1936-02-28

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has substituted the name of Mr. Barber for that of Mr. Baker to act on the part of the House of Commons as a member of the joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.
And that the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the table a copy of the order in council appointing a royal commission to inquire into and report on the penal system of Canada.
Civil Service Act



POST OFFICE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Belle-chasse) moved for leave to introduce Bill No.
8,	to amend the Post Office Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BOULANGER:: Mr. Speaker, I think the best way to explain the object of the bill will be for me to read the explanatory note. It is as follows:
The object of this bill is to abolish the obsolete and unsatisfactory system of awarding by tender contracts for the transportation of mail. Moreover, everyone knows that the principle of awarding mail contracts by tender and to the lowest tenderer has been more often disregarded than observed'. It is sought by this bill to establish a more open and honest practice and at the same time allow the Postmaster General properly to remunerate the mail carriers who perform the important function of transporting the mail of Canada.
As the house will have observed, the object of the bill is to do away with the present system of awarding mail contracts by tender. The bill proposes, instead of the old system, to establish a system of awarding contracts at the discretion of the Postmaster General when the contract does not exceed $1,000, and at the discretion of the governor general in council when the contract is over $1,000, without tender and at a flat rate.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Belie-chasse) moved for leave to introduce Bill No.
9,	to amend the Civil Service Act (vacancies, outside service, priority to returned soldiers).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, this bill has four objects in view. The first is to place the outside civil service outside the control of the civil service commission. Secondly, the bill proposes that it shall be obligatory for the civil service commission to consult the heads of departments before making appointments or promotions in order that the last word in making appointments and promotions may be with heads of departments, and not with the commission. Thirdly, the bill proposes to restrict to Canadian veterans the preference granted to veterans by the Civil Service Act. Lastly, the bill proposes that it shall be obligatory for the civil service commission, whenever they desire to appoint to a position in the civil service a candidate who has not resided five years in Canada, to bring the appointment before the cabinet. At the present time there is a blanket order in council and a regulation of the civil service com-
JMr. Lapointe.]
mission which authorize the commission in certain cases to appoint to the civil service a person who has not had the necessary five years' residence in Canada. The bill proposes that in future it will be necessary for the civil service commission, whenever they feel the necessity of overriding the Civil Service Act in that respect, to come before the government and state the special reasons which necessitate such an appointment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY

Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) a question, and while I am on my feet I desire to extend to him our heartiest congratulations upon the occasion of his birthday and to wish him many happy returns of the day. The question I wanted to ask was whether the government intends during the present session to take any action on the report of Mr. Justice Parker with respect of the Canadian Performing Right Society.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I wish to thank my hon. friends for
the very kind tribute they are paying me to-day; it will make it less difficult for me to bear the burdens of the coming years.
I am also pleased to be able to gratify the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Chevrier) with a favourable reply to his question. It is the intention of the government, through the Secretary of State, to introduce a bill based upon the report of His Honour Judge Parker, and I may have more to say in that regard when we reach the bill which has been proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling), and which is already on the order paper. In reply to another hon. gentleman who has made a private request, I may say that I have extended the order prolonging the period during which no litigation shall take place in recovering performing rights. I refer to the order passed in connection with the inquiry made by His Honour Judge Parker. That order has been extended until April 30 of this year, and notice will be duly published in the Canada Gazette.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
PROrOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King:

Canada-TJ3. Trade Agreement
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the trade agreement entered into at Washington on the 15th day of November, 1935, between His Majesty's government in the Dominion of Canada and the government of the United States of America, and that this house do approve of the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I think it perhaps desirable
to correct some misapprehensions of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as indicated in his address the other day, before I deal more specifically with the provisions of the agreement which is now before the house for consideration. I do not desire to do this at any great length, nor would I bother the house were it not for the fact that, by not dealing with them, it might seem that I had accepted them as being a correct statement of the situation.
It is not correct to say that the Liberal party during all its existence has supported reciprocity, nor is it correct to say that the Conservative party has in any sense opposed it. I find, by reference to the statutes of 1868, that in the first statute dealing with such matters and enacted by this parliament provision was made whereby a standing offer to the United States was embodied in the statute, dealing with natural products; and later on, in 1879, when the national policy was introduced, provision was definitely made by which a statutory offer was extended to the United States. In order that there may be no misunderstanding with respect to that, it might perhaps be desirable to read the resolution upon which the statute was founded. It was resolution No. 5 and was submitted to the house by Sir Leonard Tilley on March 14, 1879:
That it is expedient to provide that any or all of the following articles, that is to say:- Animals of all kinds, green fruit, hay, straw, bran, seeds of all kinds, vegetables (including potatoes and other roots), plants, trees and shrubs, coal and coke, salt, hops, wheat, peas and beans, barley, rye, oats, Indian corn, buckwheat, and all other grain, flour of wheat and flour of rye, Indian meal and oatmeal and flour or meal of any other grain, butter, cheese, fish (salted or smoked), lard, tallow, meat (fresh, salted or smoked), may be imported into Canada free of duty, or at a less rate of duty than is provided by this act, upon proclamation of the governor in council, which may be issued whenever it appears to his satisfaction that similar articles from Canada may be imported into the United States free of duty, or at a rate of duty not exceeding that payable on the same under such proclamation, when imported into Canada.
Upon that resolution a statute was founded, and in 1911, when the late Right Hon. W. S. Fielding was introducing his reciprocity resolutions and moving the house into committee of ways and means, he quoted that resolution as indicating the attitude of the Conservative party with respect to the matter of reciprocity.
I also take sharp issue with the Prime Minister when he contends that the so-called national policy was introduced as a retaliatory measure against the United States. I have only to refer to what was said by the Minister of Finance in introducing the budget on March 14, 1879, at pages 411 and 415 of Hansard of that day, to correct any possible misunderstanding. Discussing the question of giving more favourable treatment to goods from Great Britain than to goods from foreign countries, he said:
I think this house will not object if, in the propositions before me, they touch more heavily the imports from foreign countries than from our fatherland.... But the government couple with the proposal, in order to Show that we approach this question with no unfriendly spirit, a resolution that will be laid on the table containing a proposition to this effect: That, as to articles named, which are the natural products of the country, including lumber, if the United States take off the duties in part or in whole, we are prepared to meet them with equal concessions. The government believe in a reciprocity tariff, yet may discuss free trade or protection, but the question of to-day is-Shall we have a reciprocity tariff, or a one-sided' tariff? The government propose to do more.
And then Sir Charles Tupper said:
I believe within two years from the adoption of the national policy-not a policy of hostility to the United States, but one of following the system they had adopted to foster their industries-they will give us a free market for coal in the United States.
Further, Sir Leonard Tilley made clear the object to be attained by the tariff then introduced:
But if we undertake, as the present government have undertaken, to readjust and reorganize, and I may say, make an entirely new tariff, having for its object not only the realization of $2,000,000 more revenue than will he collected this year, but, in addition to providing for that deficiency, to adjust that policy, or that tariff with a view of making what has been, and is to-day, declared the policy of the majority of this house-I mean the protection of the industries of the country [DOT]-the magnitude of the undertaking will be the better appreciated.
These were the declarations made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways of that day, Sir Leonard Tilley and Sir Charles Tupper, at the time the national policy became a part of the policy of this country, or at least the policy of the Conservative party, as it has been ever since.
I need hardly go further than to point out that every proposed reciprocity agreement that reached the point, shall I say, not
Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement

of being signed but of a consensus between the parties was brought forward while the Republican party was in office in the United States. In 1874, when George Brown negotiated with the United States, the Republican party was in office; in 1911 when the agreement was negotiated Mr. Taft was president -a Republican president. The recent agreement was of course negotiated with a Democratic president. I mention this because it is desirable that there Should be no misunderstanding with respect to the matter; for in the following years the United States expressed unwillingness to enter into agreements, as indicated a day or two ago; for in 1892 they declined to grant the concessions asked for by the government of that day, and in 1898, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier set up his joint high commission under the presidency of Lord Hersehell, they sat for nearly a solid year without results, and it was at that time that Sir Wilfrid Laurier made it perfectly clear that he did not propose longer to concern himself with an effort to negotiate a treaty with the United States. He said:
There will he no more pilgrimages to Washington. We are turning our hopes to the old motherland.
And what is more, not only did Sir Wilfrid say that but that is what he practised, and though in 1887 and 1891 the elections were contested on commercial union and unrestricted reciprocity, that was subsequently abandoned by the Liberal party. In consequence of the attitude taken by Mr. Blake and many others at that time, not only did he not go to the United States asking for further concessions after the joint high commission's failure, but he said he would not do it; and in 1911 it was not the action of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his government that brought about the negotiations terminating in the proposals of 1911. I think it might be well to clear that up, because Mr. Fielding, in his letter to Mr. Knox, dwelt upon that point as one of some importance. He made it perfectly clear at that time that the initiative had come from the president of the day and not from himself or his government. The letter addressed to Mr. Knox-I will not read the whole of it, but it is important to keep it in mind-was dated at Washington on January 21, 1911:
Dear Mr. Secretary,-
The negotiations initiated by the president several months ago through your communication to his excellency the British ambassador respecting a reciprocal tariff arrangement between the United States and Canada, and since carried on directly between representatives of these two countries have now, we are

happy to say, reached a stage which gives reasonable assurance of a conclusion satisfactory to both countries.
Then follows this, after two intervening paragraphs:
The governments of the two countries having made this agreement from the conviction that, if confirmed by the necessary legislative authorities, it will benefit the people on, both sides of the border line, we may reasonably hope and expect that the arrangement, if so confirmed, will remain in operation for a considerable period. Only this expectation on the part of both governments would justify the time and labour that have been employed in the maturing of the proposed measures. Nevertheless, it is distinctly understood that we do not attempt to bind for the future the action of the United States Congress, or the Parliament of Canada, but that each of these authorities shall be absolutely free to make any change of tariff policy or of any other matter covered by the present arrangement that may be deemed expedient. We look for the continuance of the arrangement, not because either party is bound to it, but because of our conviction that the more liberal trade policy thus to be established will be viewed by the people of the United States and Canada as one which will strengthen the friendly relations now happily prevailing and promote the commercial interests of both countries.
That was a declaration by Mr. Fielding of the circumstances under which these negotiations were carried on. They failed because the Canadian people were not prepared to adopt them. The United States congress did approve them; but it must be within the memory of every member of this house that upon the very first opportunity afforded to the people of the United States to pass upon them they defeated them; the Republican administration was defeated at the polls and succeeded by the administration of Mr. Wilson. So that on the one hand you have the Canadian people rejecting the proposals, and on the other hand you have the United States people rejecting them at the first opportunity that was offered them so to do. That, I think, makes the record clear so far as that point is concerned, and there can be no misunderstanding, it seems to me, with respect to that part of the matter.
Let us now correct another misapprehension on the part of the right hon. gentleman, that is with respect to what took place after this government came into office. I wonder if for the moment the right hon. gentleman forgot that in June of 1930 the Hawley-Smoot tariff was enacted,-enacted despite the fact that in his place as prime minister he had asked this house and the country not to provoke them lest they do something more severe than that which they had done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it is in Hansard. I can read it. Will somebody get me Hansard?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Read the whole of it. You misread it last time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that the British preference should not be increased lest per-adventure that might provoke the United States to further action. Those were the statements made by the right hon. gentleman in this house in 1930, about which there can be no possible doubt.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have been read too often for there to be any misunderstanding as to what they are.
That being so, let us analyze the next step with reference to it. There was in power in Washington in 1930 a Republican administration, and when the late government came into office it found Mr. Hoover the president of the United States, whose congress had just enacted the Hawley-Smoot tariff. But at the same time provision had been made whereby, in the event of its being concluded that an unfair tariff advantage was being given to the United States, application might be made to the tariff board for the purpose of securing if possible a report that the tariff was excessive, in which event the president was authorized to make a proclamation to reduce the tariff not beyond fifty per cent of what the existing tariff was. Many cases were heard by the tariff commission; amongst others, the tariff item with respect to maple sugar. When our minister went to the United States in 1931 he found, as I have said, a Republican administration in office, and his first effort, as the records of the department will show, was to bring to the attention of the American government the anomalies of their tariff as they affected cattle, hoping that an opportunity might be afforded before the tariff commission to deal with this matter in accordance with the provisions of the law to which I have referred. I personally know, as every member of this house probably knows from reading, that the president of the United States was not in accord with some of the provisions of the Hawley-Smoot tariff. He made it perfectly clear in public statements that he did not agree with them and that he was not unsympathetic to the suggestions made that we should endeavour to bring the matter before the tariff board. In fact an application was filed, but no action followed. During the whole of the period of office of President Hoover, namely during the year 1930, the remainder of the year after the late government came into office, the whole of the year 1931, the whole of the year 1932, and until March, 1933, the Hawley-Smoot tariff stood in its entirety and Mr. Hoover remained the president of the United States. And yet the right hon. gentleman asked the other day what the government was doing in 1931 and 1932 and 1933. Now I would ask him what he was doing from 1921 until 1930, dealing with Republican administrations under the same conditions. There need be no misapprehension, therefore, as to what the facts were, when the high tariffs of the Hawley-Smoot schedule still prevailed until 1933. But bear in mind, sir, they still continue; for there has been no legislation in the United States since 1933 dealing with the position of tariffs except through treaties or agreements made with various countries to which I shall presently refer.
Now that is important. There was not a change of government in the United States until March, 1933, and just as soon as that government came into office, as the records of the department of the Secretary of State will show, we pressed that there should be an adjustment of the tariff relations between the two countries. But the president, unwilling to open up the tariff schedules in congress, and unwilling as he was under the conditions that then prevailed to risk the possibility, nay the certainty of the United States senate rejeoting any tariff treaty that might be made, did what? He proposed legislation dealing with monetary problems, dealing with many other problems, with agriculture, many matters of the kind, and he then intimated that he proposed to have introduced into congress a measure affecting tariff questions, giving him executive authority to deal with those matters as he thought best, with such limitations as might be imposed upon his powers. In 1933 the measure was withdrawn; it was fiercely resisted, and it did not come into effect. Therefore the year 1933 went by with no legislation, but on June 12, 1934, the president signed the bill, which then became a statute, whereby executive power was conferred upon him by congress to make trade agreements with countries, subject first to there not being a greater reduction than fifty per cent, second that the period should be fixed at three years, and third that there should be no change from dutiable to free goods and, e converso, from free to dutiable; he had no such power. The last condition was that before he took this executive action he had to issue a proclamation indicating that he proposed to deal with whatever country was being dealt with, in order that those who might be
Canada-UJ3. Trade Agreement

interested should have an opportunity to present their objections, if they had any, to such an arrangement being made.
That was in June, 1934, and the records of the department will show that from the date that the act came into force, continuously until action was taken, there was constant communication between the department of state and the Canadian legation at Washington in an effort to have action taken in accordance with the provisions of the statute to which 1 have referred. It was ascertained very early, in fact it was known before, that it was a cardinal principle of any negotiations being entered into at all that the United States should receive from Canada or from any other country with which an agreement was made, an undertaking that the tariff concessions granted to the United States would be as great as those granted to any other country in the world, except in their own case with respect to their peninsular possessions and Cuba, with which country they had a special treaty arrangement. On our part we made it clear as a government that it was absolutely a sine qua non to the carrying on ol negotiations at all that the entire British preferences were to be untouched and that any negotiations carried on should be carried on not only subject to the provisions of those agreements but subject also to their future modification or extension.
That being so we embodied in a document our proposals for negotiation. At first the right hon. gentleman read the words as though he thought those were proposals, though I am frank to say that when attention was directed to it he modified his statement and said those were proposals for negotiation. So the proposals for negotiation were embodied in a note dated November, 1934, to which a reply was received in December and again the records of the department will show that efforts were being made constantly to induce action to be taken. But there was a reason why the president found it difficult to deal with some of these matters, a reason, I doubt not, that is in the minds of many members of the house at this moment. It was the fact that during the election campaign the president had made certain statements at Baltimore with respect to what he proposed to do in connection with agricultural commodities, and this was being constantly thrust upon his attention by those who were deeply interested in the maintenance of existing tariff legislation in connection with agricultural products. What were those words? On October 26, 1933, speaking during the election campaign at Baltimore, the president said:

My distinguished opponent is declaring in his speeches that I have proposed to injure or destroy the farmers' markets by reducing the tariff on products of the farm. That is silly. Of course I have made no such proposal, nor can any speech or statement I have made be so construed. I said in my Sioux City speech, in discussing the Ilawley-Smoot tariff act of 1930:
"Of course, the excessive, outrageously excessive rates in that bill must come down, but we should not lower them beyond the point indicated."
The point indicated was that no tariff duty should be lowered to a point where our natural industries would be injured....
Of course, it is absurd to talk of lowering tariff duties on farm products.... I know of no effective excessively high tariff duties on farm products. I do not intend that such duties shall be lowered. To do so would be inconsistent with my entire farm program, _ and every farmer knows it and will not be deceived.
That statement was being constantly presented to the attention of the president, and it made it increasingly difficult for the government of Canada, dealing with the question of negotiations on farm products, to make progress. Finally, however, in January, 1935, a proclamation was issued; interested parties were heard and the negotiations continued. Those negotiations were difficult by reason of the statement made by the president in connection with agricultural products; they were difficult because the very moment it was suggested that it was proposed to negotiate, a great body of public opinion crystallized against any such action being taken. Finally we did get certain preliminary discussions concluded. The matter of cattle, which was dealt with in a slightly different way than it is in the agreement now before us, lumber, whiskey and so on-* all these matters were early determined without difficulty, but when it came down to the question of what concessions the Dominion of Canada was to receive for the concessions that were sought the difficulty began. When I say to this house, as I presently shall, that we could not possibly agree to give the concessions that are given by this agreement for the slight concessions we were offered, I but state the simple truth, and I shall give the reasons why. In order that there may be no difficulty as to what was said by my right hon. friend in his speech in this house on April 9, 1929-speaking from memory I said 1930, but it was 1929-I quote from Hansard for that year:
Having that knowledge before us-
The right hon. gentleman was speaking of the knowledge they had of the situation.
-I ask hon. gentlemen irrespective of party: In the condition of prosperity which Canada is to-day enjoying would it be desirable on the part of the administration to take any action

Canada-TJjS. Trade Agreement
with respect to the tariff in Canada at the present time which by those across the line who may be interested in seeking to raise the tariff in that country could be regarded as provocative? I say that with the knowledge which we have before us at the present time, were we to do what hon. gentlemen opposite by their amendment apparently wish us to do, namely raise the tariff, we would' be creating in. the" minds of the American people the very sentiment which would cause them to raise their tariff higher perhaps than it was ever their intention to raise it. We do not intend to take any action of that provocative character-
Well, they have an explanation now, which perhaps will help to correct it.
I wish to repeat-and I do not think this can be made too clear-that so far as_ the United States tariff is concerned that is a matter which the government of that country must settle for itself in accordance with its own interest. And the United States will be the first to recognize, if in any action they take our trade with them is adversely affected, that it is our right and our duty, and should be and will be our policy to see to it that we make such arrangements with respect to our tariff as will further our interests in our own way.
Having said this much may I again make clear, what I wish above all else to make clear, not only in this connection but in all others, living as we do beside the United States as near neighbours, it is in the interests alike of the United States and of this country, and in the larger interests of^ the British Empire, that so far as we can, with respect to all our relations, we each conduct our affairs in a spirit which will help to advance mutual interest, and which will help to avoid steps that may lead in the opposite direction.
I lead the whole of that passage in order that it may not be said that I left out any part of it. Then there was a further question with respect to the matter of the British preference, which need not be mentioned now. I want to go a step further, however, because this affords me an opportunity of making this statement. We have to thank the action taken by this parliament in 1930 and the empire agreements for being able to make any contract at all with the United States. I say that, Mr. Speaker, not from hearsay; I have it direct from the government of the United States, that it was because we enacted the tariffs of 1930 and the agreements of 1932 that they were willing or desirous to negotiate with us at all, and that looks reasonable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my
right hon. friend produce the documents?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said I had it from a
member of the government. Obviously I cannot mention names, for the reason the right hon. gentleman mentioned the other day, but he can verify that if he will make the'necessary application, and I will give him the name privately if he so desires.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think my right hon. friend should make mention of any statement unless he is able to give names.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What nonsense! I think the right hon. gentleman will agree that one may often have to make reference to what governments have said without referring to the person who made the statement. The government said it. And it is perfectly clear that but for the fact that Canada through this parliament in 1930 responded to the action of the United States by enacting the tariffs they did to protect this country fittingly against the adverse barriers that were raised against us, and enacted the British trade agreements, we should have had no proposals for any kind of reciprocity agreement at all. That I think is beyond question.
Let us go a step further. There continued until the end during the period of time that we were in office a constant endeavour to negotiate an agreement-I say, a constant endeavour. But during the election campaign I said on every platform what I repeat here, that I would not become a party to making any agreement with any country, not even the motherland, that gave anyone a preference over Canadians in the Canadian market. That is the position I took and always will take with respect to this country; and when I point out what the effect of this agreement is upon Canada and Canadian trade the house will understand why the government of that day was not prepared to enter into the agreement that has been entered into by hon. gentlemen opposite. We could have made an agreement such as is now before the house-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why didn't
you?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman says, "Why didn't you?" Because I prefer my country to office and power. I can understand, sir, the smiles of some, the laughs and jeers of others, because before I conclude this statement I shall show that it is upon the very principles I enunciated that we oppose this agreement. We oppose it because it sacrifices Canada, because it is detrimental to the interests of this dominion, because it gives everything we have to give and gets little in return. That is why we object to it. That is why in 1899 Sir Wilfrid Laurier made the statement he did.
I said the other day that I would, and I am sorry I hurried on without doing it, give the American record of these proceedings. I now quote from what Mr. Foster said as to the attitude, not of this government but of the government led by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in days past with respect to these matters. He
Canada-U\S. Trade Agreement

realized how difficult it was to make a bargain; he realized what the effect of it would be, and he declined in 1898 to enter into an agreement. I shall read from what Mr. Foster said as to the circumstances under which he took that action. In his Diplomatic Memoirs, at the beginning of volume II, General Foster, who became Secretary of State of the United States, said:
I have referred in previous chapters to the interest manifested by President Arthur in the development of commercial reciprocity, and to the steps taken by his administration to inaugurate and carry forward such a system 9f exchange with foreign countries. His defeat in the national convention of his party in 1884, followed by the election of President Cleveland, who was opposed' to the system, resulted in the failure of the three treaties which had been negotiated with Mexico, with Spain for Cuba and Porto Rico, and with San Domingo.
. But the return of the Republicans to power m the election of President Harrison in 1888 revived the reciprocity projects. Special arrangements or treaties for the favoured exchange of products with other nations were not an entirely new measure. During the presidency of Jackson a treaty made with France (1831) contained commercial reciprocity provisions. In 1843 President Tyler instructed our minister to Prussia, Mr. Wheaton, to negotiate with the Germanic Customs Union, or Zollverin, "a commercial treaty, which, while it will open new advantages to the agricultural interests of the United States and a more free and expanded' field for commercial operations, will affect injuriously no existing interest in the union."
Then follows a statement of other measures, until he arrives at the time when in 1892 there was passed a tariff act containing provisions for reciprocity only one of which could in any circumstances have reference to Canada. He points out the difficulty of negotiating that, how in fact he did negotiate with the West Indies; Jamaica was the last to come in, and finally representatives of the Leeward Islands and others arrived in Washington to make treaties. There was difficulty with Jamaica until the very end. He proceeds to point out the difficulty they had with Germany, and then comes this significant statement, that the Liberal party had come into office in Canada and desired to negotiate an agreement. The Conservatives had sent down delegates three in number in 1892, and letters were received from various men in Canada who were friends of General Foster, pointing out that this was being used for political reasons, and that he should not negotiate with those Conservatives, although he must do his duty. Then Goldwin Smith went to Washington, and his letter is set out in this volume. Then this follows:
Since the reciprocity conference at Washington in 1892, the Liberal party had been

Quite active in Canadian politics, and had finally succeeded in driving the Conservatives from power. The Liberals have encouraged expectations that, once in control of the government, they would pursue a more enlightened and neighbourly policy towards the United States, but these expectations were doomed to disappointment. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, now Prime Minister, and Sir Louis Davies, another member of the new Liberal cabinet, accompanied the Canadian experts to Washington, and they and I attended the meeting of the experts.
After the labours of the latter had been concluded, I held several unofficial conferences with Messrs. Laurier and Davies, and sought to bring them to some agreement for the better protection of the seals; but they were unwilling to take up this subject alone, and insisted that we should enter upon a consideration of various other matters, prominent among which was the old question of commercial reciprocity.
Then he refers to the appointment of the joint high commission. The members on the part of the United States were Senators Fairbanks and Gray, Congressmen Dingley, John W. Foster, John A. Kasson, and T. J. Cool-idge; and on the part of Great Britain Lord Hersehell, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Richard Cartwright, Sir Louis H. Davies, and Hon. John Charlton, M.P., and on the part of Newfoundland, Sir James Winter.
After referring to the various meetings, and the failure of the commission, and having already placed on record the statement of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1899 as to what he felt about the failure, I quote these words from page 188:
It would be tedious if I should attempt to give even a brief resume of the weeks and months of laborious examination and discussion of the various subjects submitted to the commission. On several of them a practical agreement was reached. On the sealing question the general principle of settlement was agreed to, and doubtless the details could have been arranged. On reciprocity little progress was made. Notwithstanding the professions of the Liberals when out of power and in the heat of a political campaign, in the commission they assumed much the same position as the Conservative delegates who came to Washington in 1892.
Then he went on:
.... The commission adjourned at Washington February 20, 1899, never again to be reassembled.
What was the reason Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his associates in 1898 took the view they did? It is a matter of record; it was because they were asked to give too much for what they could secure in return. And when we come to this bargain that has been made by the right hon. gentleman I shall point out that had the principles which governed Sir

Canada-U\S. Trade Agreement
Wilfrid Laurier in 1898 prevailed, it would have been impossible to make any such agreement as that now before the house.
Having placed this upon Hansard, as I should have done a few minutes before, I desire to continue with respect to the negotiations. The right hon. gentleman has stated the conditions under which he entered into the negotiations; the limited powers of the president, the power to grant not more than fifty per cent reduction in the tariffs of the United States; the limitation as to time. And by the way, in that particular the right hon. gentleman did me an injustice. My objection in 1911 was to the fact that there was no time specified, but that it could be, as Mr. Fielding points out in his letter, terminated at the sweet will of either party without notice. But this agreement is for three years certain, a fixed period. It may be continued, and can be terminated only on six months' notice. I omitted to read one item from General Foster with respect to that; Germany raised the same question in dealing with her problems. She entered into an agreement with the United States and found it so unsatisfactory that she complained bitterly because when a new government came into office the agreement that had been made under a previous administration was no longer in force. And he says:
The most pronounced of these protests came from Germany while the bill was pending, in which the minister in Washington stated that the German agricultural and manufacturing circles entertained the belief above mentioned.
That is, that this was an unfair thing to do, to terminate the agreement they made. General Foster adds this very pregnant observation:
One of the inconveniences of our Republican form of government, with its recurring elections, is that it brings about sudden and radical changes of administration, so that it is difficult to maintain a uniform or permanent foreign commercial policy.
And then he refers to difficulties in connection with the senate approving any act of that kind. Hence it was that we asked that at least some period of time should be specified, because, by reason of circumstances to which I have referred, I have seen many men in western Canada engaged in the cattle business who have been ruined, as I said the other day, because they had no time to change their arrangements with respect to their herds before the provisions of the Underwood bill were ended.
One step further. Not only did Germany apply, but other countries did as well. This is one of the reasons why at one time we
considered ten years when negotiating the British-Canadian agreement. It was thought three years would be a fairer time, and three years was the term provided by the act of congress, commonly known as the trade agreements act. But congress was not prepared to grant to the president power by executive action beyond the period of three years, and then subject to the conditions I have mentioned. Further, they were insistent that the agreements should not last longer than three years, and if they did they should be subject to termination upon six months' notice.
I mention this because it becomes important to remember, in the light of what later transpired. And may I here point out this: It was said the other day by the right hon. gentleman opposite that until his death Sir Wilfrid Laurier kept on urging that there should be an acceptance of what might be called the standing offer by the government of the United States. Surely my right hon. friend has not forgotten that the Underwood tariff was passed in 1913, and that under that tariff we enjoyed free entry to the United States on practically all items that we were receiving free entry on under the reciprocity agreement, and we got this without giving anything, except one thing. We passed an order in council saying that wheat, wheat flour and semolina should have free entry into Canada because the United States had said that those three articles should freely enter their country to enable similar articles from their country to enter Canadian markets. Does anyone suggest-and I am sure my right hon. friend is not fair to his great leader -that the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier was advocating that we should accept an agreement that was not as favourable to Canada as was the Underwood tariff? Does anyone suggest that? And Sir Wilfrid Laurier died in 1919, the Underwood tariff continuing until 1921, when the emergency tariff was passed in the United States. So that from 1913 to 1921 we had the Underwood tariff, with free access to the United States market for our cattle, for our fish, for our lumber, but with certain limitations with respect to certain kinds of lumber. The fact is, however, that we had access to the United States market on terms and conditions much more favourable than under the Taft-Fielding agreement, with respect to lumber, one of the great items of trade. The same may be said with respect to other items.
I do not desire to do more than direct the attention of the members of the house to the provisions of the Underwood tariff, because
Canada-UJ3. Trade Agreement

it is one of the most important of the many tariffs which have been passed in the United States. It represented in action the views of President Wilson, when he was a candidate. The Underwood tariff gave our cattle, our meat, our lumber and our fish, about which the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) used to speak, access to the markets of the United States.
But in 1921, when the new Republican party returned to office they enacted an emergency tariff which at once placed duties against many of these articles. As I said the other day, the cattle industry, for instance, is one which can flourish only if preparations are made for a term of years. You cannot market cattle with any degree of success under a short agreement; it takes one, two, three or perhaps four years to secure the best results. Out in western Canada when the emergency tariff was passed by the Republican congress of the United States, nullifying and destroying the Underwood tariff, it brought disaster and ruin to the larger cattle dealers of this country, a disaster from which they never recovered.
I think if hon. members will pause for a moment and consider they will realize that without paying anything in exchange, in 1913 President Wilson gave to Canada largely all, and in some instances more advantages than were obtained under the Taft-Fielding agreement of 1911, and that was only two years later. This indicates the uncertainty to which General Foster refers in connection with matters of this kind.
Here there was a country offering to do something for us. As Mr. Fielding said in the debate, we could not change a single item without voiding the whole. Sir Robert Borden asked him if it was indivisible, and he replied, "Yes, on all things." I will give one item, Portland cement, which carried eleven cents in the Fielding-Knox tariff agreement. The present rate is eight cents. It was reduced, and to reduce it would have meant an abrogation of the agreement. The same applies with respect to lumber; we received more favourable treatment with respect to lumber under the Underwood tariff than we did under the Fielding-Knox proposals. So that we have Sir Wilfrid Laurier making suggestions unsuccessfully, immediately after the reductions under the measure of 1911, that it should be availed of. But I have not been able to find any time after 1913, when the Underwood tariff came into being, that Sir Wilfrid Laurier suggested, publicly at least, that we should go back to a higher tariff structure for the purpose of enabling Canadians to trade. Of course there were in the Fielding-Knox agreement items that were

lower in tariff incidence than were the items in the Underwood tariff. But in the important items which affected us, cattle, fish and lumber, such was not the case. I mention that in passing.
Let us see what the real situation was that confronted the late government when they reached a point at which they had to decide whether they would or would not make an agreement on the proposals submitted. First, the Prime Minister has correctly stated the limitations upon the powers of the president. Those limitations were of such a character that if we got everything that he could give us we would get concessions of only fifty per cent on the tariff charges then made against us. I shall presently point out that if we got fifty per cent on every item in the tariff we would still be paying, in some instances, a higher tariff than that which prevailed under the Fordney-MeCumber rates. That is a fact to keep in mind. I shall give one illustration of this as I proceed. This is the position as I saw it, as my colleagues saw it, as the government saw it and as they instructed their minister to see it: First, the Dominion of Canada is a country with a population of less than eleven million people, inhabiting half a continent in the north temperate zone; on the other hand we find one hundred and twenty-seven million people who are inhabitants of a country with practically every variety of climate known to man. On the one hand, there was a new country without accumulated wealth undertaking a great development, a country that had built railroads on a great scale and that must look to increasing traffic if they were to maintain their economic position among the great nations of the world. On the other hand, there was a vast country, the richest in the world, a country of great reserve power represented by the accumulation of wealth. I shall not take time to refer to those conditions described by Mr. Blake or Sir Richard Cartwright as long ago as 1879, but here we were, a hardy, sturdy people, endeavouring to build a nation on the northern half of this continent, in the north temperate zone alongside a country of 127,000,000 of people inhabiting half a continent and with every variety of product being produced and every variety of climate that the world knows. Ah, more; for we were buying from them $28.86 worth per head during the year before while they were buying from us $2.23 per head.


Mr. BRADETTE:: That means nothing- multiply it by ten.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may not mean anything to hon. gentlemen opposite but it means a great deal to those who think seriously, and

Canada-UjS. Trade Agreement
I will tell you why. The net result was that it made an unfavourable balance of trade against this country of hundreds of millions of dollars, and that is an important thing to keep in mind.
I will go a step further and give the figures for 1934 with respect to trade balances, because I regard them as being of the utmost importance. What was our position? We have a commodity balance, which is a visible balance, and we have an invisible balance of interest, insurance and freights; and these together constitute the relations of one country to the other with respect to trade. In 1934, according to an estimate made by United States authorities, and which agree in the main with the figures supplied by our own bureau of statistics, the United States had a 370,000,000 credit on the commodity exchange between the two countries; and mark you, in 1934 it had been reduced to $70,000,000 by the most painful efforts that a government ever had to undertake. We either had to reduce that $200,000,000 which it once was to a lower figure or else we had to default; there was no question as to that. That was the position with which we were faced.
On our tourist traffic we had a favourable balance in 1934 of $74,000,000; in other words, this tourist industry in 1934 overcame the adverse commodity or trading balance against this country and there was an excess of $4,000,000 in our favour. We had reduced, on the one hand, the trading balance against us by every means within our power, and on the other hand we had stimulated the development of tourist traffic by every means at our disposal.
On immigration, remittances and charities, once more the balance was against us to the amount of $3,000,000.
Then, we come to shipping and freight: On freight passing through the United States and coming into this country they had a claim against us of $6,000,000. On miscellaneous items they had a further charge against us of $6,000,000. On total goods and services there was another balance of $5,000,000 in favour of the United States.
With respect to interest payments in 1934 they amounted to $51,000,000 against us. When I come to direct earnings on investments, that is, the income received by Canadians as against the income paid to people in the United States by people in Canada, there was a balance in favour of the United States of $48,000,000. Bank transactions in their favour amounted to $4,000,000.
Then we did what we have not been accustomed to do in years gone by. By reason of the action taken by this parliament, gold was no longer being treated for purely monetary purposes, and so we treated our exports of gold to the United States as a commodity, and that gave us a favourable balance against the United States of $87,000,000. Then the silver balance and the currency balance was against us to the amount of $2,000,000. So that at the end of 1934, despite the most heroic struggles from 1930 to 1934 that a people have ever made to meet the situation that had developed by reason of the circumstances to which I have referred, the United States had a balance against this dominion of $19,000,000.
We pointed out in the note that we sent to them that this disparity should be dealt with in some way, and we had a right to ask them not only to treat us on an equality basis, but if they desired to give us an opportunity for fair treatment, shall I say, we should have the maximum benefits that could come to us under the limited powers which the president possessed. Confronted with that adverse balance which we had to meet there were other matters which we had to think of. Let us see what they were. Let us look them fairly in the eye.
When we were negotiating for an agreement we were not ignorant of the fact that the exports of this country, exclusive of our domestic requirements, were a matter of transcendent importance not only to our monetary system but with respect to our whole economic structure and life. It may not generally be known, but the fact is that the population of Canada has shifted to the extent that one half of our people are now living in cities and towns. That happened for the first time at the time of the census of 1931, and the trend has increased since. There are more and more people now in cities and towns looking for employment in factories, mills and industrial plants of various kinds than ever before. According to the bureau of statistics, in the year 1934, 82%o per cent in value of all our agricultural production was used at home, and only 17ts per cent of our entire agricultural production found a market abroad. That includes everything. Let us go a step further; let us look at manufactures.


Mr. VIEN:: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would prefer not just
now. After I am through, if it would serve any useful purpose, if the hon. member
Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement

desires to ask a question I shall be glad to answer it, but I am not here to be cross-examined.
What percentage of our manufactured goods, think you, is consumed in this country by our own population living in towns, cities and villages and working in mills, factories and industrial plants, and by people living on the farms, consuming our manufactures? No less than eighty-six per cent of the total.


Mr. EULER:: For what year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the year 1934, and
I take that year because it is the year we were negotiating, the last year for which I could get the complete figures. The figure was eighty-six per cent of the total, leaving for export abroad only fourteen per cent of our manufactured products,	per cent of
our agricultural products, and a substantial quantity of raw materials. The net result of all that was to place the Dominion of Canada in the position where it ranked fifth among the exporting countries of the world.
Confronted with that position, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and any hon. member of this house, what was t>he duty of those speaking for the Dominion of Canada and seeking to negotiate an agreement with a country of the richness and the variety of produots and climate of the United States of America? We conceived it to be our duty to make a proposal on the basis of broad and generous treatment provided we got broad and generous treatment in return, and I have no hesitation in saying that for the concessions granted we had a right to receive from the United States of America over a fifty per cent reduction in every tariff item. What do we give under this agreement? First, there is the intermediate tariff involving substantially 700 items. No one has yet stated in this house how much that means in revenue, but the officials estimate-they did in my time-that for the fiscal year 1934-35 it would mean $5,000,000 as a minimum. Secondly, we granted most favoured nation treatment under this agreement. That means that no concession can be made to any country in the world except within the British empire of terms more favourable than those granted to the United States. The estimate of that loss of revenue is somewhere between $800,000 and $1,000,000. So that the total is approximately $6,000,000-


Mr. DUNNING:: That is about right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -without taking into consideration the added volume of trade.


William Daum Euler: That would be provided the importations were of the same amount.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. Now, making allowance for that, an American authority estimates that the loss will be $9,000,000. I can only give you the figures he has arrived at, and I shall presently show you how he reached that conclusion. Let us go a step further. We promise under the agreement to make further reductions in the rate of duty on United States products coming into Canada, with respect to sixty-eight items. I was surprised the other day when I read the white paper to find a long list of goods on which the United States gave us a reduction in tariff, and then I compared it with the list of goods on which we gave the United States a reduction; and in the one instance, in the white paper, you will observe that the percentages are carried out into the fourth column, whereas in the one dealing with Canada there are no percentages stated.
I took the trouble to work them out, and what do you think they are? The percentages, between the general tariff and the intermediate tariff, applied to the items appearing on page 35 and the following pages, are roughly these, without going into them in great detail. I will merely indicate the percentages in sequence: 50 per cent; 100 per cent; 20 per cent; 374 per cent; 50 per cent; 100 per cent; 100 per cent; 100 per cent; 100 per cent; 100 per cent; 50 per cent; 50 per cent; 50 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: How can you reduce anything 100 per cent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: By wiping it out, by making it free.


Charles Avery Dunning: Why not say so?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought, from what has happened, the hon. gentleman did not have any more appreciation of it than that. On page 37 I find items of 100 per cent, 100 per cent, 100 per cent, and then you go to 50 per cent, 33i per cent, 33j per cent, then as low as 8j per cent, then 25 per cent-a series of 25 per cent, a long series-then 16f per cent, 100 per cent, 50 per cent, 50 per cent, 66f .per cent, 20 per cent, and so on and so on. I need not go through it all. The singular thing was this. Why was it necessary to make a statement of percentages of reduction given by the United States without showing the corresponding action taken in the dominion?' Why do we have to work it out for ourselves?


Charles Avery Dunning: The word "free" is much clearer to the average understanding.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course; but I am asking why it does not show the percentages.

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement
Why hide the percentage if it is necessary in the one instance? Because in the one instance the President of the United States was prevented by congress from going beyond 50 per cent; that was the maximum. But here there was no such limitation imposed, and you have all these items indicated. Look them over, study them, and ask yourselves whether in your opinion this country is receiving fair and adequate consideration for what it is giving, when you compare these rates with those that are accorded to us. How is it possible to say that it is a fair bargain that limits the concession received to not more than fifty per cent, while granting reductions at rates from one hundred per cent down to eight and a half per cent, on very large numbers of items to which I shall presently refer, items of the first importance to this dominion? The other day I found a motion on the order paper dealing with the problem of market gardens and matters of that kind-a motion placed there by an hon. member. Under this agreement we have made very extensive concessions in respect of the matters to which I refer.
Then we place on the list of free goods about twenty items that are now dutiable. In No. 5 we undertake not to increase the existing rate of duty on seventy-seven items, and we promise to maintain on the free list some fifteen items. It is only fair to state that with relation to that matter, the United States has bound itself not to increase certain free items during the term of the agreement, as we also have done. Then there comes the other concession we make-the abolition of direct shipment advantages in so far as all favoured nation treaties are concerned. If that were limited to ports on the sea, on river or on lake, the argument might be made, as the right hon. gentleman made it the other day; but the letter written by the charge d'affaires at Washington to the United States government extends that promise at least to customs entry ports. I know of no such similar concession in this country. Certainly none of the favoured nation treaties contains any such clause, and I shall presently refer to them. Then there is the cancellation of values under section 43 and the revision of values for duty purposes, under No. 8; and under No. 9 there is the $100 tourist exemption.
I am going to analyze these briefly, because in view of what the Prime Minister said the other day with respect to the consideration of the various items in committee it becomes unnecessary for me to do more than direct attention to them in a broad and general way. First of all let us determine to what extent we have free items in our schedules. That is a matter of importance-the number of them.
In our tariff items over 1,200 in number, so I am informed, we have 336 free items under all tariffs; under the British preferential tariff the number is 368, or 32 more, and under the intermediate only there are 4. The free items in the United States number only 214. I put it to the house whether or not, having regard to trade balances and matters of that character, this can be regarded as a fair deal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
my right horn, friend if, in what he is saying, he is considering the interests of the consumer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am considering the
interests of Canada as a whole; for unless the interest of the whole is considered the consumers have no interest to consider. Let us go a step further.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are all consumers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, we are all consumers, but there must be production antecedent to consumption. That is always worth keeping in mind.
I come next to what I am sure most members of this house are thinking very seriously about; that is, with whom is this treaty made? I am one of those who have always been more or less alarmed and concerned about the favoured nation clauses in our treaties. I confess I found it difficult to negotiate with France when by our granting a concession to France on a suggested item some other country would get the benefit of it and France would not get it at all. That was true of many items that were discussed in connection with the French treaty, and the French withdrew from their position when they saw that not they but somebody else would profit by it. As far as we are concerned the position is a very simple one. We have said that we are to receive from the United States the benefits that may accrue from any treaty they make with any other country in the world. That is, we will get benefits from the United States agreement with Sweden because special concessions were given to Sweden with respect to certain types of pulp. We will get benefits, not only from the group with which the first treaty was made, but benefits, possibly small, from some other countries. For the moment I content myself with pointing out that at the present time the treaties of the United States are with some eleven countries, and eleven only. Some of these were negotiated before and some since the agreement that we now have before us for consideration. Before looking at their provisions possibly I should take our own country and deal with the position which we



Canada-UjS. Trade Agreement
occupy so far as favoured nation treaties are concerned with other countries of the world. There are some twenty-eight of them.
With respect to the British empire the position is extremely simple. The following countries enjoy the British preferential tariff: the United Kingdom, Union of South Africa, Ascension, Australia, Basutoland, Bechuana-land, Bermuda, British Guiana, British Honduras, British India, British North Borneo, British West Indies, Brunei, Cameroons, Cayman Islands, Ceylon, Channel Islands, Cyprus, Falkland Islands, Fiji, Gambia, Gold Coast, Irish Free State, Isle of Man, Kenya Colony and Protectorate, Malay States, federated and unfederated, Mauritius and dependencies thereof, Newfoundland, New Guinea, New Zealand, Nigeria colony and protectorate, Nyassaland protectorate, Rhodesia, Northern and Southern, St. Helena, Western Samoa, Sarawak, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somaliland protectorate, Straits Settlements, Swaziland, Tanganyika Territory, Togoland, British sphere of; Tonga or Friendly Islands, Uganda protectorate.
British countries entitled to most favoured nation treatment in addition to any possible advantages under the British preference are: the United Kingdom, Australia, Irish Free State, South Africa and New Zealand. Countries that enjoy the intermediate tariff-all of which I may say was done through the late administration-are:	Australia, Brazil
Germany and Hongkong. They enjoy the intermediate tariff in exchange for their lowest tariff. Then countries that enjoy most favoured nation treatment-this is very important: Argentine Republic, Belgium, Luxembourg, colonies and possessions; Bolivia, Columbia, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Esthonia, Finland, France, colonies and possessions; Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands and possessions; Norway, Panama, Portugal, Roumania, Serb, Croat and Slovene kingdom; Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United States of America, and Venezuela. All these countries enjoy in our market every advantage we conceded to. the United States of America. That is, whatever concessions we give to the United States or have given to any of these countries, they enjoy in this market, and to the extent to which there may be any reduction, that reduction inures to the benefit of the countries I have named, and e converso, with every country that has made a treaty with the United States we also have the right to enjoy similar benefits. I have the names of these countries here: there are eleven of them, and they are as follows:

Cuba, agreement made August 24, 1934, effective September 3, 1934.
Brazil, agreement made February 2, 1935, effective January 1, 1936.
Belgium, agreement made February 27, 1935, effective May 1, 1935.
Haiti, agreement made March 25, 1935, effective June 3, 1935.
Sweden, agreement made May 25, 1935, effective August 5, 1935.
Columbia, agreement made September 13,
1935.	Not yet in force.
Canada, agreement made November 15, 1935, effective January 1, 1936.
Honduras, agreement made December 18,
1935,	effective March 2, 1936.
Kingdom of the Netherlands, agreement made December 20, 1935, effective February 1, 1936.
Switzerland, agreement made January 9,
1936,	effective February 15, 1936.
These eleven countries are the countries from which we receive most favoured nation treatment. But all the other countries that I have mentioned have the right in the market of the Dominion of Canada to the same advantages that we have granted the United States of America. I point that out in order that hon. gentlemen may themselves determine what the true significance of that is.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend will permit me, I am sure, to point out that he unintentionally misstated his point when he said that we received most favoured nation treatment in those countries. What he meant to say of course, was that we receive treatment in the United States equal to that which the products of those countries receive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. I thank the hon. gentleman. In order to make it quite clear-I was trying to make it a little too short-we receive in the United States markets every benefit that, under the treaties made with the countries I have named, accrues to them.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Canada-US. Trade Agreement
to-day because it is cheaper to produce the goods in the central western United States and ship them to Canada by rail from those centres, thereby destroying to that extent the traffic the Canadian railways were enjoying. I mention that because it is not a possibility, it is an actuality, and when the proper time comes, when the items are before the committee, I shall give the figures with respect to some of these items. I said the other day that the freight rates with respect to some of these items, from the United States factories to the Canadian west, is only one-third the freight rate through Canada to the west, and that the effect will be-not will be, but now is, in some instances-that with the large depreciation values that have been set up for the branch factories that have been here for many years, they are producing goods for western Canada at the parent plants and shipping them to Canada, to the detriment of employment in this country as well as to the detriment of our transportation systems.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
my right hon. friend if he has any figures as to the amount of traffic over our railways into the United States compared with the amount of traffic over United States railways into Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; a moment ago I
tried to give the right hon. gentleman the freight and shipping figures. The United States in 1934 received from us 821,000,000 for freight and shipping and we received from them 815,000,000, leaving a balance against us of some 86,000,000.
Then there is one other point. Goods coming to Canadian ports on a through bill of lading ensured that our railways got that haul. Goods landing in the United States will mean that our railways will get only the shortest haul that may be possible. The movement west will be carried on over American roads until such time as the goods move up on the Soo line or at Emerson or other points of that sort, to reach the Canadian distribution point in the west. That, of course, is a matter that gives very great concern, for the two reasons I have mentioned: the one having to do with production costs in our market, considering the lower rates of duty, and the position taken by the parent companies with respect to their branch factories, and the other, of course, dealing with the physical question of transportation and the employment of people on the railways and steamships of the country.
There remains also for consideration the question of the removal of the operation of

section 43, or, as the right hon. gentleman speaks of it, the removal of arbitrary values. I said, and I repeat, that but for the provisions of section 43 and its application to the value of imports into this country, during the years from 1930 to 1934 at any rate, I do not see how we could have maintained our position. It was perfectly absurd to deal with them by. means of ad valorem duty. Some time ago, for instance, I heard -it was not hearsay; the right hon. gentleman will permit me to say that it was from the producer of a commodity-that eighteen cents a yard was the 'price at which this commodity could be produced in Canada. But our friends from Japan offered to supply the commodity for 12 cents a yard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The same
quality?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I am bound to say to my right hon. friend that the two articles were brought into the Department of Finance by the gentleman concerned; I had them tested as to any difference in quality, and they told me there was no substantial difference as far as could be seen by, shall I say, a casual examination on the part of those who were able to express an opinion. But the question of quality comes in only if you are able to induce people to pay a higher price for quality's sake, and in these days of depression there is not much desire to get more than the thing that will serve its purpose; the question of quality is not a material consideration on the part of the buyer. I mention this because it has become very important in connection with one or two matters.
I ask this question: the right hon. gentleman was correct in stating that he has not lost his right to increase the intermediate tariff; shall we then consider this resolution on the basis that there will be no increase in the intermediate tariff, or on the basis that there will be? We have a right to know. Members of this house, when they give approval to this agreement, have the right to know whether the intermediate tariff is to be raised or not, because it changes the agreement; the agreement submitted to us and the agreement that would then be in force would not be the same. The right is there to be exercised. As an instance I will give one item that is very well known. Florists' flowers coming into this country from any country, under the intermediate tariff are free. There is a duty of forty per cent under the general tariff. That looks like a large duty, but there is sales tax to pay; there is duty on coal and on other commodities that enter into the costs of production of flowers. In the county of Peel

Canada-UjS. Trade Agreement
there is, I believe, an investment of a couple of million dollars in florists' establishments. Florists' flowers from the United States are to be free under the intermediate tariff; is there to be an increase in the intermediate tariff or not? That is the question. We do not know; only the government knows. The government have no right to ask me to vote on this agreement until I know whether or not they propose to modify that intermediate tariff.
There are other items to which reference might be made. Take furniture; the effect has been to reduce the duty from 45 to 27J per cent.


William Daum Euler: It is 27 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, pardon me. My hon. friend knows. I am not using this illustration because my hon. friend happens to know about it because it is made in his locality. But I put this to the house; the other day I picked up the Congressional Record and I read a speech in which a member for Carolina pointed out that this was going to be a great thing for him; his furniture sales had been seriously cut down, but now he would be able to recover his lost market I want to know. There is a large number of items on which it is clearly apparent that unless some action is taken the result from this agreement will be greatly to decrease employment in Canada. That is clear. But in addition to that it is common ground that very substantial injury will be done to those who have invested their capital in this country. I am not here to argue for a single moment that every vested interest in this country has a right to perpetual-


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Pap.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, let hon. gentlemen laugh, but my reading of the history of my country is that we have built up employment for one half of our population by the application of a protective tariff:	You can call it
pap if you like; all I can say is that successive governments have done it. The government of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not behind others in doing it; and having done it, with our eyes open we have created these industries. I have said before in this house that there are some industries in this country that I would never have created, but they are here; they will be here long after I am gone, and the question now is whether they are entitled to fair consideration and fair play. We said we would leave that to the tariff board, and I find that this agreement proposes to leave some factors and some difficult problems to be determined- by the tariff board. The former Minister of Finance gave effect to every finding and recommendation made by the tariff board that he received in time to give effect to while he held office, every one of them. It would be presumption for me to express any view with respect to the question of sufficiency or insufficiency of tariff protection, but by taking the action this agreement contemplates, injuries will inevitably result. There is one way to cure them, and that is in many instances to increase the intermediate tariff. I think I am within my rights, as every hon. member of this house is within his rights, in saying that before I stand in my place and vote on this agreement I want to know whether there is to be at this session an increase in the intermediate tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: There might be decreases also.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There may be decreases; one is not arguing that there may not. The government may reduce every item in the tariff except those with respect to which they are bound to specific duties or free entry, those they cannot alter, either under the United States agreement or any other agreement where similar conditions prevail. But the question is, is there to be any increase in the intermediate tariff? I leave it to any fairminded man in this house whether he does not think he has a right to know whether or not that intermediate tariff structure is to be changed at this session, before he votes to give effect to this resolution. For if it is changed, the resolution he votes on and that which will be in force will not be the same. The bill founded on it will not be the same. If the tariff bill is passed later of course it will modify pro tanto the provisions of the trade agreement we are now considering.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, not of the agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course it will.


Charles Avery Dunning: The agreement specifically reserves to this parliament the right to change.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is what I say, and if there is a modification of the rates that now prevail, the agreement that we enact and the agreement which will be in force will not be the same.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, put it this way, in order that there may be no haggling; the situation will not be the same.


Charles Avery Dunning: The effect will not be
precisely the same.

Canada-VJS. Trade Agreement


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly the effect will
not be precisely the same; that is all I want. And since it will not be precisely the same, has not this house the right to know whether or not there will be a change in the intermediate tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: Then equally the house
has a right to know what the government is going to propose next year or the year after that with respect to the intermediate tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; in a given session
we can deal only with sessional matters.


Charles Avery Dunning: And. we cannot deal
with the budget until it is down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree, but I say any
change that might be made with respect to the intermediate tariff affecting this agreement would not be fair to the house unless the house knows before the agreement is adopted, what the changes are to be. It is simply a matter of fair play.
Now I will give a list of items that I think must be considered by this government. Item 16, eggs: existing general tariff, ten cents; intermediate, five cents. Oats, sixteen cents; down to nine cents. When the item is before the committee I wonder what explanation the government is going to give for wild oats not fit for human consumption getting the reduced rates while oats fit for human consumption are not dealt with. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) should at least make a protest over that. Take wheat, another item that must be considered: it carries to-day thirty cents against the United States; under the intermediate it is twelve cents. Wheat flour, $1.35; intermediate, fifty cents. I can recall in my younger days when the flour went to the maritime provinces, as the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley) can tell you, came from Boston in schooners at practically no freight rate at all; it could easily pay fifty cents a barrel duty.	Is that to remain?	That
is a question for consideration. Then, hay: at the present time the rate on hay is $5; under the new tariff it is $1.75. Is that to remain, or not? Under the old tariff the duty on potatoes was seventy-five cents; the new rate is free. Is that to continue? Is Maine to supply potatoes to upper Canada? Is Michigan to supply Windsor her requirements free of duty, or are Canadians to do this? This has to be considered. Then, onions, thirty per cent, with a specific duty, as against thirty per cent. Mushrooms and truffles thirty per cent with a specific duty as against twenty-seven and a half per cent. On fresh fruits the duty is reduced to fifteen per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend approves that. But remember this: There can be destruction of no industry, however small it may be, without injury to the whole economic structure of our country.
Then, let us take advertising. Advertising, when less than twenty per cent, paid two cents a copy. These items are now free. This advertising, I believe, is one of the most insidious of the, shall I say, unseen influences which have to do with the formation of national character. I think it will be found that that is so. That position is true of wall board, wall paper and paper containers, rods, bars, and sheets and plates of brass. Parts of watch movements are reduced to five cents specific duty, instead of ten cents. Then, farm implements are mentioned, in which we are carrying on a large export trade which cannot possibly be maintained, unless the former duty is restored. Then, there are washing machines, machinery, nuts and bolts, middle range automobiles and trucks, manufactures of steel, furniture, linoleum and oil cloth, and several other commodities I might mention, without going into them at length.
I put this question, and ask it very seriously: Are we to be told before we vote upon this agreement whether it is a real one that is to be effective, or whether the intermediate tariff is to be raised so that these various industries and agriculture products which are matters of concern, shall be cared for? Let us ask ourselves one more question with respect to this matter, and it is this: What is the effect of this agreement upon agriculture and agricultural products, including dairy products? Let us answer that. The duty on cream is reduced so that it occupies a position equivalent to eight cents a pound on butter. The old Fordney-McCumber tariff was twenty cents; this is now thirty-five cents, with a quota. I shall refer to this point presently. Name me any agricultural products which benefit by this agreement. Name any agricultural product which in the ultimate analysis benefits by this agreement. Let us take dairy products on the farm. We will pass live stock; as regards live stock undoubtedly there is a benefit, but that is not a fifty per cent benefit-and that is the odd part of the matter -as we shall point out in committee. If we are dealing with these items why could we not get at least a fifty per cent reduction with respect to cattle, and commodities of that nature? Is it worth while entering into an agreement merely for the sake of saying, "We have signed an agreement inside of ninety days; we had been in office only a few days, and see what we did"? Is that for the

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement
economic welfare of Canada? That is the real issue which must be considered.
Then, turning again to the tariff we find we have now a quota on lumber. Who introduced quotas? Tell me this: Is there a single quota which Canada has imposed against the United States? If there is, name it. But look at the list of quotas imposed against us. Why should quotas be imposed against us when we did not get even fifty per cent? Let us take fish. What do we get for fish? Look at the Underwood tariff; look at the free fish. Shall it be said that, because of the depressed condition in Gloucester and surrounding - territory, where they have trawlers which go out on the open sea and the grand banks, Canadians, without trawlers, endeavouring to compete in United States ports are denied that privilege to the extent of .fifty per cent of existing duties. There is a depression here, too, in the fishing industry. The farm, the forest, the sea, the mine-what have we as regards the mines? We have a few articles that have relation to hydro electric power, as was pointed out; and even as to them, what is their relation to the whole? I am asking that question seriously. What are they? Study them, and answer me. What answer can be given?
There is, it is true, a reduction in the duty on liquor, on cattle and on whiskey. There was never any question about the duty on whiskey, because whiskey in the United States has not matured. If we get rid of our whiskey before the date of maturity of theirs we shall have succeeded in benefiting from this agreement. Otherwise, we shall not. We must dispose of our whiskey during the period the United States whiskey is maturing.
What about our parts manufacturers in Canada? I am not going to do more than point out that we have afforded them protection. The assembly plants of this country have utilized the parts produced in Canadian mills and factories, and have utilized them to an enormous extent. I have knowledge of the fact that there have been cancellations of orders for these items. Are we going to pass an intermediate tariff which will give greater protection to these items? These are questions which will have to be dealt with.
What has been done with respect to any of these commodities? For instance, we have bran, shorts and wheat-what about them? Are they free? No. Is the duty reduced to any extent at all? No. It is fixed at ten per cent, where it stood the day before the agreement was signed. Look at the items. Then there are hulled oats, unfit for human consumption, with a duty of eight cents per
bushel of thirty-two pounds. There is nothing for oatmeal. Then there is wheat, unfit for human consumption, with a duty of ten per cent ad valorem, the rate at which it stood before. Not a cent of reduction in duty for entry of wheat into the United States of America, although we have reduced our duty on their wheat to the extent I have indicated. On bran, shorts, byproduct feeds obtained in milling wheat or other cereals, the rate is ten per cent ad valorem. On mixed feeds it is ten .per cent ad valorem, and on screenings, ten per cent, the same old rate. On cereal breakfast foods, we have in this instance a reduction in duty from twenty per cent ad valorem to fifteen per cent, or a decrease of five per cent. When we come to grass seeds we find a fifty per cent reduction. My point is this: Why did we not hold out for a fifty per cent reduction with respect to all these items if we were going to get a fifty per cent reduction on this or that? Had we not a right to ask for this?
Then there are large numbers of items to which I shall give no more than hasty consideration. First, we have oats and barley. How will the change in ths rate on barley affect Prince Edward Island? What about the pelts of silver foxes which come from the island? The silver fox industry is one of the greatest down there, but we find a fifty per cent ad valorem duty on these pelts entering the United States-no reduction. On certain pelts, however, the rate was reduced. On wolves' pelts-and I can understand this-the duty was reduced. But on pelts of silver foxes, an item which touches vitally the economic life of the island, there was no reduction; the fifty per cent rate still remains.
Then we come to other items, a number of which I have mentioned. Did we get a fifty per cent out on cattle? We did not. We secured a reduction, but it was not fifty per cent, the maximum, which we should have received. We did get something else; we got a quota on them. I put to the house just one question with respect to this situation: Looking at those schedules can it be said that we have received adequate consideration for what we have given? That is the question. The right hon. gentleman put it yesterday fairly. That is the issue. Well, sir, I put this to you and to the house: Does it ever occur to hon. members that during an election any prime minister would be anxious to sign a trade agreement because of the effect which this might have upon the mind of the electorate? If he did not sign it; if the government could not approve proposals that did

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement
not give to the Dominion of Canada concessions that were adequate to those which we gave, only one thing can be said, that the temptation to sign any agreement is very strong, and the fact that it was not signed is at least some indication that there was strong conviction that it was not adequate. There is the story.
The right hon. gentleman said something about the future. I put this to him:	What
more can we give the United States than we have already given them under this agreement? What have we left to negotiate with? There is the position; there is the situation, and I can only say that the government of the day was not prepared to grant the concessions contained in this agreement for what we consider the wholly inadequate advantages accruing under it to the Dominion of Canada, notwithstanding the effect that it might have upon the minds of the electorate.
The right hon. gentleman was right the other day in saying that it was in September that the note was given to the public. The government of the United States did not think it desirable that during negotiations there should be any publication of the note, and so we did not publish it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend was mistaken about having tabled it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman was right it was not tabled in the house. Twice I had the note ready to table, and twice I was advised by the minister that it was undesirable to do so. I was in error in thinking that it had been tabled, and I desire to make that perfectly clear.
Contemporary opinion in one country is not always a guide to the action of another country. Of course, most members of the house have seen the article that appeared in the Independent Journal of Columbia University written by Professor Brebner, in which he speaks of Canada's tariff gamble and says that this is an excellent treaty for defying economic nationalism. He says that Canada has made more concessions increasing her economic vulnerability. I am not going to take time to do more than point out his conclusion, that this would be injurious to Canada. Without going into the matter, I may say that he points out our vulnerability and says in effect'that this is a huge gamble; that if it succeeds it is a good thing, and if it does not, it is a very bad thing for the future of this dominion.
I cannot think, Mr. Speaker, that we are warranted in gambling about such a serious

matter, and when I look at the observations made by the President of the United States himself and by his Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Wallace, I realize that they refer to this agreement as affording a market in the Dominion of Canada for their manufactured products as well as their agricultural products. These words were used by the Secretary of State, Mr. Cordell Hull, in a letter to Mr. Costigan:	He said that the restrictions with
respect to cattle will "assure the most ample protection to our domestic cattle producers." He continues:
The small concession which we have granted on cattle must be considered, if its real significance is to be appreciated, in the broad light of the entire agreement ... and of the benefits which will derive of this agreement in the shape of hundreds of millions of dollars in increased' exports, a large part of which will largely consist of agricultural exports, while the remainder of the increase will be in industrial products, which, through enlarged payrolls and augmented purchasing power will inevitably rebound to the ultimate benefit of our cattle raising and farming sections.
Mr. Henry A. Wallace, the very able Secretary of Agriculture, speaking at Chicago on December 10, said that it was his considered judgment that American agriculture gains from the Canadian reciprocal trade treaty "so far outweigh the losses that the net advantage to our agriculture as a whole is very much worth while." He said that Canadian concessions on meats and meat products duties will open the way "for our farmers to get back a bigger share of the British pork market. The new agreement will permit American pork to go to Canada to replace Canadian pork exported to Great Britain, thus, in effect permitting increased exports of American pork to Great Britain." He claimed important benefits to fruit and vegetable growers through Canadian concessions and said that those benefits would be "substantial gains" for United States grain growers. "Farmers of the United States will unquestionably gain from the increased exportation of manufactured products to Canada," he said. He went on:
Suppose that exports of these products are increased by $300,000,000-a conservative figure in view of our trade with Canada in the past -and that half of this amount or $150,000,000 goes into payrolls.
This would mean definite and substantial gains in cash income of farmers. Studies have shown that in the past an increase of $150,000,000 in United States factory payrolls added from four to six million dollars to the income of farmers in each of such states as Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa and Ohio.

Canada-UJi. Trade Agreement
The President himself said:
Agriculture, far from being crucified by this agreement, as some have told you, actually gains from it. We export more agricultural products to Canada than we have imported from her. We shall continue to do so, for the very simple reason that the United States with its larger area of agricultural land, its more varied climate and its vastly greater population produces far more of mpst agricultural products, including animal products, vegetables and fruits, than does Canada. In the case of the few reductions that have been made, quota limitations are set on the amount that may be brought in at the lower rates.
On the other side of the picture we believe, and most unbiased men believe, that the general increase in our trade with Canada, including the exports of our factories, will so add to the purchasing power of hundreds of thousands of wage earners that they will be able to spend far more than they do to-day for the products of our own farms, our own forests and our own fisheries. Greater trade is merely another word for more production and more employment. The proof of this particular pudding is in the eating; the best way to judge the new accord is to observe how it works out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has my right
hon. friend any observations by ex-President Hoover?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not have anything to do with this matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: He had a lot to say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only going to
follow up what I have read by saying this: Varying views will be entertained with respect to the benefits and disadvantages of this agreement. There are those who will argue that the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages. There are Canadians who will argue, as they have done, that the benefits greatly exceed the disadvantages. On the other hand, there will be Canadians who see in this agreement, as I do, not only a balance of disadvantages against benefits but an act on the part of the government that can only-can only, I repeat-result in great injury to Canada unless we avail ourselves of the provisions of the intermediate tariff and at this session increase it with respect to many items to which I have referred. That, I think, is inevitable. On the other hand, in the United States there are those who say that the bargain is bad for the United States, and there are those who say it is highly advantageous; one is a supporter of the administration and the other is opposed to it. But that is not so everywhere. There are men who left office because they felt that the agreement was not satisfactory from the standpoint of the United States. There are Canadians who view it with alarm, and there are Canadians who rejoice at it.
I can only say that each of us must arrive at his own conclusion in the light of the knowledge he possesses of the fundamental economic position of this country. This agreement is predicated upon the assumption that there will be a great increase in purchasing power in Canada within the next few years. I am not one of those who do not believe that we shall gradually improve our condition, but when I heard the right hon. gentleman the other day take 1929 as a basis for comparison, I wondered why he took that year. For in 1929 the Fordney-McCumber tariff was in force and that tariff imposed, against Canadian trade, barriers never before known until the Hawley-Smoot tariff of 1930. That is a fact which the ordinary figures indicate; they show the trade of this country before and after the enactment of that measure. I can only say that we are placed in a very difficult position. In good faith, desiring to extend Canadian trade in accordance with the traditions of our party, we made as a basis for negotiation proposals that were broad and generous, giving an opportunity to consider every item in the tariff structure of both countries.


William Daum Euler: My right hon. friend has
said that the minimum demand we should have made upon the United States was for a straight fifty per cent reduction in their tariff against us all along the line. I should like to know whether he made that demand and whether the reason why no agreement was reached under his administration was the fact that the United States refused to make that concession.	*


Richard Bedford Bennett: That question is simply
answered. Mr. Hull, the Secretary of State, as the communications read by the right hon. gentleman the other day show, said that each item would have to be considered. Proposals and counter-proposals were made, and when these proposals, which are now practically the proposals of the United States, were presented to us we said definitely that we could not give them such concessions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are not practically the same.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman says that they are not practically the same. It is true that with respect to cattle we had a fifty per cent cut with a limitation on values; this is less than a fifty per cent cut with a quota as to numbers. This, I think, should be a fair answer: The government of the day was not prepared to grant the concessions asked for in return for the concessions which the United States expressed themselves willing to grant.

Canada-UjS. Trade Agreement


William Daum Euler: I am afraid the leader of
the opposition missed the point of my question. I was not particularly referring to the concessions we were giving to the United States; I was asking about the concessions which were demanded by Canada from the United States. Was the demand made that there should be a straight fifty per cent reduction all along the line so far as the United States tariffs were concerned?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were two discussions, one as to an agreement of a limited kind, the other being an agreement in the large sense now before us. And before we could get any further in the matter the demands were such that we said that anything granted would not be adequate compensation for what was asked, not even fifty per cent.


William Daum Euler: Did you ask for fifty per
cent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question is not
whether we asked for fifty per cent; we said fifty per cent would not be adequate.


William Daum Euler: I understood the right hon.
gentleman to say that we should not have concluded any agreement unless we received at least a minimum of fifty per cent all along the line, and I am curious to know whether he asked for that concession and whether, it being refused, he did not conclude an agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let me answer that
question in this way:	I said that if my
hon. friends were going to come here with an agreement they should at least have taken as a minimum the maximum the United States would grant, which was fifty per cent of existing tariff rates. But I said that the concessions asked for were such that at no price were we prepared to grant them. I want to make that clear beyond peradven-ture. It is not a question of fifty per cent or any other percentage; we made it clear that neither fifty per cent nor sixty per cent would be adequate for the concessions asked from us, because it took away from us everything we had: the whole intermediate tariff, the favoured nation clause, the binding on the free list and the loss of direct shipment, so that for the first time in our history there might be a through bill of lading; it was no longer to river, lake or seaport but to inland customs port.


William Daum Euler: My question was definite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I have answered it
as definitely as it is possible to answer it. We could not and would not give to the

United States what this agreement gives, in return for anything which it was within the power of the president to grant. Is that clear?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are we to
understand from the right hon. gentleman's remarks that negotiations were definitely terminated before he went out of office?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. They were in this
position, that in October it became perfectly clear that we could not succeed in securing an agreement on the basis I have mentioned, the basis of this agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not of this
agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was substantially what this agreement embodies.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that it embodies
what the United States asked us to give and we would not give.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend knows that negotiations of the kind are confidential; but when he makes the Statement that this agreement is one that he could have made and one that was offered to him at the time, he knows that is not the case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I repeat that the
proposals of the United States were substantially those embodied in the concessions which have been submitted to this house; I say that positively and without question. And what is more, we never did reach a draft agreement; a draft agreement was never prepared. But I will tell you more. Mr. Foster, in his memoirs, points out that during the progress of negotiations with the United States he received intimation that somebody else would do something better; and there is no doubt that during the negotiations, during the last two months that we were in office, there was circulated, throughout official circles in the United States, the idea that if the Liberals got in they would do better than we had done. That was circulated in season and out of season, stated on public platforms by the right hon. gentleman, that they could negotiate agreements where we could not.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly; but agreements which we would not.


Charles Avery Dunning: Which you could not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one thing I
deprecate. I greatly deprecate the attitude of the Prime Minister with respect to this and

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement
all other matters. The other day he saved a war in Europe; to-day he has made an agreement at which all the world is sitting up and wondering. I think it ill becomes one occupying the position of Prime Minister to try to make the people believe that wars and rumours of war have been stilled and peace has been secured because he repudiated Mr. Riddell in Geneva, and that the world's economic peace, liberty and happiness depend upon his having made these concessions to the United States; that we got all that we could get, which is enough, because we have restored the balance in the world's economy and all is well in Israel. That, I say, is an attitude of mind which is not conducive to the well-being of the country. It is magnifying oneself to an extent which I think is not warranted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Don't speak
of magnifying oneself, please; please don't. Spare us that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It makes us a bit
ridiculous in some quarters. It has been the subject matter of a good deal of ridicule in different places that these 11,000,000 people, having made a bargain with the United States, have saved the economic peace of the world, and that the repudiation of a representative of ours in Geneva by the then acting Prime Minister saved the world from war, if only the facts were known. That is not conducive to this country being held in that esteem in which it should be regarded among the nations.


Charles Avery Dunning: You would describe it
in Mr. Thomas's terms.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman, in
his solicitude for vested interests, may well speak in that way, but the fact is that he will find it more difficult to deal with the British agreements by reason of the agreement now before the house, much more difficult. Then the smile and jeer that he has for those who toiled with these agreements will probably give way to some sympathetic understanding of what they did for this country when they made them, and his anxiety to serve the interests that he so nobly serves will perhaps give way to a little consideration for the people of this country.


Charles Avery Dunning: What does my right hon. friend mean?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just what he says.


Charles Avery Dunning: What did he say?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that the interests he serves so nobly-


Charles Avery Dunning: What are they?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are the great interests of this country. Never have they been served better by any Minister of Finance than by the hon. gentleman, as everybody knows and as has come to be very generally understood.


Charles Avery Dunning: The great interests of this country?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: The interests of the people of this country?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not of the people?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The interests that have been discussed in the house. The so-called great interests. The St. James' street interests he used to speak about; the milling interests-


Charles Avery Dunning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: my hon. friend has just stated in effect that I represent in this house certain special interests; that I serve them here nobly. There is a word which the rules of the house will not allow me to apply to my hon. friend. He knows what it is, and he knows that it would be correctly applied. I demand that he withdraw unconditionally. The statement he has made is absolutely without foundation, and he well knows that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Anything that I know, Mr. Speaker, is correctly indicated by what I said. If the hon. gentleman feels offended at what has been said-


Charles Avery Dunning: No, sir, not because I feel any offence but because it is contrary to the rules of the house, and is untrue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rules of the house are quite clear, and I have not transgressed them. If we look at the observations of the last five years from his side of the house-


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not what we are talking about.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -we shall find that they were always in use and applied when they were attacking others. Now when an observation is made with respect to himself, my hon. friend becomes very hot and very much worried.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have never applied such observations to any hon. member, and my right hon. friend knows I have never applied them to him. He knows how unfair, unjust and untrue they are as applied to me. I insist on an unqualified withdrawal.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Will the right hon. the leader of the opposition, withdraw?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am bound to accept your ruling and withdraw the remark.


Charles Avery Dunning: Thank you.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I did was to direct attention to the fact that the records of Hansard are filled with similar observations applied to others, including myself.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not by me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I admit that the hon.
gentleman is sui generis in his party. So far as his party is concerned, that has been their stock in trade.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not
true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unquestionably.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Never has any man in
Canada been vilified in this house and attacked in every part of Canada more than I; and the people are beginning to know this and understand it. I shall follow it up with some data-


Charles Avery Dunning: With regard to me?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: With regard to me?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Charles Avery Dunning: All right; go on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I say and
it is exactly what I mean, Mr. Speaker. Let there be no misunderstanding about it.
In concluding my observations I would say that there are differences of opinion with regard to this agreement both in the United States and Canada. We have the right to know whether this is an agreement that represents the real determination of the government within the rights conferred upon them to modify the intermediate tariffs, and until such time as we receive that information we cannot, I submit, fairly or honestly vote upon this agreement. We are entitled to that information, and I ask that it be given to us or that the consideration of the items in the agreement be dealt with as items in the ways and means committee when the budget is being considered.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, having had to take up so much time in reading so many extracts in dealing with this subject, but no more important matter has ever engaged the attention of parliament, nor is any more

important matter likely to engage its attention, than the one now before us. If we ask for the fullest information in order that we may be able intelligently to discuss it I think we ask for what is our right. This is expected of us by the Canadian people, by our several constituents and by those in every part of the country affected by the agreement, and until such time as we know whether the intermediate tariff is to be modified, increased or reduced at this present session of parliament we cannot properly deal with the agreement or give effect to its schedules.


Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk):: I am sure that the house will freely acknowledge its indebtedness to both the right hon. gentlemen who have participated in this debate. I should like at the outset to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), first upon the success that attended his efforts in negotiating this trade agreement and then upon the very complete and masterly presentation which he made of the case in favour of this resolution. May I likewise compliment the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) upon the interesting and forceful address which he has just delivered in the house. He has made perfectly clear to hon. members and to the people of Canada his opposition to this trade agreement as it stands, and I think he has also made it perfectly clear that if the Canadian people had elected a Conservative administration Canada would not now have any trade agreement with the United States. May I also add a personal tribute to the Prime Minister for the splendid thought that actuated him in endeavouring to conclude his negotiations with the United States so that he might be able to announce on November 11, Armistice Day, the making of an agreement between Canada and the United States, thereby, Mr. Speaker, setting an example to the rest of the world in that on Armistice Day Canada and the United States were thinking of trade in terms of peace when much of the rest of the world was thinking of war.
It will not be possible for me, in the short space of time at my disposal, to deal with the various items in the schedules attached to the trade agreement, but I should like to state certain fundamental principles and certarn reasons why I for one support this agreement We on this side of the house support it for a number of reasons. In the first place it shows a new attitude towards international trade. It recognizes officially that the Liberal party regards trade not as war but as the peaceful exchange of goods based upon mutual advantage. That was recognized by the persona

Canada-TJ&. Trade Agreement
who took part in the signing of the agreement Mr. Cordell Hull, Secretary of State of the United States, made this statement:
Underlying this agreement are the twin policies of the good neighbour and mutually profitable trade.
When the Prime Minister spoke the other day he made perfectly clear the attitude of the Liberal party. In the course of his remarks he said:
May I say at once that we sought an agreement which would be fair and square and which would be helpful to both countries.
I submit also, Mr. Speaker, that this agreement will provide freer entry into the United States of a great number of primary products than has been the case heretofore. We have had concessions given to us with regard to agricultural products, fishery products, forest products and mineral products. The right hon. leader of the opposition sought to minimize the extent of these concessions to the primary producers of Canada. In a sense perhaps we ought to feel grateful to him for his remarks, because they will strengthen the hands of President Roosevelt in repelling the attacks that are being made in the United States against this agreement, on the grounds that the United States will be flooded with Canadian products. That is the argument there; we have heard the contrary argument here. Somewhere between the two lies the truth, and the truth is that the agreement is based on fair and square dealing on the basis of mutual advantage. I for one rejoice at the reversal of the trend of policy of the United States. The president of the United States made reference to this change when he said:
The signing of this agreement marks the reversal of the trend of the last two decades towards undue and unnecessary trade barriers between our two countries. I am confident that this constructive step will contribute greatly to the economic recovery of both the United States and Canada.
The basic wealth of Canada is in its primary production, but that basic wealth is of no value to those who produce it unless it can be made to circulate. We' on this side of the house feel that this trade agreement will stimulate the circulation of that basic wealth, with benefit to the body politic.
There is another reason why we support this trade agreement. We feel that it will ease the burden of the primary producer. There are reductions in the duty on implements of production, and it is essential to the welfare of the primary producer that his costs of production should be lowered in every possible way. Indeed there are many
of us on this side who would criticize this trade agreement in that it does not go far enough in the reduction of duties.
This agreement also remembers one who was forgotten during the lifetime of the previous administration. I refer to the consumer; the tariff reductions now provided for will reduce the cost of living to the consumers of Canada.
During the course of this debate mention has been made of the Ottawa agreements. I express the hope that never again will this country make an agreement along the lines and principles of the Ottawa agreements. I regard them as a dangerous step in the direction of economic imperialism. They are based upon wrong principles of bargaining and they are restrictive of trade agreements with other countries of the world. The trade agreement with the United Kingdom contained a very dangerous and iniquitous clause; I refer to article 9, which reads:
His Majesty's government in Canada will invite parliament to pass the legislation necessary to substitute for the duties of customs now leviable on the goods specified in schedule E the duties shown in that schedule, provided that nothing in this article shall preclude His Majesty's government in Canada from reducing the duties specified in the said schedule so long as the margin of British preference shown in that schedule is preserved or from increasing the rates under the intermediate or general tariff set out in the said schedule.
I stress the words, "so long as the margin of British preference shown in that schedule is preserved," and I say that as long as that clause remains in the Ottawa agreements it is impossible, in respect of the articles covered by them, to make with other countries such trade treaties as we should like to make. As an illustration I mention cream separators. In 1930 cream separators entered this country free under all tariffs. Our importations for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1930, totalled $955,000, of which 71 [DOT] 4 per cent came from the United States, 13-6 per cent from Sweden, six per cent from Denmark, and 3-4 per cent from France, with no importations at all from Great Britain. Then both the intermediate and general tariffs were increased to twenty-five per cent while cream separators continued to come in free under the British preference. In 1935 the total importations fell to $362,788. Only 11-4 per cent of our importations of cream separators came from Great Britain, and a duty of twenty-five per cent was imposed on 88-6 per cent of our imports of cream separators. A monopoly was created in Canada in respect of these articles. Our hands are tied with regard to cream separators;
Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement

as long as the Ottawa agreements are in effect we cannot make a trade treaty affecting cream separators with any of the countries with which we trade. Further than that, we cannot reduce the duty on cream separators below twenty-five per cent as long as the Ottawa agreements remain in force, because we have guaranteed to the United Kingdom a twenty-five per cent margin of preference. This is an iniquitous clause, which should be repealed when the Ottawa agreements come up for revision.
There are fundamental and important differences between this agreement and the Ottawa agreements. In this agreement we are making a retreat from economic imperialism and breaking the crust of economic nationalism. Both economic imperialism and economic nationalism are wrong policies for this country to follow; the only safe course for Canada to travel in matters of trade is that of internationalism, and we are now travelling on that safe highway in the direction of greater world trade, while the right hon. leader of the opposition and his followers are still mired in the slough of economic nationalism. No country is more dependent upon foreign markets than is Canada; no country is more dependent upon export trade, even though the percentage of our total production that is exported is as the leader of the opposition stated this afternoon. Export trade and foreign markets are of prime importance to the Dominion of Canada.
There is another reason why this trade agreement is preferable to the Ottawa agreements; the latter were restrictive of trade, and they have had the effect of creating an unfriendly sentiment in Great Britain towards Canada. There was a sigh of relief in Great Britain when the previous administration was so overwhelmingly defeated at the polls, just as there was a sigh of relief in this country. On the other hand the United States trade agreement will be productive of trade arrangements with other countries. This country will receive the benefit of all such trade treaties as the United States will make with other countries, and the benefits of all such treaties will inure to Canada. There is no guarantee of any fixed margin of preference in this agreement, and there is nothing to prevent reductions of duties. If I had been asked the question whether we are going to increase the intermediate tariff my answer would have been emphatically in the negative.
Another reason why we favour this trade agreement in preference to the Ottawa agreements is that in this one all the revisions of

tariff duties are downward, which was not so in the case of the Ottawa agreements. I am one of those who feel that, when the time comes to consider what shall be done with regard to the Ottawa agreements, there should be a drastic revision of them.
The Liberal party was returned to power by a tremendous majority. The voice of the people spoke with no uncertain sound. That voice expressed discontent with existing conditions and with the policy of the previous administration. If there was any mandate at all in that vote of the Canadian people it was most emphatically a mandate that there should be substantial tariff reductions.
I should like to compliment the Prime Minister upon the campaign that he conducted during the last election. He appealed for the suffrages of the people on fundamental principles and refused to be led into any campaign of competitive promises. The Liberal tariff policy has been clearly laid down. It was laid down in Winnipeg on January 12, 1932, when the Prime Minister stated:
As time goes on conditions change, and what for yesterday may have been the wisest step, for to-morrow may be a step which, if taken at all, should be taken with great caution. Speaking broadly, however, were we face to face with the electorate to-morrow I should not hesitate to say that, having regard to adjustments here and there, of which account would of necessity have to be taken, the Liberal party if returned to office would restore the tariff structure of this country to levels at least the equivalent of those which existed when we went out of office. What Canada requires above all else to-day is a policy which will be more concerned with encouraging exports than with keeping out imports.
Then in the South Huron by-election the Prime Minister repeated what he said at Winnipeg:
I want to say at once that the Liberal party in Canada has never at any time had a belief in the efficacy of high tariffs. Our view is that economic conditions not only permit but demand with respect to world trade an immediate substantial general reduction in customs duties, and for the purposes of greater freedom of trade within the British Empire no uncertain increase in the British preference.
I would repeat to-day what I said' at Winnipeg before the opening of the last session of parliament-that the Canadian tariff should be brought immediately to the level of what it was at the time the Liberal party went out of office in 1930; in other words to a level the equivalent of that established by the Dunning budget.
This was not only the declaration of the leader of the Liberal party; it was the policy of the Liberal party as a whole. This policy was put clearly before the people in every part of Canada from coast to coast. One of the reasons why I support this trade agreement strongly is that it is in accord with Liberal

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement
policy; it is a step in the right direction The Canadian people will greet this as a first step, with other steps to follow; they will accept this agreement with the United States as a first instalment in redemption of the pledge given to them by the Liberal party.
Our policy with regard to the tariff is twofold; we believe in making trade agreements on a reciprocal basis with all countries that are willing to trade with us, and we hope that this trade agreement is the first of many similar ones that will be negotiated by the Canadian government. I should like to see the government commence immediately negotiations with Russia with a view to concluding a trade agreement with that country. I believe we could make with Russia a trade agreement that would be of advantage to that country and decidedly advantageous to Canada. We could buy from Russia oil and coal, and we could sell to her machinery and manufactured goods. Great Britain has made a trade agreement with Russia. There is nothing dangerous in making such an agreement, and we should at once embark upon an investigation of the possibilities of concluding a trade agreement with that country.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Might I ask the hon. member what party it was that broke off trade relationships with Russia?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not think that has anything to do with the present discussion. We in common with others suffered from the insanity of economic nationalism, but it is my hope that we are emerging from that insanity-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Hear, hear.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: -and are now upon the pathway towards a sound economic policy.
I think we could make a trade agreement with Germany. Mr. James Richardson after being there indicated that he had heard many expressions of opinion in that country to the effect that they would be willing to buy Canadian wheat if we were ready to buy German goods. And we could make trade agreements with a number of other countries. I have personal knowledge that the small country of Iceland, from which my parents came, would be very glad indeed to make a trade agreement with Canada. Might I digress for a moment and on behalf of the people of Iceland thank both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition for their splendid efforts in bringing about on the occasion of the one thousandth anniversary of parliament in Iceland a presentation to that country of a scholarship fund. I am sure that no gift from Canada to the people of Iceland could have been more welcome.
Our policy should be one of trade. Our wealth can be increased only by the exchange of goods, and a policy whereby there will be an exchange of goods is essential to a return to prosperity. Any persons or any party who preach that we cannot build up an exchange of goods preach a defeatist policy.
Our tariff policy is not confined to the making of trade treaties. If we can get concessions from other countries, well and good; we accept them gladly. But it is the view of a great number of people in Canada who have suffered from the high tariff policies of the previous administration, that we should make substantial and immediate reductions in the tariff, whether we get corresponding concessions from other countries or not.
Practically the whole of the argument of the right hon. gentleman opposite was directed to his contention that we did not get adequate consideration from the United States in respect of the concessions we gave that country. If I were to have any quarrel with the trade agreement now before us it would be that we have not sufficiently lowered our own tariff. We do not regard the tariff as an instrument to be used exclusively for bargaining purposes. The right hon. gentleman asked: What else have we to bargain with? Heaven knows that a tariff which still reaches over 200 per cent protection, in some instances, leaves ample room for reduction, whether such reduction be brought about as a result of reciprocal trade treaties or as a consequence of unilateral reductions in the tariff.
There are many people in Canada who are not satisfied with the reductions which have already taken place. The Canadian people are demanding a lower tariff, in the interests of both primary producers and consumers. They are not satisfied with the tariff reductions that have already been made. The debate in committee of ways and means will show the outrageous protection still in force; there are numerous commodities on which the people of Canada are undoubtedly demanding substantial tariff reductions. For instance, they want reductions on oil, gasoline, agricultural implements and textiles. There are many of us who feel that we must lower the costs of production and the cost of living. The primary producer has had to accommodate himself to world prices. In this country we cannot continue to bonus every form of production, as we have been attempting to do. Such a course of procedure is artificial and ruinous. We must restore the balance between prices of agricultural products and those of manufactured goods, and that balance can be brought about only by tariff reductions. Industry would not suffer as a
Copyright Act-Mr. Esling

result of such reductions. The whole country would gain through increased volume of trade, and the resulting increased purchasing power of the consumer.
One of the curses in Canada lies in the monopolies which have been developed. It is our duty to break up concentrations of wealth and these monopolies and, as best we can, to bring about a fair policy of competition, with no special privileges.
The Canadian people have spoken in an emphatic and distinct voice. They have voiced their discontent; they have given a mandate to the Liberal party, and to-day that party is on trial. As Liberals it is our duty to obey the wishes of our people and to carry out the mandate entrusted to us. I support this resolution as strongly as possible, believing we are beginning a new era of international trade, based upon principles of international good will and mutual advantage, and that we are witnessing the inauguration of a fiscal' policy suited to the needs of the Canadian people and designed to promote their welfare.
On motion of Mr. Thorson, the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



VACANCY

Walter Edward Foster: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication from several members, notifying me that the following vacancy has occurred in the representation in the House of Commons, for the electoral district of Antigonish-GuySborough, in the province of Nova Scotia, consequent upon William Duff, Esquire, the member therefor, having been summoned to the Senate.



COPYRIGHT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West) moved the second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Copyright Amendment Act, 1931.
He said; Mr. Speaker, the suggestion aws that the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) might go home to celebrate his natal anniversary this evening, and as this bill comes under his department it was my intention to let it stand until the next sitting, but inasmuch as the minister is here, I think we might as well proceed.
There is one primary thought which ought to be remembered by members in the con-

sideration of this bill, and that is that the work and achievement and the genius of an author or composer are his own personal property, and it must be protected just as much as a vested right in real estate. The author or composer has a claim to an indefeasible title to anything he produces.
I think the next fact to be considered is that the public must pay for the production of music. Canada was a signatory to the Berne convention and by virtue of that fact our Canadian authors and composers are protected in other countries just as the authors and composers of other countries are protected in Canada. So there are two phases of this copyright act which must be borne in mind.
The operations of the Canadian Performing Right Society became so reckless, shall I say, as to become, well, nothing short of a racket; so much so that complaints were made to the Secretary of State and it was deemed wise to appoint a royal commissioner to make a thorough investigation of this society. I am very glad that the Secretary of State has furnished the members wfth a copy of the report of His Honour Judge Parker because, Mr. Speaker, there is no use discussing a bill unless the members are fully informed on their topic. The operations of the Canadian Performing Right Society are a matter of vital interest to every community, large and small, in this dominion, and therefore of vital importance to every member who desires to serve his community.
This question goes back to the amendment to the copyright act that was made in 1931, where authority was given to companies controlling copyright to issue licences and collect fees from those who performed music in public. I repeat that when that amendment was made it expressed the unanimous voice of the house because the general intention was that the amendment was for the protection of Canadian authors, composers and publishers. The very name of the society bears that out-the Canadian Performing Right Society. But as a matter of fact we find that Canadian authors and composers do not participate in or benefit by the collection of these licence fees in any way whatsoever.
The Canadian Performing Right Society, as I stated on the first reading of this bill, was the outcome of some genius in the United States or England. In the United States the American Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers exists, and in England there is the Performing Right Society of England, with which are affiliated similar societies in other countries, all signatories to the Berne con-
FEBRUARY 28, 1936	f
Copyright Act-Mr. Chevrier (Ottawa)
vention, and they are all authorized under the authority of their respective countries to issue licences and to collect fees.
Throughout the Dominion of Canada every broadcasting station, every theatre, every radio in a hotel or restaurant and every public hall of any kind, whether it be a fraternity or community hall, every place in which music is played for public purposes, is called upon to pay a licence fee under the amendment to section 10 of the 1931 copyright act. The Canadian Performing Right Society is composed, as I stated on the first reading, of the American company, the English company and some eighteen European companies. They have not very much of a financial set up in Canada, the capital structure consisting of 10,000 no par value shares, and only two shares are held in Canada. The directors are resident three in the United States, one in England, and two provisional directors in Toronto.
Moreover, there is no limit, it seems, to the licence fee they can charge. When they commenced their operations they fixed the minimum charge at S10 per year for every hotel, restaurant, and public hall, but in January, 1935, they arbitrarily raised that minimum from $10 to $30. Now the point is this, that there is nothing to prevent them from raising the rates much higher again. They have already made this arbitrary raise of the minimum from $10 to $30. as I have mentioned, and also in January, 1935, they raised the rate on theatres from a minimum of ten cents a seat to 15 and 20 cents a seat. Many of the larger theatres have not paid that higher rate because they can afford to fight any attempt at extortion, but the little fellows cannot afford to hire lawyers, and through fear and threats pay the fee, whether they believe it to be excessive or not. The theatres in 1934 paid this Canadian Performing Right Society, the company in which there are no Canadians participating at all, the sum of $50,000, and in 1935 the rate to the theatres was raised The radio broadcasting stations paid to the Canadian Performing Right Society approximately $63,000 in 1934, and in 1935 that was raised approximately to $83,000. The hotel and radio fees were doubled from $25,000 to $50,000 in 1935.
There is also the fact that any other society in Canada can, under section 10 of the copyright act, 1931, go out and levy a similar toll. There is nothing in the world to prevent two or three or four or as many companies as you please from incorporating and collecting these tolls, and their minimum fee may be ten or twenty or thirty dollars.
The present company rule entirely by threats, and the fear which they instil in the hearts of the small theatre owners compels them to pay. Only to-day I had a communication from a law firm in regard to the case of a little fellow who had been trying to create some amusement for the people at the beach. With his own hands he spent two and a half months building a hall, and at the end of the season, after the cottagers had left, along came the Canadian Performing Right Society collector, demanding $30, or more money than the boy had taken in. He paid it out of fear and had practically nothing left for his work.
Throughout British Columbia the Canadian Performing Right Society, apparently fearing that this investigation by Judge Parker would result in legislation which would curb their operations, sent men into the field collecting money here, there and everywhere, wherever they could get it. If any fraternal society refused to pay the $30 as required they would come back and take $20 or $10 or anything they could get.
I have introduced this bill in the hope that there will be a full and free discussion on the part of all hon. members so that something may be done to curb what can be nothing but a means .of extorting money from the Canadian public.
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The main reason I rise on this occasion is that we are concerned with the second reading of this bill; and, according to the practice that prevails in this house, whoever allows the passing of the second reading is regarded as a matter of course as assenting to the principle of the bill.
My stand on this matter goes back fifteen years in the house, and you, Mr. Speaker, and some of the other members, are familiar with my views regarding copyright. This evening I desire to approach this question from one point only, namely, the question of rights. It is well known that we are now a party to the convention of Berne. There are two classes of authors: those who are our own nationals and those who belong to nations which are parties to the Beme convention and are neither Canadians nor Canadian nationals. So far as our own nationals are concerned, we may violate the convention of Berne from the first to the last letter; we may stultify ourselves by proclaiming any arbitrary measure to the detriment of our own nationals, and. it is up to our own authors to suffer. But as adherents to the Berne convention we have

642	COMMONS
Copyright Act

Mr. Chevrier (Ottawa)
to respect that international undertaking, and under the terms of that convention copyright exists in every one of the countries that are participants in the convention, and that without any formality whatsoever. As regards all works, whether literary or artistic, no formality need be complied with to secure copyright. The ownership in the copyright may be in the author or it may be in his assignee, and as the hon. gentleman who is proposing the bill (Mr. Esling) has said, the right to the copyright must be respected just as much as is a title to real estate.
Unfortunately in Canada that is not so. Those who in the past have been charged with the elaboration of a copyright act have always and to this moment neglected to protect the copyright holder. The most glaring evidence of that was given before one of the committees of the house when a gentleman from Toronto came to give evidence and declared that he represented the Copyright Protective Association. On examination of that witness it was found that the shareholders and those who composed the Copyright Protective Association were paper makers, dealers in twine, dealers in paste, and dealers in ink and typesetting, but there was not a single owner of a copyright nor was there one author in that corporation. We have neglected to safeguard the rights of authors.
For many years we have been endeavouring to provide remedies and to afford some measure of protection, but the law as it now stands is a fearful testimony to the monumental lack of protection. With reference to these two kinds of authors, we may do as we please with our own nationals; but as regards those who are not Canadian nationals, they retain their right to copyright and have a perfect right to charge whatever they may wish to exact in connection with the performance or reproduction of their works, whether literary or artistic. I protested vigorously in the name of these outside authors when this law was enacted. True, I recognize that there must not be a monopoly; true, these artistic or literary works may be reproduced for the good of the community. But after all the authors have a perfect right to say whether for So or S50 or for nothing at all their works may be reproduced.
It may be objected that in the patent law the ownership is taken away after a certain length of time. There may be some difference as 'between copyright in a piece of music and a patent on a wonderful instrument or an improvement, whether in connection with

the telephone, the telegraph, the Marconi system or some of the most recent developments of science. There may be something in that. But there is no particular reason why the rights of composers to fees should be taken away from them and should be given some arbitrary compensation.
Is there any real reason why there should be a corporation called the Performing Right Society? I am not at all concerned with the Performing Right Society. As to whether it exists I am not concerned in the slightest degree. But it will be recognized at once that authors belonging to those nations of Europe and of other parts of the world subscribing to the Berne convention cannot very 'well supervise the collection of their own fees in Canada, any more than Canadian authors can supervise the collection of royalties in Japan, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Italy and other countries that are adherents to the convention. Some association must exist for the collection of these fees. I have not gone into the question, but it may be a fact that in the Performing Right Society there are no Canadians who have assigned to that corporation any of their rights. Nevertheless there are authors and copyright holders, assignees of those rights, who have handed over to that corporation the collection of their fees. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Canadian Performing Right Society should have the right to charge something outrageous, but we are faced with this problem:	We belong to the convention
of Berne or we do not. We have signed that international convention' we are bound to adhere to its tenets, and I submit that we cannot by this means interfere with the rights and the royalties of those authors and composers and assignees thereof who are not nationals. It is all very well to say that there is a racket-probably there is; I am not concerned for the moment whether there is or not-and to say that enormous fees are being charged. But I think that what was shown under past circumstances is well within the memory of any hon. member who has sat in the house for some years.
I did not intend to speak on this matter this evening, but I collected just at random one or two items from a most voluminous collection of documents that I happen to have, and if I am allowed I shall cite one or two of them. It was disclosed before the committee on railways and shipping on June 24, 1931, with reference to Canadian National broadcasting that the total amount paid for talent in 1930 was 895,073.82. This was for the artists who performed the copyrighted works; 195,000 was paid to the per-

Copyright Act-Mr. Chevrier (Ottawa)
formers of those compositions. And when I asked this question in the house on July 2, 1931:
What amount of money was paid by the Canadian National Railway Company to authors and composers of copyrighted music and of other works, as fees or royalties for the use of the said copyrighted music or other works by the said Canadian National Railways broadcasting stations in Canada during the past twelve months?
-the period corresponding to that within which $95,073.82 had been paid for talent- I was answered by the then Minister of Railways that the sum paid in copyrights was the magnificent one of $20.42. The authors obtained $20.42 in order that those who performed those copyrighted works might obtain $95,073.82, and for rentals the additional sum of $60,756.23. I leave it to hon. members to say, first, whether a racket exists, and, second, where the racket does exist; whether the author derives a comparable benefit for the work which he puts on the market.
Going back to the 1931 committee I recall the evidence of Mr. Gitz Rice. If there is any racket let us see where it is. He said, at page 78 of the report of the committee's proceedings on June 30, 1931:
Since I started my profession of song writing I have been very fortunate in writing some of the world' war's greatest songs. I have yet to collect the first cent from my own country, Canada, for them.
And further down he says:
The composer always gets the worst of it, no matter where you go.
And he adds:
At the same time the Victor Berliner Company of Montreal, published 250,000 records of McCormack singing "Dear Old Pal of Mine,"-
-written by Mr. Gitz Rice-
-and never paid me a cent.
It is with those two views in mind that I approach this question. The first one is, as I have said, that under the terms of the convention of Berne we may do as we please with our own people; we may humiliate them to our hearts' satisfaction by not allowing them to get any of the fees and royalties to which they are entitled, but at the same time I say that so long as we are participants in the convention of Berne we cannot arbitrarily determine what the compensation or royalties shall be to those who are not nationals.
In passing I may say that we have placed ourselves through our copyright law in a very bad light so far as European countries are concerned. In the last few years I have received a large number of comments upon our law, and I am afraid that some of them, ex-12739- 4li
pressed by leading lawyers and jurisconsults of the continent, would be hardly parliamentary. I have under my hand one from M. Francois Hepp, who is a Doctor of Law in Paris. What he says is this:
Un texte legislatif important, et qui ne peut sembler aux amis du "Droit d'Auteur" que vraiment bizarre (sinon monstrueux), a ete vote, le 17 avril 1935, en troisieme lecture.
A free translation of that is:
An important legislative .text, which may seem to the friends of "Droit d'Auteur" nothing less than peculiar (if not monstrous) was voted on third reading on April 17, 1935, by the Canadian Senate.
That in effect is what leading experts on copyright law say of our present Canadian copyright act.
I suggest that there should be a complete revision of that act, with a view of doing exactly what its title says, making it an act for the protection of copyright and not an act for the protection of everything but copyright. If we go back to the origins of the law -I am not going to trace them-whether common law or statute law, we shall find that in those countries where people were moved by the fairness of the right of the copyright holder, be he composer or author, justice was done to him; also that justice has not been done to our Canadian authors and composers. I shall give but one illustration of the sacredness of copyright, going back to the very earliest times of the colony. I remember reading in the Relations of the Jesuit Fathers that an Indian had his own war song and that nobody else was allowed to sing it; if some one did so it was the right of the one whose copyright had been infringed to engage in warfare and to kill that person if he could. So that copyright goes as far back as the Indians of the earliest days of the colony, and I deplore the fact that even to this day Canadian authors do not enjoy, not the right of life and death over their infringers, but a fair measure of security.
I understand that the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) proposes at a later date to introduce a bill to implement in some respects the report of Judge Parker. This is neither the time nor the place to discuss that report but I am very much afraid that we shall be faced again with the same situation, namely, trying to determine rights in respect of something over which we have no jurisdiction whatever. It may be true that monopolies exist in Canada as regards the collection of these fees, but I pointed out on another occasion that the place to deal with the matter was not on copyright legislation. There is another statute the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and
Copyright Act-Mr. Cahan

if we must do something by legislation, why not place that provision in the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act and take it out of the copyright act. No other copyright legislation in the world contains such a provision. The place to have it, if you must have it, is outside the statute altogether.
I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, again to say that when the matter arises at a later date either in committee or on the third reading, I shall declare my complete opposition to anything which infringes the conditions under which we entered into the convention of Berne. With all deference I say that the government would be well advised to wait until the next convention takes place in Brussels next September. Then, in the light of what takes place there, after a study .of the grievances that have been alleged against [DOT]our own system and after consultation with experts representing the various other countries, a measure can be framed which we can truly call a copyright act, which will contain the essential of copyright, which is the protection of the copyright owner.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: I should like
to ask the hon. member if the Berne agreement protects against reproduction or against reception.


Mr. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: In the Canadian act there is a provision with reference to radio; I suppose that is what the hon. gentleman means. That applies the provisions of the Berne convention to reproduction by radio.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Kootenay West (Mr. Esling) has directed attention to evils that were persistently brought to the notice of the previous government. The hon. gentleman is entirely in error when he suggests that the copyright legislation of 1931 first authorized the owners of musical copyrights to license the performing rights in such copyright. That authorization has existed for many years.
The legislation of 1931 was directed to the regulation and control of such associations and companies as had acquired musical copyrights, and were exercising those rights by making utterly unjust demands upon the public for the use of their performing rights. I know the hon. member for East Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) has some very strong views on the matter. From time to time he has presented them before this house and before .several of the committees of this house, but neither in the committees nor in the house has he obtained legislative recognition of those views.
XMr. E. R. E. Chevrier.]
During the last session these evils became so apparent that it became necessary for the government to appoint a commission to make a judicial inquiry into the facts in order to ascertain whether and to what extent these allegations of monopoly and unjust price were founded in fact. The amendment of last year, therefore, had in view the appointment of such a commission. That legislation passed, I think, without dissent; certainly, as far as I remember, it passed without dissent from the hon. member for Ottawa East, and at an early date the government did appoint a royal commission to make the inquiry.
I have read cursorily the report of that commission; I know from the newspaper reports that the investigation was a long and exhaustive one. I know the various interests were represented there by some of the ablest counsel that could be procured in Canada, and there these questions were fought out. If the government of which I was formerly a member had remained in office I have no doubt that on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, after an investigation had been held, either by order in council, as authorized under the act, or by legislation, some real effort would have been made to regulate or suppress the evils which had grown up. This is a matter with which the government must deal, I think, as a government, simply because in dealing with it the government must comply with the obligations which this country has undertaken by becoming a party to the Berne convention. That convention was signed by the preceding government of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and the duty and obligation was placed upon the succeeding government, which was the late government, of seeing to it that the convention was conserved, but also that any evils which had grown up, under the organization of a Canadian company called the Canadian Performing Right Society, Limited, should be mitigated and if possible restrained.
Undoubtedly, I think, under the Berne convention this parliament has a right to deal with radio communication, and under that convention there is no restriction upon our right to enforce criminal and quasicriminal measures. Under the Berne convention there is no restriction to our right to put an end to price-fixing and extortion such as has been alleged in connection with the Canadian Performing Right Society, Limited. I will not say that this was founded on fact, because I have not had an opportunity of reading the evidence which was heard by the commission; that evidence was returned to

Copyright Act-Mr. Rinjret
the Secretary of State after I left office, and this government must now deal with that matter. We have had an assurance by the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) that this government will deal with the matter, and I think we may feel confident that a matter of this kind will be dealt with effectively.
Therefore I would suggest to the hon. mem-er for Kootenay West either that he have this debate adjourned until such time as it can be ascertained whether or not the measures proposed by the government are effective, or that this bill be withdrawn as premature. The evils cannot be dealt with as the hon. member for West Kootenay has attempted to deal with them in this measure; I am quite clear as to that. But that they can be dealt with under the recommendations, or some of the recommendations, made by the commissioner, who sat and heard evidence for months, I believe is possible, and therefore I think it would be far better to leave the government free to deal with these evils.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, I think even this short debate will have convinced the house that this matter of copyright is a very complex problem. In two successive speeches we have heard the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling) contending that there is a racket in the matter of exacting fees in favour of the composers, and the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Chevrier), who quoted what he said was a celebrated jurist, contending that it is monstrous that the fees exacted should be so small and of so little benefit to the composers of music. 1 herefore I think I am safe in concurring in the statement made by my predecessor in office (Mr. Cahan) that strong views are entertained on both sides of the question, and that an effort should be made to reconcile those views and introduce legislation which will assure an even measure of justice.
As to the principle of the bill, I fully agree with the sponsor that it is desirable to give effect by legislation to the results of the inquiry made by Judge Parker. But we cannot dissociate this intention from the provisions of the bill which are known to us, and I completely disagree with him as to the methods by which he proposes that the house should follow up the report made by Judge Parker. I may not have time to go into details to-night, but I think it could easily be proved that in both respects he is completely in disagreement with Judge Parker. Inasmuch as my hon. friend has praised the appointment of a royal commission I believe he will be willing to support
the government when a bill is brought down that will embody more completely the recommendations made by Judge Parker.
In passing let me say that although I have on more than one occasion supported the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Chevrier) in his efforts to obtain a good copyright law-in this country, I am not in agreement with him on the point that is under discussion just now. This bill, the bill I shall bring in and the inquiry made by Judge Parker deal merely with the activities of the Canadian Performing Right Society, and I contend that this society has placed itself in a position where special measures are absolutely necessary to meet the situation. The society may own copyrights on foreign music, but it is a Canadian organization, very close to a monopoly, and I must say most decidedly, as the minister charged with the administration of copyright, that I consider its activities are distinctly in opposition to the in-< terests of true copyright as I understand it. I believe that if an individual composer of music takes advantage of the present law he can have the fullest protection, but when we have to deal with a monopoly, a society owning thousands or hundreds of thousands; of musical compositions, we certainly have-to adopt towards such a company special provisions in the act. The hon. member for Ottawa East himself agreed that that might be necessary, but he said: Why not do it by another act? In reply I say that if he is agreeable to have it in another act, why should he oppose having it in this one, because the effect will be the same, the result will be identical, whether we deal with that society by the copyright act or the Combines Investigation Act. All that the Canadian Performing Right Society does is to hold a monopoly on musical compositions and exact fees for the use of them. This is not copyright in the true sense of the word. We have never known how the money collected is distributed to the composers. I am still at a loss to find out how this is done. In dealing with this society we are facing not copyright but a special application of it, and personally I do not think there would be any conflict with the Berne convention in having special sections dealing, with this society.
What the former Secretary of State did was to have an act passed in 1931 forcing this society and others of the same character, if they exist, to file a statement of their fees with the Department of the Secretary of State, and if there was opposition or conflict over those fees the act provided for the appoint-
Copyright Act-Mr. Rinfret

ment of a commissioner to make inquiry. That is what was done, and we now have in our hands the report of Judge Parker, appointed a commissioner on March 22, 1935, to investigate the whole situation. I would say to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling) that although he professes to follow the work of the commissioner, in both of the sections that he proposes, he has completely missed the point made by Judge Parker. In the first place my hon. friend wants to fix maximum fees for the performance of musical compositions either over the radio or in theatres or otherwise, and if there is anything that is very plain in the report of Judge Parker it is that he said that should be dealt with only on the actual situation. He does admit that the whole matter is in the experimental stage, and his chief proposal is:
That the copyright act be amended so as to provide for the establishment of an appeal tribunal, to determine disputes arising out of performance in public and to approve of the tariffs of the Canadian Performing Right Society, Limited, from time to time before they become effective.
In other words, far from recommending any permanent fee the recommendation of Judge Parker is that there should be a tribunal that would every year, if there is any discussion as to the fees filed in the Department of the Secretary of State, hear such appeals.
In the second section of my hon. friend's bill he proposes that the society should not only file a list of its musical compositions with the Department of the Secretary of State, but also furnish a copy of such list to hotels and restaurants and other places where such performances may be heard. On that point also he is in complete disagreement *with the report of Judge Parker, who at page 33 makes it very plain that he does not think the society may be in a position to file any complete list with the Secretary of State or to supply that list to every performer of the music. I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West that there is some ground for the argument that if you do charge a fee on music the least you can do would be to tell the performer what music that is. The fact that they cannot supply lists shows conclusively that this society is a monopoly of a very special character and that we cannot deal with it in the same way as if it were a true and complete owner of copyrights in the real sense of the word.
The hon. member for Ottawa East has cited a case which is very pathetic, that of the composer of the famous song "Dear Old Pal of Mine." I think we all agree that that song was sung everywhere, not only in this country but in the United States, and that the com-
MV. Rinfret.]
poser did not have even the slight redress that could be exercised now in favour of a similar case. But I say again that if we had to deal with individual cases I would advocate that the law be made if possible more strict in favour of the composer. But I ask my hon. friend to consider that any bill we introduce must deal with the special case of the Canadian Performing Right Society, and that case cannot ibe dealt with in the same spirit or regulated in the same way as if we were dealing with individual composers.
I thank the former Secretary of State for the proposal he made, which I am also going to make to the mover of this bill, that he either let his bill stand or else withdraw it until the government through myself present to the house the bill that we have in mind. It is -not customary to disclose the contents of a bill before it is given first reading because, like everything else, it is subject to changes. I may say, however, that it is the intention of the government to present a bill which will follow closely the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Parker. The bill will tend to create a tribunal of appeal where, every year at a certain period, performers may appeal from the fees of the Canadian Performing Right Society, and other societies. We wish to observe the principle mentioned to-night by the hon. member for Ottawa East that the owner of the copyright in the first place should file a fee which he believes to be proper. Inasmuch as we have to deal with what I shall again describe as a monopoly, we also want to give to the performer the opportunity of coming before the tribunal each year at a certain date to appeal from the fees fixed or registered in my department by such societies. I think we should preserve both principles, that of the free ownership of a copyright and, at the same time, that of regulating against a monopoly wherever it exists.
Further, it will be necessary to provide for the transition period between the time Mr. Justice Parker was appointed and the time the new bill will be in operation. A bill was passed in 1935 covering the circumstances, whereby no action may be taken in the recovery of fees pending the inquiry. But from the time that Mr. Justice Parker was appointed until the time the new bill will be in effect, and, if we provide for a tribunal, until the time when the appeal would have been heard by that tribunal, it will be necessary to cover the transition period. That will have to be done by the Secretary of State with the consent of parliament. Provision will be made therefor in the incoming bill.

Dominion Franchise Act
Supported by the Secretary of State of the late administration-and I again thank him for his support because we happen to be of the same mind-I renew my request to have the hon. member's consent to let the bill stand, and not force second reading. If he should do otherwise I would have to vote against it.


James Samuel Taylor: It seems to me that protection of copyright lies within the whole field of reproduction, and not that of reception. I hope the government is taking that point into consideration. It seems to me ridiculous that the owner of a radio receiving set should be compelled to pay for everything he receives.


Lionel Chevrier: There is
nothing in the act about that.
On motion of Mr. Neill the debate was adjourned.



DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Dominion Franchise Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the house to speak again, as this bill comes under my jurisdiction. I believe the provisions in the bill are self-explanatory and should not prove contentious. The object of the bill is simply to postpone for one year the revision of the existing lists. As hon. members are aware a committee of the house has been agreed upon and will soon be formed to study amendments to the elections act and the Dominion Franchise Act. Many proposals have come from different sources respecting amendments to the electoral law.
In the debate on the address several hon. members referred to changes which should be made in our electoral law. Further references have been made in the press and in private correspondence indicating a strong desire to amend the elections act and the Dominion Franchise Act. Under the circumstances the postponement of the annual revision to take place this year seemed the obvious procedure. There is no desire to cast any reflection upon the existing law. My own experience has been that it has worked very well in more than one particular, and I pay my respects to the former government in its execution of this legislation. I may say that the law has functioned well in the district in which I happened to live during election time, and there is not the least desire to cast any reflections upon the law when, in the name of the government, I propose the postponement of the revision.
I would bring to the attention of the house the fact, in the first place, that a revision is very costly. A question on the order paper has asked for the full costs of preparing the lists for the last general election, a procedure which of course was quite necessary, and for the costs in connection with the revision which took place last May.
So that hon. members may have the facts may I say that when the dominion franchise commissioner placed his estimates before me he had two sets of proposals. If there was to be no revision he was satisfied with a sum of about $16,000, but if there was to be a revision he asked for $350,000. Hon. members will understand that these expenditures are very great. It is my opinion that in the city ridings, at least, the revision would bring very small results. It is not likely that electors would be anxious to attend before a revising officer, because the election is far away, and the incentive for attendance is lacking. I do not believe many hon. members would be in favour of spending a huge sum of money upon a revision at this time. Were we to have a revision we would have to pay a high price for it, and probably get only small results.
The only reason, however, from the administrative point of view, which has governed the submission of the bill is that we are likely to have amendments to the electoral law before the end of the present session. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has pointed out-and his observations have been approved by many hon. members-that it is better to amend the electoral law at the first session of a new parliament than to wait until the closing session. I confidently expect that before the session is over a new electoral law may be considered. The necessity for moving this bill at this time is that, if circumstances had not been foreseen and some provision made, the printing bureau already would be printing forms for the next revision, and by April 1 notice would be given in the Canada Gazette by the dominion franchise officer to the different revising officers throughout the country to prepare for the revision. That is why I ask the house to pass this bill now as an emergency measure. It does not propose to deal with the situation at all in a full way; it is merely to prevent the pending revision taking place and pos-
Dominion Franchise Act
[Stage Direction]
sibly then coming into conflict with some new electoral law and some new forfn of preparation of the lists. I think the object of the bill is obvious, and I do not think I need say any more at the moment.
['On what basis could you make the estimate?\nProgress reported.']
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Having had experience for five years in dealing with the elections act and the franchise act, and in view of the proposed amendments to both these acts, I certainly agree with the hon. gentleman that the pending revision should be deferred.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise not for the purpose of objection to the principle of this bill because as the government does not expect a general election in the next year I think it is quite proper that we should avoid the expense to the country at large and to the parties responsible for the revision of the list of an annual revision now. There is, however, one situation which I desire to bring to the attention of the government, and that is the possibility of a byelection being held. Under the provisions of the act as it now stands, the list that is in force will continue to be the list until another is prepared, and if revision is done away within the year 1936 there could not be another revision before
1937.	It would not be complete until July 1, 1937, and then there would be the printing after that. If we had a byelection at any time within the next six months we would be voting on the line of the list that was made in the year 1935, and so I suggest that the government might well consider putting into this measure a section providing that in case of a byelection being held the governor in council would have power to authorize and direct a revision or an enumeration which would bring up to date the list in that electoral constituency. I think we will all agree that it is desirable that the electoral lists should be up to date, and in these days when people are moving about, particularly from city to city, a list a year old would be very much out of date. That is the only suggestion I have to make, that the government consider inserting in this bill a provision that in the case of a byelection being held the governor in council would have power to order a revision or an enumeration in the constituency concerned.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my hon. friend will agree we might take up that point in committee.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is quite satisfactory, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Annual revision of lists.
['That is quite satisfactory, Mr. Speaker.']
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I had foreseen the remarks that were made by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) because I took up that very question with the dominion franchise commissioner when we were preparing this bill. My hon. friend's point I think is well taken. I will agree with him as to that. Byelections, of course, are governed by section 18, which governs all elections, whether byelections or general elections. It reads as follows:
The lists of electors which shall be made and certified pursuant to this part of this act shall be valid until revised lists, replacing and superseding them, shall have been made and certified pursuant to part III of this act.
My hon. friend is quite right when he says that if this act is passed and nothing further is done in the meantime, any byelection taking place this year will be held on the lists as they actually exist, but on the other hand it did not seem possible to include in this bill a provision such as he suggests unless we created entirely new machinery altogether, because the whole of part III of the bill is based upon the fact that notice is given on the first of April that certain things shall take place on certain dates, and the revision goes on in a certain fixed way. In other words, if we could foresee in advance what byelections are coming, we might say that these sections would apply only in the case of certain counties, but I may say that we have not found it possible to include in the bill a section which would make the act operative only in certain cases, and in order to cover the case of a byelection we would have to revise a long list of sections just to cover that eventuality.
As the government was confident that it might be possible to have a new act passed this session we thought we would in the meantime ask the house to pass this bill as it stands, merely for the purpose of stopping immediately the oncoming revision. I repeat that I see the point that has been made by my hon. friend. Perhaps we might agree that if the amendments to the electoral laws are not available this year, which is in the nature of a possibility, we might still before the end of this session find a way of meeting the special case my hon. friend mentions, but We have not considered the question of a single section foreseeing the eventuality of a bylection because, as I have pointed out, the

Dominion Franchise Act
whole act is framed in a very definite way providing for annual revisions to take place at certain dates and under certain conditions. If the committee will agree to let the bill pass as it stands I will undertake to deal with the special case brought forward by my hon. friend.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I understand the
situation, the proceedings in connection with the annual revision will not take place until April 1, which is more than a month away, so no expenditure would be incurred in the meantime. I have not looked into the matter perhaps as carefully as has the Secretary of State, but I am inclined to think it would not be difficult to draft a section or two or three sections which would in themselves provide for the contingency of byelections. We are facing one now. The Speaker announced to-night a vacancy in one of the constituencies, and that he had issued his writ.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That would be held under the old list.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Exactly, and I think
it is undesirable that an election should be held on a list that is a year old. It will be considerably more than a year old when the election is held. All our elections in recent years have been based upon a list that is brought thoroughly up to date through the medium of an enumeration. It seems to me that it could be provided that in case of a byelection enumerators should be appointed and that they should perform the duties set out in section so and so for the purpose of that byelection. I do not think there is any difficulty whatever in drafting an amendment to cover the point which we have in view, and which the Secretary of State admits is important and well taken. It seems to me that we might leave the bill in committee for a day or so until we see whether we cannot work out something of that kind. I do not want to delay the bill at all, and I do not want to cause the incurring of any expense which can be avoided, but the revision would not, in any event, start until April.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We have had for a number of years one or other of the systems of preparing lists, either that of preparing lists on the eve of an election at the last moment, or this system which provides for a fixed or permanent list revised once a year. I say again that it would require practically a new act to provide for byelections in the manner suggested. by the hon. gentleman. I do not see how it would be possible to amend this act in that regard at all; we should have to repeal the whole of part III dealing with the preparation of lists and bring in a new
bill altogether. And that might conflict with another measure which is likely to be presented to the house before we prorogue.
I would point out that until July any byelection held would have to be staged on the lists as they are, because until that time the new lists would not have been printed, at least not until the first of July, which is the ultimate date of revision. The hon. gentleman's objection was foreseen and we came to the conclusion that the immediate urgency was merely to postpone revision, because there will be time later in the session to consider the question of providing for byelections.
I have stated and I state again that even if this bill had not been on the order paper the printing bureau would be already printing for the revision and the entire machinery would ibe set in motion within a few weeks, and that is what we want to stop. We are asking the approval of the house of this bill, which we desire to send to the senate in time to prevent that machinery from being set in motion. Even if my hon. friend insisted on his point, I should still deem it necessary to have this bill passed, with an opportunity, if it were thought desirable, of introducing a bill dealing with byelections. In the meantime, however, I confidently trust that the committee will report this bill in time to make provision for an adequate electoral law during the present session. But if that were not done there would still be time to provide for a bill dealing with byelections.
My hon. friend has made another point, that unless what he suggests is done we shall not have revised lists until 1937. But that is the case under the present act, because the act as it stands at present provides for permanent lists. If we are to deal with byelections, however, I should be in favour of introducing a bill providing for special revision on the eve of a byelection, but that would be different altogether from the one that now exists. I appreciate the fact that electoral laws are a matter of compromise, but I think we are justified in asking the house to dispose of this point, and we can still consider the question of meeting my hon. friend's views with regard to byelections.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not want to seem
to be pressing this matter unduly, but the Secretary of State is dealing with general elections rather than with the point I am raising with respect to byelections, and I think he must admit it is not desirable that even a byelection should be held on a list which is a year old. He speaks about introducing legislation aimed at changing the
Dominion Franchise Act

whole of the act. That will probably not be introduced until near the end of the session; it is in many respects a contentious subject. In the meantime we might safeguard the situation; if we are to repeal the provision with respect to annual revision we really ought to make some provision with respect to byelections.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I support the suggestion of the hon. member for Leeds. I listened to what the minister said with regard to byelections, and perhaps I might make a few remarks with regard to a riding in Toronto in which there are approximately 60,000 people. On the lists upon which the election was held in October last I presume that out of that 60,000 there were 40,000 names listed. I am not sure, but that is an estimate. Of these, 9.000 families or persons had moved away. The election was in a riding in which there were a great many apartments; there are many university student rooming houses in the district. When the enumerators went through the riding and found that 9,000 families or persons had moved away, they did not strike the names off, so that when the election was held there were on the list 9000 names of people who did not vote. On the same list approximately one per cent of the names represented those who had died and it was said that not less than 1,000 names appeared twice on the list, names of people who had moved from one part of the riding to another. A number of names were on the list three times and I heard of one name that appeared four times. The enumerators had gotten the names in the fall of 1934 and they got them again in April, May or June in 1935. In the meantime these people had moved but their names were kept on. If the revision were made immediately before a byelection in Toronto this spring I am of the opinion that it would be found that twenty-five per cent of the names on a list were names that should have been struck off either because the people had moved away, or because the names were repeated or because the voters had died.


Mr. POWER:: May I point out that even if the present amendment were not introduced the inconveniences referred to by the two hon. members would exist. Under the act as it is now, without the amendment introduced by the Secretary of State, no new list can be ready until some time after the first of July, and it will be probably the first of August before it is printed. So that no matter what happened, the byelection now pending to which my hon. friend refers 
would be conducted under the law as it was passed in 1934 and on the list which came into effect on the first of July, 1935. No other list can come into effect until the first of July, 1936, unless some amendment is proposed in this house, so that what my hon. friends are asking for is an amendment to the act of 1934. They are asking for an amendment of that kind right now. The whole act is about to be revamped by the elections committee which will doubtless study the question whether the system of closed lists now in force, which entails the inconveniences that have been pointed out, shall continue to be the system to be followed, ;or whether it will be advisable in future to revert to the procedure followed under the 1930 act and the acts prior thereto, whereby a revision was made just after the writs were issued.
I understand that a large number of hon. members, having given the so-called closed list a trial and the fixed list a trial, desire to revert to the other system. That cannot be done without an amendment to the act, and what is being pressed to-night simply postpones the revision and leaves the way open for further discussion of the two methods of procedure, whether we are to have a closed list or an open list. I have not the slightest doubt that if the matter is pressed by the members and the committee makes due diligence it will be possible before the end of this session, and in plenty of time to meet the objections of my hon. friends- that is to say before July 1, 1936-to introduce some amendment whereby any election taking place after July 1, 1936, will be governed somewhat along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). So that if this particular amendment passes now, the committee could get to work at once and lay down some system of procedure, even if it were only a preliminary or an emergency measure, which would be in effect for an election prior to the time that a new election act is introduced.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think if the act were left as it is there would be no complaint in connection with any byelection, because the list would not be too old. But when you come to amend the act and take away the only existing provision and make no provision for a byelection you are sure to have an old list. In the case of the byelection we have in mind I am sure the government would not fix the date of that byelection before July 1 if they felt that the act should remain exactly as it is, and the revision would be complete

Supply-External Affairs
by that time. But with this amendment they know perfectly well that there will be no revision; that the list will not be brought up to date even though they hold the byelection next fall. Six months may elapse from the date of the vacancy before they issue the writ, and if they took that time there would be under this amendment no new list, and be no revision of the list. Whereas if the act were left as it is, in due time there would be a new list, and the government could see to it that the byelection was held on the new list. On the other hand, if this amendment goes through, and no provision as suggested is made, they are depriving themselves of the power of holding a byelection on a list that is up to date.


Ernest Lapointe: As the case stands, any byelection prior to July next will have to be held under this act of 1935, whether we act on this bill or not. Would it solve the difficulty if I made this suggestion- after all, this session, I hope, is not going to last all summer-that when the end of the session comes in May or in June, and if it is apparent to everybody that there will be no change in the election law or in the franchise act as a result of the work of the committee that is going to sit, it would then be time enough to meet the objection of my hon. friends and have an act put upon the statutes to deal with any byelection which may take place after July 1 until next year? Would that solve the difficulty?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If the Minister of Justice on behalf of the government would intimate that that will be done, that will be quite satisfactory to me.


Ernest Lapointe: I think I may ask the government to do it, if my hon. friend is satisfied.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I hope the committee did not get the impression that I am opposed to the bill. I am not, and I am strongly in favour of a revision of the franchise act. All I want to be sure of is that this matter will be attended to in the event of a foyelection being held in a city riding. I do not think my objections would have the same weight with regard to a byelection held in a rural riding in the next few months, because lists do not change in the latter with anything like the same rapidity that they do in a city riding. But if a byelection were held in Montreal or Toronto within a month or two, it would make a great deal of difference whether the lists were to be revised or not. That is all I had in mind.


Charles Gavan Power: What my hon. friend is asking is to throw into the discard the principle in the act of 1934 which he supported.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My hon. friend was one of the most vigorous supporters in the House of Commons of the 1934 act.


Charles Gavan Power: Indeed I was not.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Indeed you were. I concluded that the act was the act of the hon. member for Quebec South.


Charles Gavan Power: I think my hon. friend will remember that I had a good deal to do with the 1930 act, but in order to save the 1934 act from the pieces into which it was broken by his side, I endeavoured to help them out.


Mr. SPENCE:: And you made a mess of it.


Charles Gavan Power: I did make it a little better than it would otherwise have been.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair,

[Stage Direction]
External Affairs-Washington-
Representation, including salaries and allowance for minister plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwthstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, or any of its amendments, $100,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask the Prime Minister if there is any likelihood of an appointment being made at Washington in the near future?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter is under consideration. I cannot say to my right hon. friend just how soon an appointment will be made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-
Canada's contribution to the expenses of the international commission for air navigation for 1936, $1,650.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the Prime Minister give us some indication as to the nature of this commission?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The international commission for air navigation was set up in 1919, and prior to the year 1934 the empire financial responsibility was carried wholly by the government of the united
Supply-M iscellaneous

kingdom. The various states are divided into five categories as regards the contribution to be paid, the classification being based chiefly upon the relative development of air service in each country. The commission collects information and establishes regulations regarding international air navigation. Our participation in the treaty establishing the commission was one of the grounds on which the privy council held that the control of air navigation in Canada fell within federal rather than provincial jurisdiction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses of wheat advisory committee for 1936, Canada's assessment, $1,955.
James Shaver Woodsworth: May we know what was done by this advisory committee last year? Have the arrangements that were made some time ago fallen through, or what is the state of affairs to-day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The wheat advisory committee was established by arrangement between the wheat exporting and importing countries under an agreement reached in London in August, 1933. The advisory committee was established to supervise the working out of the agreement. The committee is temporary in character and is composed of representatives of fifteen countries. The small secretariat of the wheat advisory committee, whose salaries and operating expenses account for most of the cost of its maintenance, provides the subscribing governments with periodic surveys of trends in wheat production and marketing conditions which have been of distinct value to the various agencies of government concerned with wheat. This function of furnishing accurate information about the international aspects of wheat marketing problems is quite separate from the committee's first assignment of watching over the working of the provisions of the wheat agreement which were -intended to regulate exports and production of the wheat exporting countries. The total amount of the contribution in gold francs is 60,920. The contribution of Canada towards the expenses of the wheat advisory committee is 10,120 gold francs.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there any agreement existing between the exporting nations to-day? The popular idea is that when the Argentine seemed to go back on certain agreements the matter was dropped.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The agreement expired last year.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the work of this advisory committee is simply to secure information with regard to trends, is that work quite distinct from the work of that institution in Rome?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that they work together.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to meet loss on exchange, subject to approval of the treasury board, $200,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This must cover all the
operations of all the offices abroad?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; they are all External Affairs matters.


Mr. HEAPS:: Could we have a more detailed explanation from the Prime Minister?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I understand the matter, there were certain contracts entered into on a gold basis, and where a country's currency is depreciated the depreciation has to be made up by an additional amount. This appropriation is to provide what is necessary for exchange purposes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What were the original
appropriations for?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very largely
for League of Nations affairs. At Geneva there is the office of the Canadian advisory officer, salaries and allowances, the contribution to the League of Nations and allowances to League of Nations delegates. At Paris there are the salaries and allowances for the legation. Then there are small amounts for the international commission on air navigation and the wheat advisory committee. There was paid from the exchange vote from April 1, 1935, to January 31, 1936, the sum of $181,489.59.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does this item cover just
one year's operations as far as our exchange is concerned?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. Out of
that total, $143,168.20 had relation to our contribution to the league.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada's portion of expenditure of the imperial economic committee and imperial shipping committee and the executive council of the imperial agricultural bureau for 1936, $18,690.
John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask what portion
of this amount is for the imperial economic

Supply-Miscellaneous-Advertising
committee, and whether it performs any work such as we had anticipated the lately abolished economic council in Canada would have performed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is chiefly in the nature of market intelligence services.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Advertising and publicity in the United Kingdom and Europe, $250,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we should
have some information as to how this very large sum is to be spent. Some years ago we had advertising for immigration purposes and trade and commerce expenditures along that line. What do we need this advertising for and just how is this amount spent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I understand the
matter, this includes the sum total of all the expenditures of the various departments placed under the control of the high commissioner?
Is this the item?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: This seems to me a very heavy expenditure that brings very little back to Canada. It is a hand-out to a number of people and journals in Great Britain. I think the government ought to consider very carefully whether, in view of other needed expenditures in this country, it is necessary to carry on such an extensive advertising campaign.
Then there is another matter. It is several years since I have been in Great Britain, but I found then-and I think the same thing obtains now

that we have provincial offices scattered throughout London-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not so many now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Has any serious effort ever been made to concentrate all our publicity? There is no good reason why if each province wants to advertise its own particular lines of goods, we should not concentrate in some way and save the duplication of expenditure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has been some saving quite recently. The Ontario office has been closed, and Nova Scotia-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I think New Brunswick.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my right hon. friend is right. A couple of offices have been closed. One feature that has to be kept in mind is the fact that the other dominions do this advertising on a very extensive scale; Australia, New Zealand, South Africa are all advertising in similar ways, and if Canada drops out of the field there is the risk of losing what trade comes as a result of advertising I agree, however, that the matter cannot be too carefully supervised.
Supply-Miscellaneous


John Gordon Ross: I take an entirely different view from that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I do not think this item is too high; I think it is about one-tenth of what it should be.


An hon. MEMBER:: From what source are you going to shovel up the money?


John Gordon Ross: If we are going to sell our products we must advertise them properly in the old country.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: They do not want to sell, they say that there is no market.


John Gordon Ross: That is a wrong attitude. As far as advertising agricultural products is concerned we are about twenty-five years behind the times. Every other industry in this country has gone out to create a demand for the commodities they have to sell; in regard to agricultural products we have not done that to the extent we should If that work can be done in a more extensive way and we can get a proper return for our money, I think this item ought to be increased instead of cut down.


Abraham Albert Heaps: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I relieve my hon. friend's mind at once in regard to that sign? It has been discontinued.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am satisfied that there are other items also where economy could be effected. Some of the journals mentioned are read by hardly anyone. They are like some of the newspapers sent to members of the house; they just come and get the advertising, but the circulation is very small. It is rather unusual for us in this corner to be impressing

upon the government the necessity of economy, but on this occasion we cannot help doing so, because when money is being spent we want to see that we get the best possible value. I think that if the Prime Minister would obtain details of the circulation of some of those papers it would clearly appear that there are better ways of spending this money than those that have been indicated this evening.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses of the reference by the governments of Canada and the United States of certain complaints arising out of the operation of the smelter at Trail, B.C., to the tribunal constituted pursuant to the provisions of the convention signed at Ottawa the 15th April, 1935, $25,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be well to indicate to the committee that this money is merely being advanced by the government and will be repaid by the people interested. I suppose that is so?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government-Office of the Prime Minister-Salaries, $41,901.
Abraham Albert Heaps: I notice an increase in this item. Perhaps the Prime Minister could explain the reason for the increase.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is an increase of $13,271. May I say that $10,000 of this amount is to enable the office to be organized in a more businesslike manner than obtains at the moment. It is for purposes of administration. May I repeat what I said a year or two ago, namely, that a Prime Minister goes into his office with but one or two secretaries; he is not in the position of other ministers of the crown who enter well organized departments, headed by a deputy minister, and supplied with secretaries of the department and staff as well as personal secretaries. He may find a few stenographic clerks in the office of the Prime Minister, but for the whole administration of his office he is practically dependent upon the services of two or three private secretaries.
I believe my right hon. friend opposite will agree that it is really impossible to carry on the business of the Prime Minister's office without more adequate and effective administrative machinery. Above all else it seems to me what is really needed is effective coordination of the work through the instrumentality of a high grade official who would occupy in the Prime Minister's office a posi-

Supply-Prime Minister's Office
tion very similar to that of deputy minister in the offices of other ministers. I need not point out that for years past, in addition to the work of his own office, the Prime Minister has been president of the privy council and responsible for the work of the office of the privy council and also for that of the Department of External Affairs, he being as well Secretary of State for External Affairs. The result is that these three offices continuously make their demands upon his time. In addition, the Prime Minister has his duties in parliament, and duties connected therewith. Hon. members know how considerable is the time which he must necessarily give to the work of parliament apart altogether from departmental duties, and obligations as the leader of a political party as well as those of Prime Minister apart altogether from parliament. There is need of some one or more persons in the nature of liaison officers to effect contacts between different departments of government and the Prime Minister as well as between parliament and the Prime Minister. These functions cannot be performed by private secretaries who have other equally important duties. I imagine the amount of correspondence to be dealt with and the number of interviews are far beyond the imagination of most hon. members. The work of correspondence alone has come now to where it has to be organized almost as a separate department of government. Perhaps my right hon. friend opposite would give the committee some indication of what he knows has to be oc-complished. I must say to hon. members it will be impossible at all satisfactorily to carry on public work unless the Prime Minister can be supplied with efficient help.
Yesterday we had before us a bill for the appointment of an economic council to advise the Prime Minister. When in opposition I took the stand that an economic council was not what was required in association with the Prime Minister's office; I said that what he required was the services of two or three highly trained experts who could be helpful in preparing material on economic and financial questions, whose services he could command and who could supply him with necessary data when he had to consider any particular subject either for discussion in parliament or in connection with matters of a departmental nature. That I believe is very necessary. This vote is intended to enable a prime minister to retain the services of expert persons to assist in the work of the office. In a general way I believe I have described its purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think any
language the Prime Minister can use would be an exaggeration of the condition to which he has referred. I am not certain, but I think he will find that in the five years he has been away the correspondence in the office has doubled. I think that is not too strong a statement to make; in times of depression, particularly, that is true. I can only say that I should think it questionable whether the sum was sufficient for the purposes required. There is not any doubt in the world that whoever happens to be Prime Minister in these days, and is at the same time Secretary of State for External Affairs, as the statute requires, and president of the privy council, which it does not require, but which the Prime Minister more or less should be, in order that he may be familiar with what goes on in the various departments of the public service, has no time for reflection and little or no time to consider carefully, as he should, matters affecting large problems of policy. He must go continuously from one thing to another, without having any opportunity to pause and rest, or even to meditate, except the opportunity he may have as he talks to himself walking up the hill, and has a meeting of the cabinet as it were, or something of that kind. Under those circumstances of course the situation is entirely different. However, apart from such cabinet meetings he gets very little opportunity. I assume that possibly the question of under secretaries and other matters enters into this. It may be that the amount is not adequate for the purposes intended. If the country expects any man to serve it as faithfully as one holding the position of prime minister ought to do, he should be provided with the instrumentalities to enable him to do so. Certainly they have not existed to the extent all of us would like, because of the general view held by the public that there is no necessity to spend .money in the office, and that there are enough people around there to look after the job, and all that sort of thing, without pausing for a moment to realize just what is involved.
I congratulate the first minister upon having in the estimates a provision which I hope will have the effect he suggests it will, namely, that of coordinating the efforts of the three departments over which at the present moment the Prime Minister presides. One of my colleagues has suggested that it is his view that it would be in the public interest, in the long run, if the offices of Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs were separated. On the
Supply-Prime Minister's Office

other hand, as it now reads the statute provides that, for reasons that are obvious, the Secretary of State for External Affairs shall be the Prime Minister. I believe that was the view accepted by all overseas dominions, and I think the reasons are quite apparent to all. I assure the committee that from my observations this amount will not be more than adequate to enable sufficient assistance to be provided the Prime Minister in order that he may properly discharge the very onerous duties of his office.
If I may refer to the fact, may I say that with respect to the economic council there seemed to be an entire misunderstanding in what was said last evening. It was intended that the Prime Minister, by referring matters to the economic council, might receive reports which would enable him, after examination, to determine the best course of action to follow. In no sense could the council be said to be set up to take the place of cabinet ministers. They, with the Prime Minister, must take the final action upon questions affecting matters of policy. The council were only to provide information to enable the ministers to determine what action should be taken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I thank
my right hon. friend for his kindness in giving the committee the information he has with respect to what he knows so well to be the work of the office of the Prime Minister, combined with the other offices he has mentioned. May I say to him that his observations about correspondence, and the work in connection therewith having doubled since I was in office five years ago, are perfectly true. Not only has the correspondence more than doubled, but the intricacy of the questions which have to be dealt with has increased to a degree that I had not believed possible. I must say that in three directions in particular I notice a tremendous increase in the volume of work. One has already been mentioned by the former Prime Minister, the exacting and trying work that arises out of a period of depression. The load in that regard falls very very heavily on a Prime Minister's back. Appeals in this connection are made direct to him from a multitude of directions, and he is responsible for discussing with his colleagues all phases of legislation in connection therewith.
Another question concerning which there has been a great increase in correspondence, and great difficulty in dealing with it, is the whole subject of trade. These communications come directly to the Prime Minister's office in a way they never did formerly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I guess it is a habit they got from the time I was Minister of Finance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid
that a number of departments have got into the habit of waiting for some word from the Prime Minister. I have not said anything about the matter, but there is no doubt about that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The willing horse.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Much has been said about economic nationalism as it obtains in different countries of the world. That wretched policy has done more I think to add cares and worry to government departments than has all the mass of other things put together because it raises endless questions of the effects of quotas, restrictions, and the like, which are an entirely new phenomenon. At any rate they did not present themselves when I occupied the office of Prime Minister previously. To-day in a multitude of directions correspondence arises from them. They serve to beget endless friction and to arouse all kinds of antagonisms, the effects of these find their way sooner or later to the Prime Minister's office.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Get rid of them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They cannot,
I believe, be got rid of too quickly, but to rid the world of them will require time. The world has changed and countries, too, in their relations with each other, and these changes have to be taken into account.
The third change, and perhaps the most serious of all, is the extent to which the time of the Prime Minister, acting more particularly as Secretary of State for External Affairs, is taken up with all important External Affairs matters. I need only mention the correspondence that has come in during the last few months from Geneva, and from London; the correspondence that has developed with respect to the situation as it is in Europe. Whether one were himself Secretary of State for External Affairs or whether that portfolio were held by a separate member of the cabinet, I do not see how the Prime Minister could escape having to go through the despatches which deal with foreign affairs in a world of the character in which we live to-day. I notice there, as well, a tremendous change. Our country is being drawn into international situations to a degree that I myself think is alarming. That is something to which I hope, as we go along, we shall get a chance to give much more thought and attention.
Personally nothing would please me more than to have one of my colleagues administer the Department of External Affairs as a scpa-

Supply-Prime Minister's Office
rate department of government, and leave me with the office of Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council. When, however, I have discussed the question with my colleagues, and when I have thought it over myself, it really has seemed that in the long run less difficulty and possible confusion would arise and less time be lost if for a while at least matters were to be carried on as they are. However, so to do will require giving to the Prime Minister the right to obtain from time to time the services of men who have expert knowledge of these questions. What I should say, the public does not appreciate, were I for a moment to think that there could be any criticism of expenditure on this score, is the extent to which the class of questions which governments and parliaments are called upon to deal with to-day, and which the Prime Minister has to deal with, in larger variety perhaps than any other of the ministers, demands special training, knowledge and study. They are not matters on which a private secretary can be expected to inform or advise his chief. They are matters that require careful thought and study and sound and sure advice. The additional amount that has been asked for and which the committee seems prepared to grant in a ready way, is for the purpose of making it possible to obtain from time to time this sort of assistance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I just wish to say one
word, Mr. Chairman. I do not know any method by which the Prime Minister can escape from reading the dispatches which come to the office of external affairs. I remember Mr. MacDonald telling me that he frequently had to sit up until the early hours of the morning to read the dispatches from the foreign office, for he said it was a rule that he had made, and which he believed his predecessors had followed, that the Prime Minister should read every dispatch that came through the foreign office. Great Britain sends to us cables with respect to matters that affect the welfare of the overseas dominions and even with respect to matters in which they might be only indirectly interested. The result is that when they are decoded and prepared for submission to whoever happens to be minister for external affairs it takes a long time to read them, and one has to discuss them with his colleagues. It frequently happens that two or three matters all of first rate importance come to the attention of the minister in a single day. How on earth a man is going to be able to carry on the burden of first minister when he has at the same time to keep in his mind everything affecting ques-12739-42
tions raised by cablegrams from various parts of the world, I do not know. For instance, this very Japanese situation which has arisen in the last few days has no doubt resulted in the receipt of cables from London on the one hand, and from Tokyo on the other, and one has to make up one's mind on these matters. It is true that the permanent officials of the department are excellently qualified for the positions which they occupy. One hesitates to say this in the presence of the under-Secretary, but he has had wide experience and an excellent training, and he brings to bear on all these questions an understanding which would not be that of the average man. Nevertheless the fact remains that he is overworked.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How it is possible to
carry on that office without extra assistance, I do not know, and I doubt very much whether the sum mentioned will get the expert opinion or advice that the Prime Minister should receive from time to time. Compare conditions to-day with what they were not so very long ago. For instance, in Lord Salisbury's time he used to write very important dispatches with his own hand. It is recorded that the dispatch that was written on the Behring sea matter to Mr. Blaine was written in Lord Salisbury's own hand. He used to write his dispatches at Hatfield over the week-end. Lord Curzon also wrote some of his dispatches.
In these days the system is a very simple one. When a dispatch reaches the minister for foreign affairs it has passed through the hands of highly trained men; in fact, they know much more about the subject, apart altogether from questions of policy, than does their chief. We have not yet developed in this country that reservoir of highly qualified men such as they have in a country like Great Britain. For instance, when they set up their tariff board they simply had to select this man, that man and another man, and they got the most highly trained and the most efficient men in the kingdom. We have not yet done that in this country, and I have always felt that the rewards in mere money are not at all adequate for the services rendered. That was one of the reasons I always had in mind why there should be some other reward than that of mere money. People sometimes speak of it as honours or recognition of merit, but it becomes a very powerful factor in determining the action of permanent public officials. The late Mr. Kipling pointed that out in one of his stories. He pointed out that very frequently in India



Supply-Prime Minister's Office
the struggle between whether it should be a C.I.E. or a C.S.I. had much to do with the zeal and determination with which men threw themselves into their work. That looks like a very small thing, but the fact is that if we are to get that kind of trained public servants who will make a career of their work as they do in Great Britain, we have in every sense to magnify the importance' of their position and give them every possible support, attracting, by salaries that are at least in some sense adequate, the best possible men that may foe available for that purpose. A new country finds it difficult sometimes to understand that, but it is money well spent, and even in times of depression you have to pay men fairly well or they leave the service and are taken into private enterprise. That has happened and I suppose will continue to happen. It has happened occasionally in Great Britain; it has happened here and will happen in other countries. But certainly, in the office of Prime Minister, I cannot too strongly suggest to the committee that some provision must be made that will enable whoever is there to have at least a little freedom from toil, for meditation and thought, with the assurance that the work will not be neglected and that the best possible brain is giving its attention to providing a solution of the particular problems with which a Prime Minister has to deal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot allow what my right hon. friend has just said to go by without expressing to him my very warm appreciation for having stated what he alone can say with more authority perhaps than anyone else in the house. What I should like to point out to hon. members, because we are' considering this matter now in its many aspects, is this: Hon. members see a Prime Minister in the house; they see that he has to foe here practically every afternoon and evening, or at least somewhere about the buildings. They forget, however, that the time thus spent does not represent his work at all; his work has to be done apart from the time he spends in the House of Commons in the afternoon and at night. Members perhaps forget that a meeting of the cabinet has to be held every day, and that Saturdays, which are more or less free days to others, are really the only days on which the cabinet can find opportunity for maturing policies, reviewing legislation and the like. These many demands leave only the forenoons for the Prime Minister to do the real work of his office, and departments for which he is responsible, the class of work to which the leader of the opposition has just referred.

Unless a man in the responsible position of Prime Minister can have at his side those on whose ability he can completely rely, he cannot begin to do his duty either to the House of Commons or to the country. I thank my right hon. friend again for his assistance in helping to have this understood.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As one who a few minutes ago urged that some of the advertising abroad be cut down, may I say that I heartily appreciate the position as outlined by the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition. As a private member, I do not think that the office can be too fully organized or that we can take too great pains in securing a large number of trained men for positions of this character. I have sometimes thought that the Department of External Affairs, in the last year or two, has been called upon altogether too much to do all sorts of odd jobs, as for example on various commissions. We ought to have a very much larger number of men with wide economic training who would foe capable of handling economic and international affairs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my hon. friend for what he has just said.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Entomology, including investigations and inspections relating to destructive insects and pests, $400,100.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentlemen who were going to discuss this matter are net here to-night. It is one regarding which they are particularly desirous to have informat'on. I think the item might stand.
Item stands.
Publicity and' extension, $70,400.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the reason for the increase?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: The increase is due to transfers that have been made from other branches. When we were going through other branches, particularly experimental farms, we referred to a matter of $19,000 representing a transfer from that branch in connection with publicity. The transfers are these:
From experimental branch, $19,088.
From dairy branch, $2,040.
From live stock branch, $10,000.
From entomological branch, $1,000.
From fruit branch, $3,500.
From health of animals branch, $100.
This makes up a total of $35,728, which is the greater part of the increase.

Supply-A griculture-Pub licity


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the publicity of this department? I confess that during my little experience I found it difficult to ascertain how every department could have a publicity bureau of its own, and I could never find out why it was not possible to correlate the efforts and direct them under one head as is now done with our advertising in Great Britain. That is all I desire to say.


James Garfield Gardiner: The publicity of the department is largely a matter of getting out publications that indicate to farmers in different parts of Canada what is being done in these various branches. Periodicals are sent here and there throughout Canada giving information with regard to the findings of the different branches in their research work and in other connections.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The real difficulty which I found-and I was not able in the limited time at my disposal to deal with it, for the reasons I have given-was the competition between departments to secure information and give it to the public. The competition between the bureau of statistics, for instance, and the Department of National Revenue with respect to what the revenue was for the preceding month is always, to me, rather interesting. It is really a difference between Trade and Commerce on the one hand and National Revenue on the other, and the minister knows better than I the difficulties in connection with the competition between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce. When I saw the increase in this item I wondered why there should be an increase in publicity and extension, because the mere increase in the publication of reports simply means the waste in many instances of additional sums for paper and ink, because the extent to which they are read is, I am sorry to say, very limited.


James Houston Spence: Not read at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, there is in every country, in almost every community, somebody who is interested, as the Minister has said, in reading these reports. But the indiscriminate circulation of them was limited a few years ago by reason of action taken by the departments themselves. The real difficulty I have is in ascertaining just why there should be an increase in the item.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is one other aspect of it upon which perhaps the minister could give us some light. I have often wondered why there could not be a little closer cooperation between the dominion department and the provincial departments. It does seem as though the provincial authori-
12739-42*
ties are much nearer the ordinary farmers and ought to be able to undertake a great deal of the distribution end of these matters. There is a vast amount of duplication. I should like to ask the minister if there is any possibility of closer coordination.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can speak only from experience in one province. In so far as publicity in that province is concerned it is cut down to the very lowest possible cost at the present time. There is very little going out in the way of printing from the agriculture department of that province, and I think that is true of at least most of the western provinces. The department here and those provincial departments have been working in the closest possible cooperation. Much of the information that is gathered by this department the provincial departments could not possibly gather and therefore could not possibly distribute. As regards anything having to do with matters of trade in other countries, we get the information, some of it through the Department of Trade and Commerce, some of it through our own officials. That information naturally goes out through our department. Other information, with regard to wheat, for example, which is handled through the Department of Trade and Commerce, goes out to a large extent through that department, as was suggested by the leader of the opposition. But there is a considerable part of it that has to go out through the agriculture department, because it is information which is contained only there.
I can understand the criticism that there is some overlapping, and the further criticism that many of these periodicals are not read. For the twenty or more years that I have been in public life these periodicals have been sent to me automatically, and I must say that many of them I have not read; I did not have the time to read them. But there are people in every community who do read one or another of these periodicals, and whenever a farmers' gathering is held, while perhaps nine out of ten of the people who are there have never read them and have never seen them, one individual may and on many occasions does get up and give the information to those who are present, and they get it sometimes in spite of themselves. The department has to distribute a certain amount of this information to people who will read it. In doing so no doubt they distribute some of it to persons who make very little use of it. I do not know of any way by which you can really overcome the difficulty in connection with that if we are going to have the information distributed at all.

Supply-Agriculture-Publicity


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Are there any new
features in the publicity program for this year as compared with past years? Is the minister considering any new methods of advertising or publicity?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only new developments are a sort of consolidation of the *exhibits that are made in connection with fairs and exhibitions here and there, which is under this branch. Then a certain amount of work is being developed in connection with giving information over the radio; that will require some extension. We have also in mind to do a greater amount of work in connection with the promotion of marketing. I am hopeful, as minister, that we can develop in the department a greater degree of publicity which will be effective in keeping our agricultural products before the public, not only inside Canada but probably outside Canada. Some publicity along that line will be carried on.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should say it is very necessary. Anything that is calculated to promote in these difficult times the sale of agricultural products at home or abroad is very desirable indeed. I was wondering whether in connection with cooperative marketing or the Natural Products Marketing Act any additional expense is involved in any extension of the services. Also, is there any revenue from publications by departments which .charge something for certain pamphlets?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is very little revenue. There is the odd publication from which a small amount of revenue is obtained, but all the farmers' publications are distributed free.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Under the Natural Products Marketing Act is there anything in this vote calculated to assist in promoting the work of that board and the disposition of products under that act?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is another item, under "miscellaneous," dealing with the marketing act. I had hoped to be able to discuss that when we reach that item.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I mean publicity in connection with the act rather than the working of the act itself. Is anything to be spent under this vote in familiarizing the public with the meaning and the purpose of the schemes in connection with the act?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not in this vote, and I may say that there is very little possibility of doing much until we get the decision of the supreme court. It is rather diffi-

cult to promote a thing when you hardly know at the moment what position it is in legally.


Mr. GRAYDON:: To what extent is radio used in advancing the publicity of the department?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is very little cost in connection with radio work. It is done through the radio commission and no charge is made to the department for the use of the radio; the only cost is for preparation of the material that is used, but costs in connection with radio work are not great.


Mr. STIRLING:: In the various districts there is a certain amount of broadcasting done, is there not, that does not come under the commission? There is in my part of the country.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is some local station work in connection with the branch farms.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister again whether, in view of the fact that there is little or no expense in connection with radio broadcasting of the activities of the department, the radio could not be used more extensively for the stimulation of markets for farm products in the dominion?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that suggestion is worthy of consideration. I am informed by officials of the department that there is a limit to the extent to which the radio can be used effectively.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have in mind what the minister said about external advertising. I was wondering whether his department is cooperating with the Department of External Affairs, because the Prime Minister, speaking a short time ago with reference to the item in his department in connection with advertising in London, said that part of the appropriation is for advertising the farm products- of Canada. Are there two departments advertising Canadian farm products, I mean externally?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was speaking, of course, of the marketing end of the advertising, in connection with something we have in mind for the future rather than what has taken place in the past. There has not been very much advertising done by the Department of Agriculture as such; most of the work in connection with the promotion of the sale of our products has been done by the Department of Trade and Commerce. I am not familiar with the amount that may have been done under External Affairs.

Supply-Agriculture-Miscellaneous


Mr. LENNARD:: Could the minister give me the distribution of publicity in each province?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the distribution by provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Farm economics, including agricultural cooperative marketing, $38,400.
Miss MACPHAIL:: I should like to ask the minister in what way the government encourage cooperative marketing. I am very glad to see that they do it, but how is it done?


James Garfield Gardiner: The economics branch w-as set up under Doctor Booth, who has had a rather wide experience in connection with cooperative work. I think he was first trained in the Department of Agriculture of Saskatchewan and later spent some time in Washington with the American organization carrying on that work. I believe he is in every way fully qualified to deal with cooperative activities. The branch gathers all the information it can from both inside and outside Canada with regard to cooperative activities, and that information is made available to persons interested in forming cooperative organizations. Men from this branch go out and assist in the formation of cooperative organizations, giving information verbally and otherwise as to how organizations can best be set up, and making available the experience they have had elsewhere in connection with cooperative work.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I appreciate what the minister has said, and I would not want him to think I was criticizing the vote or the idea of setting up a branch to take care of cooperative marketing. I quite believe that Doctor Booth is an expert in this work. I was just wondering if the Department of Agriculture contemplates pushing this work more in the future than has been the case in the past, without waiting for requests, by attempting to interest people in the cooperative marketing of farm products as, during the years, the department has attempted to interest farmers in better production methods.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not just familiar with the extent to which this work has been pushed, or whether the information has been given out only when asked for or otherwise. Knowing Doctor Booth as I do, however, I am quite sure that he has been as active as the funds at his disposal have permitted in promoting cooperative activities. He always has been a very strong advocate of them, and he comes from a part of the country where cooperative organizations have always been considered as moves in the right direction.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: What part is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: The central westitem agreed to.	"r
Contributions to empire bureaux, $21,535.


Mr. BEAUBIER:: Could we have some
explanation of this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: These empire bureaux
are a group of organizations in Scotland and England that collect and disseminate the results of all the research work carried on in different parts of the empire and in other places, and all the countries that benefit from that work make grants by way of assistance in order that the work of these bureaux may be maintained. This sum is for the purpose of contributing towards the work of the bureaux, including the distribution of information from the bureaux and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Advisory committee on agricultural services, travelling expenses, et cetera, $5,000.
Mr. BARBER:: Is this a local committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is to provide expense money in order to carry on the work where provincial and federal committees get together for the purpose of trying to eliminate overlapping in departments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dairying, $256,000.
Mr. ROWE (Dufferin):: The minister
might let this item stand. A number of members are interested in this matter, and I think the minister has been quite fortunate in getting his estimates through so rapidly at this stage of the session. I know many members who are not here to-night are very much interested in this matter, so I wonder if the minister would not let the item stand.


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall be very glad
to do that.
Item stands.
Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, $39,506.39.


Grote Stirling: Does this large decrease-mean that the government has changed the policy with regard to assistance to cold storage warehouses?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; there has been
no change in the policy. This covers all the commitments that we know about at the present time.
Supply-Agriculture-Seed


Grote Stirling: Then it follows that it will not be of much use for any districts to make application for further assistance this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: That has been done in other years by way of supplementary estimates, and all applications will be considered on their merits as they come in.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I wish to discuss the grading of eggs. It is not possible to do so this evening. If I can discuss it under the dairying item, all right; if not I should like this item to stand. It is hard to tell where it comes in.


James Garfield Gardiner: It really comes under live stock, and that was passed some days ago.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I asked the chairman and he thought it might come under item 39.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no objection to the discussion of it under that item. Does the hon. member wish it to stand?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I would like it to stand.
Item stands.
Seed, feed and fertilizer control, including grants to seed fairs, et cetera, also grant of $18,000 to Canadian Seed Growers' Association, $407,200.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I recall that strong opposition was taken to the grant of $18,900. There were discussions which seemed to indicate that it might become unnecessary. Will the hon. gentleman give an explanation concerning it as it now stands?


James Garfield Gardiner: I know only of the operations of the Canadian Seed Growers' Association under local organizations in our own province. We have always considered these organizations very valuable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is this grant for?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a grant to this organization. The grant goes to the central office and is expended from there. We have not the particulars here in regard to the distribution of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was suggested that this is an item for which there is no real reason. I think it was suggested that some inquiry should be made into it, and for that reason I should like to know just what it is.


James Garfield Gardiner: The work of the association as I know it is a work that the department could scarcely carry on. The organization consists of men who for certain reasons are particularly adapted for this kind of work. They meet from time to time and discuss the possibility of certain seed develop-
I Mr. Gardiner.]
ments. They use registered seed on their own farms and give particular attention to the production of the very best quality of seed and to keeping that seed clean and pure and having it properly distributed throughout the areas in which they work, as well as other parts of the province as well. Men of this type should be encouraged in carrying on high class seed production. For example I received a letter the other day from one of them whom I know to be very active in Saskatchewan. He wrote protesting about the distribution of a certain variety of wheat said to be rust resistant. I made inquiry in the department, got what information I could, and knowing the man as I do I was satisfied that the information he gave me could not be overlooked. I wrote back for further particulars and he sent a sample of the wheat about which he was complaining. One had only to look at the sample to know that there was reason for his complaint. He was interested in seeing that nothing happens to the wheat crop in western Canada that would be detrimental to the farmers as a whole, and he had the idea that if this wheat were distributed over western Canada and sold in a large way it might in the end be very detrimental to the whole crop. I think we should spend at least this amount in promoting seed production work among farmers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question was not
as to the amount. What was spent last year for this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was $17,010. There
is approximately a five per cent increase this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know nothing about
this except the opposition that was urged to the grant in some quarters. It was contended that it meant nothing more or less than payment of money to men who are making large sums out of the sale of their seed; that they are charging very high prices for certified pure seed, and also being compensated for it by the government. Naturally I have no means now of checking this up departmentally, so I am asking far the information. Personally I have no view about the matter; it is just what was represented to me. But that complaint was made very vigorously, that the only effect of paying this money is to hand ic to men who are already getting high prices for their seed. I made the inquiry purely for information.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that there are about 1,600 of these growers. Of course 1,600 growers would not draw any considerable amount individually out of this. The amount

Supply-Agriculture-Seed
that was obtained in Saskatchewan last year by these men for their seed was fifteen cents a bushel above the market price of wheat, which is not a very considerable amount, or anything that I think anyone would complain about. I believe any farmer would prefer to buy that kind of seed from men with a reputation that most of these men have for the production of good seed, rather than pay the market price for seed of which they knew little or nothing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The explanation given
by the minister would seem to be reasonable. I was just asking my colleagues if they could tell who it was who raised the issue. I recall making a mental note to try to ascertain the facts. I think the hon. member who raised the question is not at present in the chamber. At that time I believe he sat to the left of the Speaker, and I was much taken with what he said. It seemed to imply that this is really a little gift handed out to men who are getting an increased price for their seed. I believe I was told much the same as the minister has now told us, but I wanted to know if the matter had been considered. I think the explanation given is not unreasonable.


Malcolm McLean: There are many men in the west who have taken high honours for producing high class seed. Very few of these men have made much money for themselves at that work. Just a little while ago the review board of Saskatchewan was meeting in Saskatoon and one of the most prominent of these seed growers, one who had taken many honours, came before them hopelessly involved because he was not able to make enough on his farming operations to carry on. There are many such men in the different provinces, and I do not think any of them have made much out of the high class seed they have produced. The price at times does seem high to farmers who have to buy the seed, but if we take into consideration the amount of work, the care in growing and cleaning and keeping the seed separate and all that kind of thing, as well as the cost of buying seed originally, the net results are not very large. But these men take pride in their work and pleasure in carrying on that type of seed selection and reproduction, and they keep on doing this as long as they can. I think that is the history of a great many seed growers in western Canada who have achieved prominence; they have not gained much wealth for themselves. The result for their neighbours has been valuable. The seed is moved from one district to another readily and cheaply in small quantities. When these men hold a supply of good seed available, farmers hundreds of miles away are able to
get supplies which might cost fairly high per unit, but the aggregate cost of which is small. I believe the work should be encouraged.


Mr. WOOD:: I commend the hon. member for Melfort for his attitude. I have noticed that the questions are asked to a great extent by hon. members who are not farmers. May I say that I come from a constituency wherein there is an active seed growers association, one which is doing good work. I believe any money spent in the development of good seed would be used properly. I do not think there is anything in agriculture which will do more to increase the general well-being of the nation.
I should like to know if there is in the estimates a contribution for seed cleaning plants. I know that some assistance is given to these plants, and that they have worked more or less cooperatively with seed and feed branches. Great advances have been made in the development of seed cleaning equipment. Today there are on the market machines capable of separating a mustard seed from a turnip seed. Hon. members who are farmers will appreciate my meaning. I am sure that any grants given to these seed cleaning plants would be for the good of the farmers. Is part of the vote for seed cleaning establishments?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not part of the $18,900, but part of the $407,200 goes for that purpose. The dominion government puts up S600 towards the price of each machine, provided that the province puts up a like amount, and these sums are distributed for the purposes indicated by the hon. member.


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Could the minister tell the committee what part of the grant goes to seed fairs, and on what basis the grants are made?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amounts are divided, for different purposes. If it is the wish of hon. members I shall give the details, as follows:
Total Subventions Available to a Province
1.	The total subvention available to a province within the dominion fiscal year shall not exceed the sum of $1,200 unless more than one million acres are under cultivation in field crops within the province, in which case the subvention may be increased pro rata $1,200 for each additional million acres under cultivation a9 reported by the Dominion Bureau of Statsties for the previous year, provided that the total subvention shall not exceed $1,200 pro rata per hundred thousand of total population as shown by the latest available federal census return.
2.	These subventions shall be for the purposes and in the amounts hereinafter specified, but shall not exceed one-half the total amounts paid as cash prizes or grants by the provincial Departments of Agriculture.
Supply-Agriculture-Seed

The total amount ia based on what the the province pays.
$50 for Seed Crop Competition
3.	Seed crop competitions have been discontinued in most of the provinces. As a seed improvement agency they are believed to be less effective than the combined seed crop and cleaned seed competition. Subventions shall not exceed $50 for each seed crop competition, the total not to exceed 25 per cent of the amount available to a province.
$200 for a Combined Seed Crop and Seed Competition
4.	Each combined seed' crop and seed competition in which the seed used must be a registered grade or grade No. 1 certified as to purity of variety, trueness to type _ or fredom from noxious weeds, shall be eligible for a subvention of $200.
$50 for a Local Seed Fair
5.	Local seed fairs continue to be serviceable in a few localities and may participate in these subventions to an amount not exceeding $50 for each such seed fair.
$250 for District Seed Fair9
6.	District seed fairs are organized in some provinces to meet the needs of groups of counties where local seed fairs are not held, the larger fair being held at different points within the district during successive years. Subventions not exceeding $250 may be paid on acount of each such district seed fair.
$600 for a Provincial Seed Exhibition
7.	Subventions on account of each provincial seed exhibition shall not exceed $600.
Then there is a paragraph dealing with an amount of $600 for seed cleaning machines, about which we spoke a few moments ago. The next paragraph is an amount of $300 for machines to grind limestone and mix fertilizer. Paragraph No. 10 indicates a charge of fifty cents per ton for agricultural lime freight charges. Paragraph 11 is as follows:
11.	The Minister of Agriculture for the province may utilize the total subvention for any or all of the purposes mentioned, except as provided in section 3.
12.	Subventions accounts should be submitted to the seed commissioner, Ottawa, through the office of the seed branch district inspector for the district in which the subvention was earned, by the Minister of Agriculture for the province, or his authorized representative, before tne end of March each year.


Percy John Rowe: Would the minister give a further explanation with reference to the $18,900 to the Canadian Seed Growers Association? In what provinces was that distributed last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Money is provided to the chief association in Ottawa. I have not the distribution, by provinces, and I am told it is impossible to get that detailed information. The work is oarried on largely by the association.


Percy John Rowe: It is turned over to the association?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Percy John Rowe: On what basis is it turned over? How is it that while there is provision for $18,900 in these estimates, only $17,000 was provided last year, and there is no record of where it went?


James Garfield Gardiner: A surplus had accumulated prior to last year, from two-years' operations, and as a result of the accumulation of that small surplus it was agreed last year to cut down the appropriation to about $17,000, on the understanding that the surplus would be used up during the year. This year the surplus has been used up, and the usual amount is being voted. The former minister made that arrangement to permit the use of the accumulated surplus.


Percy John Rowe: On what basis could you make the estimate?
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, March 2, 1936