department, perhaps the minister will tell us how much would be required to build up the department to the point where it would be adequate to defend the dominion under all circumstances.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That question is more difficult than the other.


Angus MacInnis: That is why I asked it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That would depend upon the policy which might be adopted by whatever government was directing the affairs of the country. If the recommendations of some technical advisers were adopted, it would cost a very considerable sum of money to develop the naval forces to what is considered to be the proper stage of development; to develop the air force to a similar stage; and to reorganize our land forces in the way of mechanization and the acquisition of new equipment, and otherwise along the lines now followed by every part of the British empire, by Great Britain and the countries of Europe. I could not make an estimate because that would have to be determined by whoever was dealing with the question as conditions developed and circumstances changed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio services-for the maintenance and operation of the Northwest Territories radio system, $229,400.
Miss MACPHAIL:: Why does this come under National Defence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Because it is carried out for the benefit of the public generally in the northland by the Royal Canadian Corps of Signallers. It is largely a service for the civilian population. Ever since 1923 when it was commenced it has been gradually developing, and in addition to the ordinary services carried out in this way, very valuable weather bulletins are flashed every day from these important points in the northwest to the daily journals in Canada and the United States.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Why not put this item into the estimates of some other department? I think everyone is willing to vote the amount of money, but this does not seem to be the right place to have it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If any
other department of government in Canada can get the same efficiency in service I have no objection to having it transferred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is that it is carried on by the corps of signallers, which happens to be part of the militia services. But what I was asking is: At how many points is this service being maintained? There is one at Rockoliffe, and from there going west what have we until we get to Aklavik?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Herschel Island, Fort Norman, Fort Simpson, Cameron Bay, Fort Chipewyan, Fort Resolution, Aklavik, Fort Smith, Dawson City, Mayo Landing, Edmonton, Fort McMurray, Norway House, Fort Rae and Goldfields.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And is the east included in that vote?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is
only for training purposes in the east. This service is entirely in the northwest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the one at Roekeliffe?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
in another vote altogether.


Angus MacInnis: How many persons are
there in that service?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
are sixty-eight other ranks and eight officers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cadet Services
Expenses and services in connection with the training of cadets; expenses of school teachers qualifying for cadet instructors' certificates; pay and allowances of permanent force physical training instructors at normal schools, et cetera, $150,000.
Agnes Campbell Macphail: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Nova
Scotia, 1,973; Prince Edward Island, 836; New Brunswick, 2309; Quebec, 49,216; Ontario, 21,861; Manitoba, 1,914; Saskatchewan, 1,290; Alberta, 1315; British Columbia, 1,659; making a total for all the provinces

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
of 82,373, or some 5,000 less than it was in the previous year, 1934. These figures are for the year ended August 31, 1935. The numbers under this vote have been decreasing in recent years.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the department been making any effort to increase the numbers?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are
doing what we can, within the very limited appropriation we receive every year under this item.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Ask for a larger appropriation and increase the numbers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As was
stated by one hon. member recently, this vote in 1928-29 was $500,000, but it has been decreasing, evidently as a result of certain persistent efforts by way of criticism. With all respect to the well known views of my hon. friend the member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Maephail), which were very well expressed in this house in 1927, I personally believe in this work. I think it is a wonderful work for the youth of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a resolution on this subject passed by the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Increase the grant, and get more.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I have been wondering what is the justification for this expenditure. As one who has had considerable experience in charge of institutions where this particular work is being done, I believe that it is one of the most wasteful expenditures the dominion is making at the present time. As a matter of fact, in practically all the provinces and practically all classes of schools, physical training is given on more or less scientific principles, following particularly the Swedish and British systems. The training that cadets get has, it seems to me, very little to commend it. It is entirely, shall I say, supplementary, and is not regarded in some quarters as anything but a method of obtaining a grant from the federal government. Of course an effort is made on the day that an inspection is held to parade as many boys as possible, and to give them, shortly before, a certain amount of military training. But in my opinion the boys and girls who are receiving physical training apart altogether from military training are more thoroughly trained physically than could possibly be done through cadet drill. If the justification of this work is that you are training boys to participate in war on some future occasion.
that of course is a point of view which one can understand, but so frequently we are told the justification is that it helps the youth of the country to develop physique. As a matter of fact it does nothing of the kind. Physical training can be well looked after under the system in vogue in most provinces and in most schools, apart altogether from military drill. I would also point out that the poorest possible kind of physical drill is the military drill. It is not balanced. About all it requires is a blind and unreasoning obedience to orders which are given in rather a crisp and curt manner. In my opinion this does not tend to breed in an individual initiative and self-reliance; I think it does exactly the opposite.
There is another feature that I should like to draw to the attention of the house. In certain places military drill or cadet drill is made more or less compulsory. Boys whose parents are opposed to militarism are more or less forced either to take cadet drill or to suffer certain indignities. If I may recount my own experience, I have a son who has just attained his majority. He has never taken military drill; I have always objected to it. Yet in one of the collegiates in the city in which I live, that boy day after day was taken into the basement when the drill was being held and compelled to sit on the form and watch the other boys. In an institution of which I was the head a few years ago definite instructions were given to me that I was not -to excuse boys from military drill unless they were physically unfit to take part in any form of drill. I may say that I personally challenged that ruling; my views were upheld by the Saskatchewan Department of Education, and the order was nullified. Nevertheless pressure is placed upon boys to take this cadet drill. In my opinion the grant that we are making for this purpose might be placed somewhere else in the estimates. If it is looked upon as being necessary for the development of our youth it could be utilized much more beneficially in the encouragement of other forms of physical exercise that are non-military and better balanced, and in the promotion of good sportsmanship in the playing fields of our schools, where, after all, the best kind of sportsmanship is developed.


Mr. BAKER:: All I desire to say is that in my humble opinion this grant of $150,000 is worth two or three times what it costs in encouraging a spirit of loyalty to king and country in the hearts of our youth.
[DOT]2982	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services


Mr. BETTS:: I cannot help being impressed with the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, particularly having regard to the fact that as recently as October 14 he caused his name to be placed on the ballot paper as Major James William Coldwell.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order. I should like to correct that statement; I did nothing of the kind. As a matter of fact, owing to my parents seeing fit to give me an unusual first name it appeared on the ballot paper in that way. When that name was given me I was too young to make an effective protest.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I stand corrected. I have in my hand the official list of candidates, and there I find the name "Major." It strikes me that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar might have been well advised to steer clear of that unfortunate mistake, because I have not the least doubt that it won him very many votes. Speaking in my own behalf, and remembering the words of my hon. friend as to crisp and curt pronouncements, I have had the pleasure of listening to many crisp and very curt pronouncements by the hon. member, and I have admired them. I felt that the discipline, both mental and physical, which can be inculcated in no way as well as by military training, must have been enjoyed by the hon. member. For my own part I should like to say that I think this very moderate estimate is more than justified, and I should like to vote in favour of it.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Might I make just one observation in reply to the remarks of the hon. gentleman who just sat down, first with reference to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar securing any votes because of his Christian name. It happens that I campaigned in the hon. gentleman's constituency, and I am quite convinced that his people know him to be a confirmed pacifist, so they would not be likely to confuse his Christian name with any military title.
Now I should like to say a word with reference to the value of cadet training. For the past fifteen years I have been connected with boys' work in one form or another. I was a member of the cadet corps and later, for a number of years, a member of the militia. I have had contact with the boy scout movement, and the trail ranger and tuxis movement, as well as with a number of athletic clubs in different parts of western Canada, and if the object of this vote is merely the physical development of the youth of Canada, the encouragement of sportsmanship, loyalty and all those things we like

to term Canadian, we could spend the money to much better advantage in a number of boys' movements such as boy scout work or athletic clubs rather than cadet training which, as has been said already, in a great many instances is spasmodic and irregular and often headed by men not altogether trained in the handling of young boys. I think this is simply a waste of money, spent as it is now.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Whether or not it is true, it is being said that when teachers in training at the normal schools get their certificates as physical training instructors the certificates are from the Department of National Defence. I should like to know whether or not that is so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that is correct.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I think it is queer that the certificates should come from that department. Year after year-I really think this is the eleventh or twelfth time-I have argued at length and in detail against military training in schools, and I do not prospose to do so again. I am glad that other people who have come to the house are doing this, so I do not need to. However, I do feel that this $150


Some hon. MEMBERS:: It is $150,000.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It might as well be $150, for all the good it does. I think this item should be deleted. I do not think cadet training is good physical training. I think it is poor mental training, and I believe the only kind of discipline that is of any use is self-discipline rather than the kind which comes from commands that are barked out. In looking over the figures a few moments ago I noticed that most of the cadets are being trained in the two central provinces of Ontario and Quebec. This training is not taken very seriously in any other part of Canada. I think there is a feeling throughout the country against this vote and against this method of physical training. I think the hon. member for Weyburn was quite right when he said that if we are to spend $150,000 on what we call physical training it should be spent in some other way. Let us vote it through the departments of education of the provinces and let it be spent for really physical training.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that item 65 be reduced to $1.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this amendment and to the item, because I do not wish to have to make two speeches,

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
I may say that I have seen this vote for cadet services cut down from 3500,000 to $150,000, which means that the government has accepted the policy of the pacifists in and out of this house. Formerly I belonged to a board of education. The last generation in the city from which I come were trained in the cadet movement, and if you look over the reports which I have seen with regard to these cadet services you will find that it is not a military organization any more than the boy scouts or the girl guides. It does help to imbue the cadet with qualities which to-day are necessary for success in life. Look over the gaols and prisons of this country to-day; look at the findings of judges, magistrates and juries throughout this country as to the lack of home training, discipline and training generally for the youth of to-day, and you will see. the need for training of this kind. In the old days juvenile courts were never heard of. I do not like to disagree with the most estimable lady member for Grey-Bruce, but I am heartily in accord with this vote. I am sorry to see the board of education in Toronto, composed of pacifists, and everybody there who calls himself a doctor, oppose the cadet movement; the result has been that this movement has been practically abolished in that city, where they spend 311,000,000 or $12,000,000 on education.
What is this movement? We never would have had a militia in this country had it not been for the 'v.det movement. The history of the militia of Canada is wrapped up with the cadets and the schools. The qualities necessary for success in life are those which the average cadet develops, namely self-control, courtesy, manliness, discipline, love of country. As Pope says, "Worth makes the man." These qualities were fostered by the cadet movement. It was no more military than the show the board of education of Toronto put on last month at the arena, on, I am sorry to say Holy Thursday, a religious day. They dropped the cadet movement; it is now limited to the high schools and after hours; yet they put on a show ten times more military and far more objectionable than anything done under the cadet movement. The ground of the objection to this vote is the principle of pacifism. Militia and defence are necessary. It was the armed strength of the barons that made magna charta possible. The disarmament of the free is the tyrant's chance, now as in the days of King John and as in the case of Ethiopia. If this country wants to abolish the militia altogether the minister's department might as well be closed up. These 12739-190
estimates used to be about two and a half times this amount when I first came to the house. As one who has taken a great deal of interest in education I am absolutely opposed to dropping the cadet movement for some of the fads and frills in the public school system of this country to-day, and Ontario especially, where the cadet movement has been abolished and the board of education and others are shouting pacifism from the housetops.
People are relying upon the League of Nations; the League of Nations is dead and so is Locarno, a mass of ruins. We see the absolute failure of Woodrow Wilson's policy; fifteen years of his open diplomacy has placed our empire in a defenceless state. If the Italian army had come west up the St. Lawrence instead of going south to Ethiopia we should have known the necessity of a proper defence force. Here we are spending four and a half million dollars on the League of Nations, sending a deputation away next week, advisers and advisers to advisers, and all these people over there doing nothing on a joy ride. When the reports are made we never see them, but here hon. members object to a small vote of $150,000 for all the schools of this country from Vancouver to Halifax. The step taken of abolishing the cadets, by the board of education of Toronto is a mistake, a wrong step, and in the juvenile courts all over this country we see the results of the folly involved. I was at the Union station a few days ago and saw twenty-one young people brought back in custody from new Ontario, the district where some hon. members went last weekend. Formerly these young people would have been cadets, but this cadet work has been cut out during the last three or four years with the result that they have not had this training. Some of their parents are on relief; the boys did not want to hang round the house, so they went north to new Ontario to try to find jobs. Unable to get jobs they are cast into gaol as vagrants.
Two or three years ago they substituted for the cadets at the empire day exercises, what? They brought little children, six, seven and eight years of age, to the exhibition grounds; some of them had to walk and ride several miles. They were brought there to a dusty track and left there for hours, instead of having a proper cadet service in the schools and on the property to look after them. From what I have seen of this cadet movement it is not in any sense a military movement, but it teaches the qualities which I have named. I hope it will be restored; it will have to be if we are to have any better



Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
discipline in the land. To-day there is not the discipline such as there was when you, Mr. Chairman, and I went to school. To-day the militia vote is so cut, that about all we have left to defend us, if the enemy came to our gates, is the girl guides and the boy scouts. I cannot understand what objection there is to this vote. It is so little, I do not think the city of Toronto gets anything from it, although it. contributes over $80,000,000 to the revenue of this country. I do not see the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) here; he was here a few minutes ago. He was one of the founders of the splendid Irish regiment and he knows how cadet training helps the initiative. The Irish race know what discipline is. They used to have a cadet corps in his unit; I do not think they have it now, but I know that if cadet services were restored we would have a lot more discipline than we have to-day.
One has just to read the reports of inspectors of the penal institutions of this country to see the need for this training. I had before me the reports in connection with another bill. If you cut out the cadet services altogether you destroy one of the best agencies for the inculcation, in the young people attending school, of the qualities I have named, qualities which are proper and necessary for success in life to-day as they were in the last generation. This matter has been discussed by the Ontario educational association, and many are thinking that we should get back to the old system, instead of substituting for it dances, physical exercises, acrobatic events, and so forth. I am not opposed to those things; they are proper under modern conditions, but they have taken forms which are far more military than were the cadet activities.
I hope the minister will next year have the opinions of various school boards and boards of education throughout the country, and will have cadet services restored. Then the militia will have a chance. This will be an economy in the long run, because there is no doubt that the average cadet went into the militia. The back-bone of the regiments in Toronto was a cadet movement in our city schools. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Baker) was a cadet, and wore a uniform. He can tell us about the advantages of the cadet movement that has been abolished in public and high schools. I know many high school teachers in the city of Toronto. I was on the school board for some years, and I have learned of no agency which has contributed more to athletic and other developments than has the old system of cadet training which has been in operation for the last generation.


Richard Langton Baker: I do not wish to add to the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview, who has immediately preceded me, but if I were moving an amendment-and I shall not do so, because I know it would be lost-I would move not to reduce the amount to one dollar but to double it to $300,000.


Mrs. BLACK:: It is not my intention to say very much, but I must say that many speakers this evening have not spoken from practical experience. I speak from experience, because I have raised three boys to manhood. They have taken their places in the world as good, decent, law-abiding, middle-class citizens, the best class we have. Each of those boys had semi-military training and I attribute the fact that my boys have done comfortably well in the world to the fact that they were given semi-military training and discipline. With the cadet movement not only did they obtain military training, but they had manual training and development of the muscles of their bodies. They were brought up to respect their elders and to obey promptly and quickly when they were spoken to, far more so, I believe, than the boys and girls of to-day who do not have the opportunity of that training.
If I were to move an amendment I would not only double, but treble the vote. The future of Canada depends upon the boys and girls of to-day and those boys and girls, the men and women of the future, will be only what we make them, with the discipline which we can enforce.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Does this vote include public and high school cadets only, or does it also include the Canadian officers training corps in the universities?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It does not include the officers training corps.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Is there a separate vote for the Canadian officers training corps?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
come under the general training vote.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I support the amendment, because from my experience I have learned that the expenditure of public money under the present method of cadet training is of no practical value. I have had experience in cadet corps, and have had an opportunity of comparing the results of cadet training with those of a proper system of physical training under other institutions. I have found that the results achieved under an up to date method of physical training are much greater. When one considers the problem from the

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
standpoint of national defence, he must conclude that physical training makes a greater contribution towards effective defence.
Time and again eminent military authorities have said that above all other considerations it is necessary to establish the correct physical training and development of our youth. I am not advancing my own opinions on this occasion, because the subject has been discussed by various organizations interested in educational problems. I refer to home and school federations, clubs and the like. There is a great body of opinion firmly opposed to cadet training, after careful observation of the results achieved.
I also refer to the opinion expressed by organized ex-service men. I had occasion to attend a conference of ex-service men, a representative body on the lower mainland of British Columbia. In that body were former officers, as well as men from the ranks. They examined the problem carefully and declared themselves as being opposed to cadet training because it has no practical value. They saw the boys under the command of instructors on the school grounds; they saw them controlled by antiquated drill methods, achieving no information of value in regard to military training, and certainly no training conductive to the true spirit of discipline, but rather the old spirit of discipline which tends to rob the young man of initiative and resourcefulness. Above all they saw that no definite effort was being made to develop these young men physically. The handling of a rifle or the obedience to words of command issued by a drill instructor trained in old methods has no definite value from the standpoint of physical training.
Those who have kept abreast of the requirements of military training to-day will realize that the methods employed are inadequate, and by no stretch of the imagination could it be said that these young men are being properly prepared for any military eventuality. Rather the spirit of the organization of cadet training is to place before them an entirely false ideal of militarism, something which constitutes a definite appeal to their vanity and is unsound in its very conception.
I suggest that at this time, when the country is confronted with such grave problems of youth, it is quite unnecessary to vote even $150,000 for cadet purposes. Rather I would suggest that, in so far as they are available, the moneys should be spent along educational and physical lines, which would more effectively cope with the serious problems of our times.
12739-190J


Samuel William Jacobs: Was I correct when I understood the minister to say that of the cadet strength under authority of the federal power, about 50,000 of a total of 80,000 come from the province of Quebec?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are 49,216 out of a total of 82,373.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise only to correct
an evident misapprehension. The reduction of the vote came about because school districts with which the department had commitments declared that they did not wish to continue cadet training, and as a result of that we reduced the amount from time to time. It must be recalled that in the first instance there was a general statement of policy. The statement was that the government would supply a certain sum of money to take care of cadet training in school districts or other areas in which such training was considered desirable. The agitation against cadet training succeeded in having resolutions passed by several school boards discontinuing the training. I recall one or two occasions very vividly, but I cannot carry them all in my mind. As a result the vote was reduced. If my memory serves me correctly some commitments are still outstanding in those districts in which they have continued to earn the money to which they are entitled under arrangements made with them in days gone by. The minister will be able to correct me with respect to that. I do not know just what is involved in dollars and cents, but the reduction came about because hon. members to my left had more or less succeeded in their agitation to have districts abandon cadet training. For instance, I recall one district that used to have a keen interest in the cadet movement, but in response to the evident desire of the community the board concluded to abandon it, thereby releasing this government from making any payment in the final analysis, when the then existing arrangement terminated. Cadet training is no longer being carried on in that community, and the federal government does not make any contribution to it.
It will be recalled that this house was provided with evidence from some of the provinces to the effect that cadet training was being reduced, because it must be recalled that in connection with cadet training the schools and others responsible for its promotion are largely under provincial control. We supplement their efforts, and now that they no longer desire the corps a diminution of the grant has resulted.	[DOT]

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
No doubt there are hon. members in the committee who recall discussions which took place in days gone by, and circumstances which brought about a reduction of the vote. The hon. member from Toronto who seemed to think the reduction was a voluntary act on the part of the government of the day is quite mistaken in his view. It was brought about by an expression of public opinion in communities which were opposed to the continuance of the grants. To the extent to which that was effective, the grant was reduced, although I think reduction was made further than even that would warrant. I take it that the sum of $150,000 is necessary to meet the commitments to which we are committed. I am not speaking now with authority, but I think that must be so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And as long as the
organizations which I have mentioned continue to earn the grant, I think in view of the general declaration of policy that originated it we should continue to provide the money as we are doing here.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I should like to ask
the minister what explanation he has to offer for the very large number from Quebec, 49,000 out of a total of 82,000?


Ernest Lapointe: May I
reply for my colleague? I think it shows most conclusively that this is not a military institution.


Samuel William Jacobs: We are not war-conscious
in Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: After the debates in .this house years ago, in which my hon. friend had almost convinced me, as she does every time she speaks, I met a personal friend of mine who is a member of the council of a very large educational institution in the province of Quebec, where they have a 'large number of cadets in training, and I asked him why they were strong for it. He said, "Because we have come to the conclusion that it is the 'best possible method of recreation, sport and physical training at the same time." Cadet training is very popular in all the educational institutions in the province of Quebec, and I can assure my hon. friend that if it were really in t/he nature of a military organization, as it is sometimes described in the house, some of the institutions I know would have quit cadet training long ago.


James Earl Lawson: Mr. Chairman, though I have remained silent through several sessions when this question has been up for discussion, the apparent widening support for the cessation of cadet training in this country makes it incumbent upon me to express my views. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has pointed out to the committee, if I interpreted him correctly, that cadet training produces nothing but a blind and unreasoning obedience and is stultifying to the intellect of the youth of Canada. I would suggest to the hon. member that if he would like to see a demonstration he should go and watch a cadet corps drill in any ^ industrial school or in any institution in this country where boys of feeble mind are put, and then go to one of the schools where there is a cadet corps of normal boys. I aim confident that the difference in their behaviour, in their snappiness and esprit de corps, will convince the hon. gentleman that his conclusion is not well founded.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Would he not know
that without seeing their military training?


James Earl Lawson: He might not have known
it in view of his statement that military training merely produces a blind and unreasoning obedience. I suggest that it takes intelligence and ability and a rapid communication between the mind and the muscles through the sensory nerves to make a well drilled and snappy cadet corps.
I do not support cadet training because -of any aspect of physical training. To me that is a mere incident. I put it upon much higher ground. In my opinion every Canadian citizen owes a duty at all times to serve the state in any capacity in which he reasonably can, and in times of war every Canadian citizen in my judgment owes a duty to the state to bear arms, if necessary, in its defence if he is physically able to do so. If that premise is sound, then I ask: Why not train our youth so that in case of necessity for defence they are efficiently and adequately equipped to render the best possible service to this country? No one desires more than I to avoid war, but I could not help admiring the sentiment which I heard expressed just last Sunday. I happened to be standing watching the garrison parade in the city of Toronto. Next to me was standing a mother, and as her boy went by in a cadet corps in the garrison parade she was affected, and her eyes filled with tears. I passed a remark that it was regrettable that in this world to-day we have nations which were apparently seeking to create war, and that this boy who was being well and efficiently trained might

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
have to serve the country. Her reply was, "How much better I would feel to have him serve than to have him a coward and not be willing to go." I am not expressing a maudlin sentiment; I am expressing a sentiment that, I think, should permeate the heart of every Canadian citizen. I have the greatest respect for those hon. members and any others who may hold views that we should not have military training, be it in the form of a cadet corps or a volunteer militia, but so far as I am concerned my only regret is that, if $150,000 is not sufficient to train every boy in this country who wants to be a cadet, we are not voting more money for that purpose. I have never been able to see where training a boy to bear arms, if necessary, makes him belligerent or warlike. I sincerely trust that there will not be reductions in this grant. Having regard to our recent experiences as to how ineffective a nation or a group of nations may be in preventing war unless they are prepared to back up their reasonable requests, it does seem to me that the best thing Canada can do is to have as many boys and men as possible trained in military manoeuvres and to bear arms, if necessary.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I would ask the Minister of Justice if the uniforms used by the cadet corps in Quebec are the same as those used in other parts of Canada, or is there a distinct uinform for that province?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think there is any uniformity throughout Canada as to what uniform the cadets shall wear. The individual schools themselves select the uniforms.
Miss MACPHAIL; Is that true of all Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
Miss MACPHAIL; Does the Minister of Justice not think that the payment of instructors has something to do with the demand for cadet training? The minister will tell us whether it is fifty cents a day up to a dollar or over, or the other way round.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East); I am afraid that when it comes to financial questions I cannot secure the information for my hon. friend.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Just a word in
response to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson). Recently I read some extracts from a speech which was made by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen in Washington on November 10. I do not want for a moment
;o have the house committee understand that Mr. Meighen's opinions are the same as my own or those we are advocating, but here are a few extracts from his speech that stood out in my mind at that time. He said;
Civilization must end war or war will end civilization.
Again:
War has lost its efficacy, it can bring only defeat and despair for both conquered and conquerors.
Again;
The policy of the governments is dominated by fear.
And once again;
There has to be found a substitute for armaments, something else that will bring security not only to one but to all.
It is considerations of that kind that make some of us speak against war. The hon. member for York South suggested that every citizen should be able to bear arms in defence of his country. Some of us believe that the method of defending one's country by means of arms is to-day useless.


An hon. MEMBER:: I do not know of any-other way of defending it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps later on in this discussion some of us will refer to that way. At any rate, the hon. gentleman must credit us with sincerity even if he does not think we have much intelligence.


James Earl Lawson: On a point of order, there was nothing I said from which the hon. gentleman could draw the inference that I attributed to him or to anyone else insincerity or lack of intelligence. I specifically said that I had great respect for their opinion.


Samuel William Jacobs: Both hon. gentlemen are out of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad indeed that the hon. gentleman does credit us with intelligence and sincerity.


Mr. STREIGHT:: He didn't do that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I credit the hon. member for York South with sincerity-


An hon. MEMBER:: If not intelligence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: His idea is that war is still the accepted and in the long run the final way of settling international disputes and that it is the effective way. We do not agree with that; we believe that there is another way. We think that if we are to depend upon war-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services


James Shaver Woodsworth: What is the trouble with hon. gentlemen opposite?


Samuel William Jacobs: We are discussing item 65.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I believe it was understood there was to be a vote and hon. gentlemen flocked in and are disappointed because they think I am going to make a speech. I am not going to make a speech but I want to make one or two remarks. I would reaffirm that the reason we are opposed to war is that we believe it is ineffective. It would be disastrous to our country. And the reason we are opposed to these estimates is that we believe they are absolutely wasteful expenditures and valueless to effect the purpose they have in view, namely, the defence of Canada. I shall speak of that later in the evening or later in the discussion of these estimates. The suggestion is made by the hon. member for York South that every citizen if he were really a good one, should be prepared to bear arms. Some of us do not regard that as the only mark of good citizenship.


James Earl Lawson: I did not say that or anything like it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some of us believe that citizenship may be exhibited in a better way than that. Again, the hon. member for York South, referring to an old mother watching a parade-


James Earl Lawson: I did not say old.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, a mother watching a parade. She said that she would rather have her son serve than have him a coward, not being willing to go.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Somebody says,
"hear, hear." Well, it was the implication contained in that statement that I want to speak of. I resent it. The alternative to being willing to go to the front seems to be that one should appear to be a coward. I do not think that is the alternative at all. Other members have risen in their places and spoken about what their boys owe to military training. I have every reason to congratulate them upon their pride in their children, but some of us who have families have refused to allow our boys to take cadet training, and we do not think that they are inferior, I will not say to the sons of those who have spoken, but to other boys in the community. Surely we should be able to get through a debate of this kind without putting alternatives that are not true. I resent, and a great many weople across the country resent, the idea 
that if a man does not want to go and fight he is necessarily a coward. I should hate to be a coward, but if another war broke out I should hope that not one of my boys would go to fight-and I do not want them to be cowards. I believe they may serve their country in better ways than by going, as a great many went, in my judgment unfortunately, to the battlefields of Europe, where they perished. I do not for one moment deny their heroism; I do not deny their idealism; I think it was magnificent. But I say that there may be heroism and idealism along another line which personally I think is more intelligent.


Angus MacInnis: What is the area comprised in military district No. 11?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The entire province of British Columbia, except, for the purposes of unemployment relief camps, the southern portion, which is under district No. 13, the Kootenay district.


Angus MacInnis: Upon what basis are
cadet instructors paid?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are paid $1 per senior cadet, a senior cadet being between fifteen and eighteen, up to a maximum of fifty-five thousand.


Angus MacInnis: The amount of money paid to instructors in military district No. 11 was only $614.45. Upon that basis there are approximately six hundred cadets or so, or more if there is a different rate for juniors. To whom is this money paid? For British Columbia it is $6,207.55. Who receives that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps I had better read the list: Pay and allowances of the permanent force officers employed on cadet services, $6,675; pay and allowances, permanent active militia, instructors, employed on physical training, $51,000; corps instructors, instructing cadets, $55,000; in connection with qualified signallers, $2,700; pay of two civilian stenographers, $2,500; stores, equipment and supplies, purchase of No. 22 ammunition, $11,500; printing and stationery, $1,000; transport and travelling, general staff officers, $8,000; permanent force instructors in physical drill and cadet duties, S7,500; military members, executive council of the Strathcona Trust, $450; freight and cartage $1,500; grants to the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association, $500; telephone exchange service, $225; incidental expenses, including contingent allowances, $1,450; making a total of $150,000.

Supply-Defence-General Stores


Angus MacInnis: Who are the individuals here who received: A. Bain, 82,080,50; W. Frost, $1,973.55; J. D. S. Wallace, $2,153.50? What functions did they perform for that monthly allowance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I assume they were instructors, and the amounts represent annual pay and allowances.


Angus MacInnis: No; in another item
instructors' allowance is shown as $614.45. Is that a different item, or what did the instructors receive?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The first two are regular instructors, and the others special ones.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; they are regular instructors. There are others.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where they do not pay them regular salaries.
Amendment (Miss Macphail) negatived: yeas, 8; nays, 109.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contingencies, $28,800.
Charles Grant MacNeil: Would the minister indicate just what this item provides for?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Telegrams, telephone calls, advertising and postage and other items for militia services, national defence headquarters, a decrease of $2,700 as compared with last year's vote.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I notice in the auditor general's report dealing with this vote that provision is made for an expenditure on advertising. Will the minister explain what advertising is done by the Department of National Defence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As I am informed, it is mostly to warn the public with respect to firing practice taking place on any of the training grounds, and also, occasionally, for tenders and other unforeseen advertisements.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In what respect is money spent for examination fees, as is indicated in the auditor general's report?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not aware of anything of the kind, unless it may be for the examination, in some cases, of recruits.


Charles Grant MacNeil: There are examination fees shown in the auditor general's report under the heading of contingencies. I wonder what examinations are set by the department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will find out. I have not that in my hand at the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who pays for the Military Gazette? I should know but I do not. Do we make any contribution? What is our relation to it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My information at the moment is that we make no contribution, but I shall look into it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is said to be the organ of the militia forces of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Engineer services and works, $676,100.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the minister explain this?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
various items are: Repairs and upkeep of departmental properties, including minor construction, $500,100; new construction of barracks buildings and works, $165,000; new construction of rifle ranges and camp sites, $11,000; total, $676,100. There is a net decrease of $24,050 from last year's vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General stores, $1,838,400.
Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister explain
the reason for the substantial increase in this vote?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will
give the details: Clothing and necessaries, an increase of $19,325; miscellaneous stores, an increase of $52,050; artillery stores, an increase of $464,270; medical stores, an increase of $800; veterinary stores, an increase of $1,500; inspection stores and ammunition, increased by S4.400; dominion arsenal, increased by $23,257; a total increase of $565,731 and a decrease of $178,414, making a net increase of $387,317.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What is the explanation
of the situation at Lindsay? I understand that considerable sums are devoted to the upkeep of the arsenal at Lindsay, although the arsenal is practically closed down.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
reason, I understand, is that it is used as a storehouse for stores and equipment. There are four caretakers, I am informed, looking after the security of the stores.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In connection with stores,
what is the policy with regard to making war equipment available to civilian units? I notice from one of the sessional papers tabled this session by the minister that a general

Supply-Defence-General Stores
order has 'been issued authorizing the district officers commanding to loan equipment to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the provincial police, and the city police. I should like to know to what extent that practice is carried out. It strikes me, as one having some practical experience, that it is a practice which should be deplored, something which should be condemned most vigorously. Evidently the order has been passed in anticipation of some civil disturbance or disorder, and I know of no more vicious practice than to turn over deadly war equipment to men who are not trained in the use of that equipment, for possible use at a time when only those who are cool-headed and calm should have in their hands death-dealing instruments. I think that matter should be fully explained by the minister, and an assurance given to the people of Canada that in the event of any disturbance some panicky individual shall not have the power to place in the hands of raw and untrained men rifles, machine guns, bombs and similar equipment which will do deadly damage to crowds.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Chairman, may I
ask through you whether the hon. member has any evidence that such has been done?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am referring to the
general orders which were tabled this session by the Minister of National Defence.


Grote Stirling: But the hon. member
has no knowledge on his own account that this has been done, that lethal weapons have been put into the hands of those unfit to operate them?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am not suggesting that
at this time I am producing any evidence. I am pointing to the general order tabled in this house, indicating that authority has been granted for the issue of weapons to untrained civic police. .


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think
my hon. friend has misconstrued what happened. I do not think this is the first occasion on which such action has been taken, and certainly there is no intention whatever of any indiscriminate issue of arms to untrained police forces or otherwise. I can assure my hon. friend that any arms issued to people other than the forces of national defence would be very carefully scrutinized. These will be issued and have been issued only where the request has been made, and only to people who are thoroughly trained, so I do not think the hon. gentleman need anticipate any indiscriminate use of these weapons. Certainly I would not encourage that in the slightest.
[Mr. MacXeil.J


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am referring to general
order No. 86 which is contained in sessional paper 55, under which the district officer commanding is authorized to issue arms and ammunition to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, provincial police and municipal police to deal with civil disturbances. What assurance have we that if civil disturbances arise arms will not be issued indiscriminately?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think
the hon. gentleman can leave that to the discretion of the gentlemen responsible for maintaining law and order in the various provinces. I can assure my hon. friend that there will be no indiscriminate use of such arms or ammunition, but if any disorder should arise it is the duty not only of the forces of defence but of the mounted police and all other police forces to maintain law and order, and I am sure that is the only significance of the general order to which my hon. friend refers. I can assure him that there is no sinister motive at all. It is only to give the necessary discretion and authority to the district officer commanding in case any emergency might arise to issue these arms to what practically amount to trained troops.


Charles Grant MacNeil: May I ask if, under this
authority, the district officer commanding may issue machine guns to the city police at any point?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: T can
assure my hon. friend that there is nothing new in this order; the same thing has been done many times previously.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister confirm
or deny the rumour in circulation in the city of Vancouver at the time of the relief strike riots that militia units were standing to, anticipating serious disorder, and that field guns, machine guns and all that sort of thing were being made available by the military authorities during that crisis?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not fair to ask the
minister that, for he was not responsible. The government which was responsible pointed out that if the province requested the use of the militia, then under the statute it was the duty of the dominion to make them available, and they would be available equipped in every way that might be necessary for the purpose mentioned by the statute.


Major James William Coldwell: I was just going to say that I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Vancouver North in regard to the danger of placing weapons, under any cir-

Supply-Defence-General Stores
cumstanees, in the hands of people who are not trained in their use. Only to-night I was reading the report of the royal commission which inquired into the relief riots in Regina last July 1, and apparently to a very large extent that regrettable incident was due not to the issuing of lethal weapons to certain people but to a mistake in connection with the blowing of a whistle. In that case someone had a whistle and apparently misused it or the signals were misunderstood, and in a few moments pandemonium ensued. So it will be seen how easy it is, in the midst of excitement, for someone to commit some overt act, and weapons in the hands of municipal police, for example, who are not particularly trained in their use, may become a danger to the community.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to that matter it will be recalled that the commissioners found that it was subsequently, when the strikers moved off to another part of the community, that the disaster occurred to which attention has been directed. But it must not be forgotten that when the riot act is read certain consequences follow, and if the police of the country cannot be regarded as sufficiently trained to receive weapons why do they carry them around the cities every day? I do not know why, but they do. Policemen in the cities and everywhere are armed at night. To say that they are the only people who should receive -these arms would- be, in my judgment, to make the discretion one based upon sound intelligence, shall I say, for the district officer commanding can only supply weapons to (a) mounted police, (b) provincial police and (c) city police, all of whom are by law' permitted to and do in fact carry arms.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Some misunderstanding may arise with regard -to the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition, particularly in connection with his reference to the reading of the riot act. That was one of the unfortunate features of the whole Regina situation on that occasion. I do not know whether the government is aware of -this fact, but the riot act wTas never read and the warning was never given. I am not placing blame upon anyone, but I just want to make it clear that in that instance the riot act was not read and- no warning was given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was not the point. The point was that the strikers had dispersed from their immediate location and moved to another place. The commissioners say that w'hatever justification may have existed in the first instance -because of the misunderstanding of the whistle blasts, there can be no justification for what took place afterwards.
They make that perfectly clear, and they say that at the pavilion which the strikers had abandoned there were found the staffs which apparently they had intended to use for the purpose of bashing the heads of those who might be endeavouring to enforce law and order. The question of the riot act being read did not arise at all, because -these officers had warrants for the arrest of named people, and it was in the execution of that duty that the incident happened. A mistake by some policemen regarding a whistle brought about some measure of confusion, but the commission said that whatever might have been the confusion at this point there was no justification for what happened over at the other point when an attack was made upon the police by those who were subsequently found to be responsible for what took place.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I did not rise to
precipitate a debate on this subject this evening, particularly since I have no doubt that very few members of the house have had an opportunity of reading the report of the commission, so I do not think it would be fair to discuss the matter under this item, nor would it be in order to do so. But I should like to point out that in this instance the riot act was not read, and I think the right hon. leader of the opposition has either misread the report or has been misinformed regarding several matters in connection with it. When the proper time comes perhaps we can discuss this matter in more detail.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not propose to discuss the matter raised by the right hon. leader of the opposition-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not raise it. It was raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Quite so; I meant the statement made by the right hon. gentleman. This is not the time or place to discuss the matter, but I do not think his remarks should be allowed to pass without its being said that the police were not attacked by the men. The place where the clubs were found was a long distance away from where the riot- took place. I think this whole question is one to which the house ought to give some attention at the proper time, but the statement of the right hon. gentleman was misleading and, therefore, ought not to be left unchallenged at. this time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It speaks for itself.


Charles Grant MacNeil: On this point I notice in the general orders tabled by the minister that rifle associations are being formed and that the men who join these rifle associations must
Supply-National Defence

subject themselves to military discipline at times of civil disturbance or when any emergency may arise. May I ask in what way these rifle associations are equipped and to what extent the members are warned that in time of emergency they may be called upon to perform military duty under the direction of the officer commanding?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No new civilian rifle associations have been formed. The only new rifle associations are those attached to existing militia units, regimental associations. If there was an emergency and they happened to be called out they would not be called out by reason of their membership in any rifle association; it would be with their units, if such a regrettable thing took place. So there is no significance whatever in the formation of new rifle associations; it is purely in connection with the militia activities.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Non-permanent active militia, $2,358,100.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that provide for camps this year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the ordinary vote of the non-permanent active militia. It could be broken down into:
Training, $1,588,800.
Grants to associations, $94,200.
Operational expenses of military properties, $252,844.
Salaries and wages, $422,256.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about camps this year? What provision is made for them?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
comes under the first item I mentioned, training.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: How many men are there in the militia?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
were 6,888 officers, and 41,873 men, totalling 48,761.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At what date?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is as of December 31, 1935.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How does that figure
compare with last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is at the end of last year. I think there was a slight reduction, about 1,900 during the year.


John Charles Landeryou: Is this sum to pay them a wage?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; there are training allowances for these summer camps.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In comparison with the previous year I was wondering whether the number of men is smaller and if that accounts for the decrease.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that there is a reduction of between 1,900 and 2,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many days' training in camps is provided for?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It depends upon the arm of the service. Artillery total twelve; engineers, twelve; machine gun battalions, twelve; cavalry and infantry, ten; army service corps and army medical corps, ten, and so on. These totals include part time in camp and part time training at local headquarters. There is a certain discretion left to the district officers commanding.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I have in mind the frequent admonitions by the Minister of Finance that parliament must exercise the strictest economy; yet on the main estimates the total to foe appropriated for the Department of National Defence, including the cost of buildings provided for under other headings, is something like $19,000,000. That does not include the items in the supplementary estimates. This is probably the third highest sum in the departmental expenditures. There is an increase in this year's expenditure in the main estimates of something like $1,779,000-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is


Charles Grant MacNeil: I accept the correction gladly. I think it is high time we did some plain speaking about the manner in which public money is expended by the Department of National Defence, having in mind particularly the purpose of this expenditure as outlined by the minister. It is not many years ago since certain high officers attached to the British war office recommended drastic reorganization of the Canadian Department of National Defence. As far as I have been able to discover no steps have been taken to undertake such reorganization.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is scarcely correct in that. It is in process of being effected at the present time.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Under whose recommendation is the reorganization being undertaken?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The reorganization of the militia has been under consideration for a number of years. The request for the reorganization became definite in 1932; it was submitted to a subcommittee

Supply-National Defence
of the former government in 1933, because Canada at that time was making certain representations to the disarmament conference in Europe, and the suggestion was made that the strength of our militia forces should be reduced from the post-war figure of eleven infantry and four cavalry divisions to a composite strength of six infantry divisions and one cavalry. That recommendation has been endorsed by all the militia organizations, the defence association, the Canadian infantry association, the artillery association and, I think, every arm of the service, all these voluntary officers, men who have been giving such wonderful service to the militia of Canada. So far the full strength of what is known as the peace establishment has been reduced from a personnel of 135,000 to about 90,000. The actual strength of the nonpermanent active militia is 48,761 as already stated. So far not very much has actually been accomplished along this line, but certain small units have been joined together and reorganization effected. The general policy will be to proceed with reorganization as soon as practicable.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Nevertheless in these times of stress we are asked to vote this enormous sum, without any definite assurance that the purpose for which the expenditure is being made will be fully carried out. We have a headquarters staff here, some seventeen staff officers receiving salaries in excess of $96,000 in the aggregate. We have a number of military districts, each taking large sums of money for their upkeep. We have across Canada something like forty-four units of the non-permanent militia, some 5,643 officers for 36,368 men. According to the last report of the late Sir Arthur Currie with regard to the war establishments, in 1918 there was one officer for every twenty-four men. In the present Canadian establishment we have one officer for every seven men, and for the period of training in camp one officer for every five men. That, I think, has created the general impression in this country that much of this expenditure is devoted merely to the upkeep of a small military aristocracy, and it is difficult to discover what useful purposes they serve, either in providing defence measures for Canada or in making proper preparation for the future. I suggest that the time has come for drastic reorganization of this branch, and that we are not justified at this time in voting the expenditure suggested.
For that reason I move an amendment, seconded by Mr. Taylor (Nanaimo) as follows:
That vote No. 69 for the non-permanent active militia be reduced by the sum of $1,000,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have only one word to say. Probably my hon. friend was not aware that this vote was reduced from last year. I informed him of the reduction effected. I think the committee should not accept his statement that these militia officers constitute a military aristocracy. I know no finer body of men in Canada than these who throughout the year give up four or five nights a week of their leisure and personal pleasure to training the youth of the dominion. There is no suggestion of a military aristocracy about these men. My hon. friend may be confusing the men who have made this their life work with those who are making this permanent contribution to the training of Canadian youth. Some of our unemployed in Winnipeg and Vancouver are among the finest boys we have in the militia. The boys in relief camps joined the militia, took drill and did wonderful service, and I say that is not constituting a military aristocracy or autocracy. They were Canadians binding themselves together in a proper way. There is another thing I want to tell the hon. member, and it is that year after year these militia officers have made contributions to help the men in training camps, because the allowance in the vote by parliament is entirely inadequate for effective training of a militia force for Canada.


Thomas Langton Church: I want to say a word or
two about No. 2 military district. I am surprised at the mover of the resolution, because he has been a distinguished soldier. May I say that the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the units in Toronto are having the utmost difficulty to get men into their ranks. In view of the cuts made on military expenditures they find it difficult to pay the necessary costs. This vote is only about half what it used to be. Last Sunday the Toronto units held a parade in which some 6,060 men and officers took part. Frequently they have put their hands into their pockets, as have the friends of the units, to provide the necessary maintenance charges. Non-commissioned officers do the same thing for the men. If they receive a few dollars pay, on many occasions they put it into a common fund to maintain the unit. If we are to have such a limited amount, possibly it would be more in order to wipe out the militia altogether. Let us depend upon pacifism, purely and simply, if we are to reduce the vote, because we cannot have proper equipment under the present one. We have only about fifty per cent of the proper equipment in the non-permanent militia today, and the non-permanent militia are the back-bone of the permanent forces. While
Supply-National Defence

everyone appreciates what the permanent force is doing, we know the non-permanent militia consists of young men in business and they are sick and tired of such small support from parliament. The government spends more money in support of that which our friends to the left depend upon, namely the League of Nations, and we get no results. This is an item from which we get practical results. I am surprised to see that the vote is so small, because I know it is becoming difficult to raise money to carry on the work.
Mr. MacNElL:	I do not wish to be misunderstood by the minister and hon. members. I am not criticizing the conscientious, hardworking militia officers in the district, but I am suggesting that the organization is top-heavy. When I spoke of high salaries I was speaking of seventeen officers at headquarters receiving-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
in the permanent force vote.
Mr. MacNElL:	And similar sums, proportionately, for the military districts. I say this, too, that the expenditure is being used for the maintenance of an elaborate military establishment which is not getting practical results, and I am viewing the matter in a practical light. I am not criticizing the conscientious militia officer, and I wish to say, too, that much of the training of which staff officers at headquarters speak in glowing terms is nothing more or less than a joke, and many of us know it because of our contact with militia units. It is not being carried out properly, or as it should be carried out in a militia camp.
Further, we are reverting to that from which we suffered in 1914, at the outbreak of the war, when we were ordered to go into active service with obsolete training methods. It was often admitted by eminent military authorities that the headquarters staff at that time were not fully abreast of modern warfare. I think that is true of the training which is going on in the non-permanent militia units at this time. It is pathetic to watch the parade of some of our non-permanent militia units, and note the physical development of the young men in them, realizing at the same time the expenditures being made on the gewgaws of military training and on obsolete methods of training, when it is apparent that these same young men could be assisted in other and more practical ways. It is because I feel that this money is not being expended in a way

which secures practical value that I ask for a reduction by 11,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I feel it incumbent upon me to make some observations in view of the fact that my friend and colleague was in the Department of National Defence only a short time before the last election. The whole expenditure for national defence purposes was closely examined, on more than one occasion, by a committee of the cabinet, and it was the considered opinion of those who had the matter in hand that we could not adequately discharge our duty if we spent less than $10,000,000 a year. That opinion is not mine, nor yet that of any one man. It is the view arrived at after the closest analysis and scrutiny of every item. The real issue is: Shall we have any defence force in the country? Either we must not play with our defence force, to the extent of wasting money, or we must utilize it so that it will accomplish some purpose.
I would be the last man in the world to place my opinion against that of the hon. member for Vancouver North. He. knows whereof he speaks; he risked his life for his country on the field of battle. But I do say to him that the reports which we received are at variance with the views he has expressed. First, the military units are not at strength; that is obvious. I believe, however, that the numbers trained in those units have reached a high state of efficiency, according to modern standards of training. I do not believe it is fair to say that obsolete methods have been used. On the contrary it is my belief that the methods of training adopted in Canada are the modern which have developed in the light of the last conflict, and the knowledge gained therefrom.
For instance, mechanized artillery and mechanized branches of the service are known to everyone. Our medical service is as fine as can be found anywhere in the world. Our signalling corps has as fine a reputation and has received as ample training in electrical and other fields of knowledge allied to signalling as is found in any country, having in view the small number engaged in the work. When it comes down to a question of training of engineers, machine gun units or infantry units, I believe the standards which have been adopted are those used by the best instructors in the world. In addition to that there is annual inspection, and while for monetary reasons the camps cannot be maintained for long periods of time, they are maintained for periods of ten days or two

Supply-National Defence
weeks, and sometimes a little longer than that. The result has been that, according to my observation, the men have given an excellent account of themselves.
My friend from Vancouver North says that there are in this country various military divisions with district officers commanding. Can you have a district without a commandant? Can you get along without having someone in charge, and if you have a commandant, a D.O.C., you have every branch of the service represented, someone representing the engineers, someone representing the artillery, someone representing the medical services, the signalling corps, and so on. The engineering corps, for example, is a highly efficient corps. If you have any doubt about that, see what they did, for instance, at Calgary. There they undertook the work of constructing the barracks, laying it out and doing all that sort of work, doing it in a manner that has won the approval of the highest authorities; I do not know myself, of course. If we are going to have a service at all-and for my part I think we must, or say once and for all that we cease to be a community-if we are going to have it, as the minister has said, not for aggression, but purely as the nucleus of any defence it may be necessary for this country to resort to- and we all hope and pray to God that that may never be, but the facts stare us in the face-we must make these reasonable preparations for the defence of our country. I think the department does wonders in utilizing its money to the extent it does, in applying present day scientific methods to our military problems. I mention that because this is nothing new to me. I had the opinion which the hon. member for Vancouver North has expressed, and when we came into office I thought it would be possible to cut this item down substantially. I have no doubt that the minister has been through the very same experience. But what happens is that a committee of the cabinet closely investigates every item, and despite the attacks which may be made against those who are staff officers, they have a wide fund of knowledge and have given the benefit of it to successive governments, have recommended an improvement here and an improvement there, and the curtailment of expenditures when the minister has said that it was necessary to cut to the bone. We have done that, and I am told, not by these brass-hats to which reference is sometimes made, but by competent efficient men who have investigated these matters, that if we are going to maintain even a skeleton organization we cannot do it with
less money than this $10,000,000. That is the considered judgment of those who have had to deal with this pioblem. I say that because, as I have indicated, it has been experience which has taught me. I know, and every man who lives in a community knows exactly what the militia does. I have been privileged to be associated with some of these organizations as honorary colonel, and the honorary colonel-ship has been offered for an obvious reason, a very obvious one.


Mr. SPENCE:: If you didn't have the money, you wouldn't be an honorary colonel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When I think of what
I have seen with my own eyes, the amount of real sacrifice that has been made by men for no purpose in the world except their love of the work, not for swank, as someone has suggested, but because they are high-minded, public-spirited citizens who desire to do something for the welfare of their community, and have spent hours and days and weeks trying to train young men in the rudiments of self-control, self-reliance and self-respect, as Tennyson said, I am amazed at what has been done. Those three things, self-reliance, self-respect and self-control, constitute the basis of all the efforts we make in that regard, and after all that is a discipline very much to be desired. I have seen young men loose in their habits emerge, as a result of joining a militia unit and training for days and weeks and months, with those three qualities at least, selfrespect, self-reliance, self-control, very apparent. That is what I have seen, and I am sure that I but voice the sentiments of many people when I say that there are families who look back with satisfaction upon what has been done for some wayward sons by the operation of these militia units. The officers have been-and I was glad to hear the hon. member for Vancouver North admit it to be so-self-sacrificing, thinking only of the welfare of the community in which their services have been given. The real truth is that we have not nearly enough money in this country to give the service that we should give. It is pared down now to the very ibone, and I do not think it is possible, in the light of my own experience and observation to make the expenditure less and render service at all. When I compare our expenditure with that of other countries with our population in other parts of the world, I am amazed that we have accomplished as much as we have with the limited sums of money at our disposal. I think the committee would be well advised to
Supply-National Defence

negative this amendment, because it is one that, if carried, would destroy the active militia of this dominion at one fell swoop, and that would be the end of. it.
I have only one word more, and I apologize ter taking up time in connection with an item of this kind. The report to which the minister has alluded is one which was made after the most careful investigation of every phase of the matter, and it must be remembered that in practice our units are not full, and the number of men that are affected is much smaller than the number that there might be under a reorganized force at strength The same considerations which influenced the organization of the territorials under Lord Haldane have been the governing factors in determining the strength of our active militia, and notwithstanding anything which may be said to the contrary the truth is that but for the active militia in this country in 1914 Canada could not have done what she did. That, I think, is admitted by every man who knows the story of our effort in that great conflict.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 10; nays, 62.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 20, 1936