1937-03-24

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

Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	Did the government or the employment commission appoint a committee called The Youth Employment Committee for the purpose of considering and advising upon securing employment for the youth of Canada?
2.	If so, when was such committee named; by whom, and what is the proper name of such committee?
3.	What is the personnel of the said committee, and the address and calling of each?
4.	Has said committee ever submitted any report or recommendation? If not, can the government state when such a report may be expected; and will the government lay such report before parliament for discussion?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Second of September, 1936. By the governor-general in council upon the advice of the Minister of Labour under and by virtue of sections 8 and 9 of the National Employment Commission Act, 1936-Youth Employment Committee.
3.	Alan Chambers of Victoria, B.C., Merchant; R. F. Thompson of Toronto, Ontario, Retired Clergyman; Joseph McCulley of Newmarket, Ont., headmaster; Andre Mont-petit of Montreal, P.Q., Lawyer; W. C. Nickerson of Halifax, N.S., Merchant.
4.	Yes. Two main and three supplementary reports have been made to the National Employment Commission, one of the functions of which body is to advise the minister. Any action which the government may decide to take on the recommendations of the commission will be duly made known to the house.


*PARLLAMENTARY DELEGATION TO CORONATION
Mr. CHURCH:: Will all returned men who are members of the parliament of Canada go to the coming coronation if they can, or will a representative delegation of them be sent by the government?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: It is not possible to answer the first part of this question:
Will all returned men who are members of the parliament of Canada go to the coming coronation if they can- ....	*
I cannot answer that question nor do I think anyone else can. The other part of the question is:
-or will a representative delegation of them be sent by the government?
There will be returned men on the parliamentary delegation but there will not be a special delegation of returned men.


TORONTO-HAMILTON HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT SCHEME
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What proportion has the dominion government undertaken to pay towards the cost of the Toronto-Hamilton highway improvement scheme between Long Branch and Port Credit?
2.	How many miles of this highway have been widened and improved recently from Long Branch westward?
3.	Has the said improvement scheme been completed?
4.	If so, what was the total cost per mile?
5.	If the said work has not been completed, what is the total estimated cost per mile of same?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1,	2, 3 and 4. The dominion government agreed to contribute to the province of Ontario 50 per cent of the cost of certain highways described and set forth in schedule "C" to an agreement dated September 10, 1936, between the dominion government and the government of the province of Ontario under The Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936, which agreement was tabled on January 15, 1937. Project 36-31 was included in the aforesaid schedule described as "Port Credit
Questions

to Long Branch, asphaltic highway, 3-6 miles, dominion contribution $122,000." Statements of claim received and paid to date in respect to this project amount to $115,160.13.
5.	The total estimated cost of project 36-31 above referred to was $244,000.


Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What proportion has the dominion government undertaken to pay towards the cost of construction of the highway between Toronto and Hamilton, known as the "Middle Road"?
2.	What is the estimated total cost of this highway when completed?
3.	What is the total estimated cost per mile of this road from Etobicoke river westward to Hurontario street when completed?
4.	What is the maximum width of the road allowance provided for the highway between the said Etobicoke river and Hurontario street?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	The dominion government agreed to contribute to the province 50 per cent of the cost of certain highways described and set forth in schedule "C" to the agreement between the dominion government and the province under The Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936, dated September 10, 1936, and tabled on January 15, 1937. The project as set forth in the agreement cannot be exactly identified with the highway known as the "Middle Road," but the following statement sets out three projects which may be included in the "Middle Road," together with the maximum dominion contribution and the statements of claim received and paid to date:-
Schedule	Description	DominionNo.	Contribution	Payments36-28	Brown's Line to Centre Road-	$	SMiddle Rd. Concrete Highway, 5 miles	85.275 5836-57	Oakville Bridge on Middle Rd	.. .. 80,737 50	68.098 4736-73	From Burlington Subway to Campbell's Corners, concrete pavement, and grading from Middle Rd. to Hamilton H. also Middle Road Bridge	
..	45,357 14
2 and 3. See reply to 1.
4.	The agreement does not provide for the width of the road allowance between the Etobicoke river and Hurontario street, this being a matter of provincial regulation.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Thomas Langton Church: What are the names, occupations, addresses, salaries, living and travelling expenses of the present federal radio commission?


Mr. HOWE:: Questions


Thomas Langton Church: These questions, 2 and 3, are not answered properly at all. Beauchesne at page 111 states that questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from ministers of the crown relating to public affairs; and paragraph 339 states that questions addressed to ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected, to proceedings pending in parliament or to any matter of administration for which the minister is responsible. Paragraph 349 states that the purpose of a question is to obtain information and not to supply it to the house. The answers are not complete, and we have a right within the rules to ask that information on the subject matter be given fully. I cannot get the information in the
public accounts nor in the radio booklet tabled. Public funds are being spent in this matter and I wish to establish the right to all information asked for from time to time. One minister the other day refused to answer the questions at all.


SUBSIDIES TO POULTRY INDUSTRY-QUEBEC
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	Has the dominion government granted any subsidies to the poultry industry in the province of Quebec during the past five years?
2.	If so: (a) when; (b) for what amounts; (c) to whom?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2. Subsidies paid under the Fairs' Policy
(a) 1932	1933	1934	1935	1936	(c)(b) ....	106.11	107.74	255.70	310.00	Sherbrooke (Class A).60.38	214.15	93.25	Quebec (Class A).158.80	340.47	171.62	Three Rivers (Class A).109.39	109.65	183.80	193.18	142.41	Valleyfield (Class A).79.24	90.42	107.18	94.16	81.55	Ormstown (Spring Show).113.69	152.01	154.92	193.68	174.32	Laehute (Spring Show).280.86	402.41	Sherbrooke (Winter Fair).52.28	53.97	Cookshire (Class B).20.09	48.59	56.08	67.13	60.52	Waterloo (Class B).214.00	142.89	79.16	81.58	70.56	Ste. Scholastique (Class B)22.85	46.13	40.56	60.43	41.19	St. Hyacinthe (Class B).91.80	39.50	69.27	76.12	63.52	Ayers' Cliff (Class B).25.32	28.27	Roberval (Class B).93.98	82.87	Brome (Class B).151.57	144.79	Jacques Cartier (Class B).1,250.00	1.125.00	1,125.00	1,125.00	1,125.00	Montreal Poultry Show.
Note: Subsidies to Exhibitions in Quebec for distribution in the form of prize money to poultry exhibitors.
Premiums paid under Cockerel Distribution Policy 1932	1933	1934	19351.081.70	669.50	723.00	612.75	992.50 Premiums paid to farmers throughout the province of Quebec purchasing pure bred cockerels for breeding purposes.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What are the present occupation and salary of Mr. W. Heath of the National Research Council ?
2.	What were his previous occupation and
salary?	_
3.	Did he ever pass an examination before the Civil Service Commission; if so, when, and was he successful?
4.	Before getting into the civil service, what was his occupation?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Clerk Grade III. SI,440 per annum less 5 per cent.
2.	Retail merchant. No information as to salary.
3.	Yes. April, 1931. Yes.
4.	Answered by No. 2.


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Does the National Research Council own an automobile, and, if so, since when?
2.	Is such automobile a truck or a passenger car, and of what make, model and year?
3.	For what purpose was this automobile: (a) intended, and (b) used?
4.	In whose name was the licence issued, and who paid for it?
5.	Who drove this car during the past two years?
Questions

6.	Did Mr. S. P. Eagleson, secretary of the said council, use this automobile as a private car in the morning, at noon, in the evenings, and for picnic purposes?
7.	If so, with whose permission?
8.	What was the purchase price of this automobile?
9.	What was the cost of all maintenance charges, including licence, gas, washing, simoniz-ing, garage rent, etc., during the last two years? _ 10. Who paid the different amounts specified in the two previous questions?
11.	In what garage was this automobile kept during the past two years?
12.	How many days and half-days was the said Eagleson absent from his office on account of sickness, during the past two years?
13.	On the several occasions on which he was so absent, did he produce a medical certificate?
14.	If so, how many medical certificates has he presented to justify his several absences, and what was in each case, the name of the medical man issuing such certificates, the dates they were presented to the National Research Council, and to what official?
15.	Did the National Research Council deduct any portion of the salary of the said Eagleson for his absence or absences?
16.	If so, how much?
17.	If not, why?


Norman McLeod Rogers: 1 and 2. Yes.
(1)	Pontiac Sedan, 1929 model, since 12 September, 1929.
(2)	Ford panel body truck, 1931 model, since 4 January, 1934.
(3)	G.M.C. stake body truck, 1929 model, since 19 March, 1936.
3.	(a) and (b) (1) It was intended for use by the secretary-treasurer of the council and such other members of the staff of the council as he might determine from time to time. It was used accordingly.
(2)	To transport equipment, apparatus, etc., between the shops and laboratories at the national research laboratories annex, corner John and Sussex streets and the main national research laboratory building; to transport equipment and apparatus between the national research laboratories and places such as the airport at Rockcliffe and the radio direction finding station at Britannia where special research investigations are in progress; and doing other similar work as required. It has been used for these purposes.
(3)	To augment the services performed by the Ford truck and to replace it when worn out. It has recently been necessary to discard the Ford truck as it is no longer safe and serviceable and this G.M.C. truck is used to perform all the transport work of the National Research Council.
4.	The National Research Council. No fee is charged for licences for government-owned cars.

5.	(1) Various members of the staff of the National Research Council as indicated in 3 (1) above.
(2) and (3) Men from instrument and model shops.
6 and 7. When the Pontiac car was purchased in 1929 it was placed in the personal custody of Mr. S. P. Eagleson and, as a convenience to the council, the president arranged that it be housed in his garage without cost to public funds. He was also authorized to use it for general purposes until May 1931, since which date it has been used only to provide transportation for and to conserve the time of members of the staff of the council when the interests of the Council so required. It has been used in the morning, at noon and in the evenings in accordance with the foregoing. It has not been used for picnic purposes.
8.	(1) 81,249.00.
(2)	8300.00.
(3)	Transferred from Post Office Department without payment.
9.	(1) $639.39 from April 1, 1935 to March 22, 1937.
(2)	$97.53.
(3)	$157.64.
10.	National Research Council.
11.	Answered by No. 6.
12.	52 days.
13.	Yes.
14.	Two. Dr. James Coupland, 31 July, 1936, Dr. J. C. Humphreys, 20 March, 1937. These certificates were passed to the official in charge of central records for recording and filing.
15.	No.
16.	Answered by No. 15.
17.	Absences were supported by medical certificates as required by the regulations and were consequently charged against his accumulated sick leave credit.


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What was the classification of Mr. S. P. Eagleson, secretary of the National Research Council, before being appointed to that position?
2.	When was he appointed secretary-treasurer?
3.	Has he ever been clerk grade 1? If so, until when?
4.	Did he ever pass an examination before the Civil Service Commission, if so, when, and was he successful?
5.	What were his occupation and his salary before being appointed secretary-treasurer of the National Research Council?
6.	Is Mr. G. M. Shaver, accountant or representative of the comptroller of the treasury at the National Research Council, related to or connected with Mr. S. P. Eagleson, secretary-treasurer of such council?
7.	If so, what is the relationship?

Questions
8.	What is the total salary of each one?
9.	What were the occupation and salary of the said Shaver before being appointed to that position?
10.	What is it now?
11.	Did he ever pass an examination before the Civil Service Commission; if so, when, and was he successful?
12. Is Mr. L. E. Strader, clerk of the National Research Council, related to or connected with Miss Beach, secretary of the said Eagleson?
13.	If so, what is the relationship?
14.	What is the salary of Mr. Strader and
Miss Beach?
15. Is Mr. C. W. O'Brien, clerk at the National Research Council, related to or connected with Mr. L. E. Strader, principal clerk at such council?
16.	What is that relationship?
17.	What is O'Brien's salary?
18.	When were the said G. M. Shaver, S. P. Eagleson, L. E. Strader, Miss Beach and C. W. O'Brien appointed to or at the National Research Council?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Head clerk.
2.	September 1, 1925.
3.	No. Was clerk in subdivision B of the third division to April 1, 1917.
4.	No.
5.	Secretary, National Research Council, $3,240.
6 and 7. Mr. G. M. Shaver, representative of the treasury, Department of Finance, is a brother-in-law.
8.	Mr. S. P. Eagleson, $5,220 per annum, less 5 per cent; Mr. G. M. Shaver, $3,180 per annum, less 5 per cent.
9.	Accountant, National Research Council, June 8, 1926 to March 31, 1932, $2,400 to $3,000.
10.	Treasury Officer Grade 1, Department of Finance, S3,180.
11.	No.
12 and 13. No.
14. Mr. Strader, $2,280 per annum, less 5 per cent; Miss Beach, $1,860 per annum, less 5 per cent.
15 and 16. No.
17.	$1,080 per annum.
18.	Mr. G. M. Shaver, June 8, 1926; Mr. S. P. Eagleson. April 1, 1917; Mr. L. E. Strader, July 13. 1929; Miss E. F. Beach, May 6, 1929; Mr. C. W. O'Brien, January 22, 1936.


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was Mr. Anderson, assistant purchasing jlerk at the National Research Council a messenger before being appointed to that position?
2.	What was then his monthly salary?
3.	Did he ever pass an examination before the Civil Service Commission; if so, when, and was he successful?
4.	Is the said Anderson related to or connected with a Mr. Biggar, principal clerk, or clerk, at such council?
5.	If so, is he a cousin of the latter's wife and at what degree?
6.	What is the salary of each one?
7.	What was Biggar's occupation before being appointed principal clerk at the National Research Council?
8.	What was his salary at that time?
9.	Did he ever pass an examination before the Civil Service Commission; if so, when, and was he successful?
10.	Is Mr. Klein of the National Research Council a cousin or relative of Mr. Anderson, assistant purchasing clerk at the said council?
11.	If so, at what degree and what is the salary of both?
12.	What is the occupation of the said Klein?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Mr. Anderson, $1,680 per annum, less 5 per cent; Mr. Biggar, $2,040 per annum, less 5 per cent.
7.	Clerk Grade III, National Research Council.
8.	$1,440 per annum, less 5 per cent.
9.	Yes, April, 1931. Was successful.
10.	No.
11.	Answered by No. 10.
12.	Assistant research physicist.


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is Dr. Ledingham of the research information branch at the National Research Council related or connected to Mr. Ledingham of the chemistry branch of said council?
2.	What is the salary of both?
3.	What is the relation or connection between both?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Dr. G. A. Ledingham, $3,300 per annum; Mr. A. E. Ledingham, $900 per annum.
3.	Brothers.
Mr. POULIOT;
1.	Was Mr. Charles Dalglish, clerk at the shop stores of the National Research Council, a brother of the late Mr. Dalglish, formerly employed at such council, and is he related or connected to the secretary to the president of such council, and what is that relation or connection?
2.	What is his salary?
3.	Was and is there a Mr. Sharpe employed at the annex of the National Research Council?
4.	Is he related or connected to the secretary or stenographer to the president of such council and what is the relation or connection between both ?
5.	What is the salary of both?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	(a) Yes.
(b)	No.
2.	$1,440 per annum less 5 per cent.
Questions

3.	Yes.
4.	Yes, a son.
5.	Mrs. G. M. Sharp-81,620 per annum less 6 per cent; Mr. C. Sharp-8720 per annum.


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is the chief librarian at the National Research Council related or connected to Mr. Gill, secretary of the Canadian Government Purchasing Standard Committee, and what is such relation or connection?
2.	What is his or her name?
3.	What is the salary of each one?
4.	Is Mr. W. II. Courtice, chief clerk at the National Research Council, related or connected to both these civil servants?
5.	If so, what is the relationship or connection?
6.	Was the said W. H. Courtice employed at the national park stores at Winnipeg before being appointed to that position?
7.	What was his salary then, and what is it now?
8.	Is he also assistant to the secretary-treasurer or acting secretary-treasurer of the National Research Council?
9.	If so, does he receive anything for that occupation, and what is it?
10.	Did he ever pass an examination before the Civil Service Commission; if so, when, and was he successful?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes, a sister.
2.	Miss M. S. Gill.
3.	Miss M. S. Gill-83.180 per annum less 5 per cent; Mr. A. F. Gill-83,300 per annum less 5 per cent.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	No.
7.	(a) Answered by No. 6; (b) $3,780 per annum less 5 per cent.
8.	He is assistant secretary-treasurer of the National Research Council.
9.	Paid as assistant secretary-treasurer only.
10.	No.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: 1.	When did the royal commission on the textile industry commence its labours?
2.	What has been the cost to the government of the inquiry to date?
3.	About what date will the commission submit its report to the government?
4.	How much per hour are the employees of the Dominion Textile Company of St. Gregoire de Montmorency being paid at the present time?
5.	Will immediate action be taken upon the recommendations in tiie report of the royal commission on the textile industry?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	The Royal Commission on the Textile Industry was appointed by order in council of January 27, 1936. The first sitting of the commission was held on February 20, 1936.

2.	To March 19, 1937, $142,394.52.
3.	No information.
4.	Information filed with the commission by the Dominion Textile Company regarding rates of wages in the Montmorency branch of the Dominion Textile Company is as follows: Average hourly earnings for January, 1937: males, 28-34 cents; females, 23-60 cents.
5.	This question relates to a matter of policy and it is not usual for the government to make statements on matters of policy in giving replies to questions.


IMPORTATION OF SWEDISH LANDRACE PIGS
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	How many Swedish Landrace pigs were brought into Canada, fa) male: (b) female?
2.	What date did they arrive?
3.	How many are there now?
4.	How many were slaughtered, (a) male, (b) female?
5.	Is there any danger of these pigs at the Central Experimental Farm spreading foot and mouth disease?
0.	Do the Swedish Landrace mature earlier than the Yorks, and in how many days do each reach 200 pounds?
7.	Are the Landrace larger at birth than the York and what are the average weights?
8.	Are the Swedish Landrace sows better milkers?
9.	Have the Swedish Landrace better digestion?
10.	Are they better suited for self-feeders?
11.	Did the Department of Agriculture distribute these pigs to the farmers from 1932 to 1935? If not, why?
12.	Will the department now distribute them ?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	(a) 8 males; (b) 59 females.
2.	May 10, 1934.
3.	Of the original importation, there are 4 males and 32 females. There have also been retained for breeding stock, 7 Canadian bred males and 27 females. In addition, there are approximately 140 suckling pigs.
4.	Of the original Landrace importation, 4 males and 27 females have been slaughtered. In addition, there have been about 400 Land-race bacon hogs slaughtered for test purposes.
5.	Not now.
6.	Slightly. From the data collected, it is calculated that Landrace pigs reached 200 pounds in 174 days and Yorkshire pigs reached 200 pounds in 178 days.
7.	Yes. From data collected the Swedish Landrace average 3-26 pounds at birth and Yorkshires, 2-48 pounds.
8.	There is no proof that the Swedish Landrace sows are better milkers than the Yorkshire sows.

Questions as Orders for Returns
9.	No digestion trials have been conducted.
10.	There is no conclusive evidence that the Landrace are better suited for self-feeders.
11.	No. It was considered advisable to first test out the Landrace pigs under Canadian conditions.
12.	No decision with regard to distributing Landrace pigs will be made until all information required is available.


TARIFF RULINGS UNDER &quot;NOT MADE IN CANADA&quot; PROVISION
Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	Since January 1, 1930, how many applications for tariff rulings have been made under the "Not made in Canada" rule by the Aluminium Company of Canada, year by year?
2.	Since January 1, 1930, have any payments in the nature of rebate been made to the Aluminium Company of Canada? If so, what were the dates, amounts, and reasons for same?
3.	Since January 1, 1930, how many applications for tariff rulings have been made under the "Not made in Canada" rule by the Page-Hersey Company, year by year?
4.	Since January 1, 1930, have any payments in the nature of rebate been made to the Page-Hersey Company? If so, what were the dates, amounts, and reasons for same?


Mr. ILSLEY:: This question relates entirely to the business of private companies and it is not the practice of the department to disclose such information. The mover not being in the house, perhaps the question could stand. I hope it will be dropped.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stand.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What are the names of the staff of radio station CRCT, in Toronto, and the length of service, rank, remuneration of each, and what were their respective living and transportation expenses during the past year?
2.	How many musicians and other officials are drawing federal pensions as well as salaries, and who are they?
3.	Who are the announcers at this station, and are they related to any musicians or others employed there? If so, what is the relation?
4.	How many of the musicians are, (a) union men; (b) non-union?
5.	What are the names of the announcers and musicians, and of the choir leader and quartette?
6.	How long has Mr. Lucas been employed; and are any members of his family also employed?
7.	Have any other officials relatives employed?
8.	Do the choir leader, quartette, and the minister draw government pensions?
9.	Are any members of the family of Mr. Waddington, known on the radio as Frank Gladstone, employed? If so, what are the names ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled herewith.
"made IN CANADA" FILE


Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	Has the Department of National Revenue a file known as the "Made in Canada File," or known as "Not Made in Canada File"?
2.	If so. what is its number?
3.	When was such file opened or started?
4.	Since January 1, 1930, how many applications or requests for tariff rulings or decisions having the effect of an increase in the tariff were recorded in said file? (Answer to be given year by year.)
5.	What is the total number of companies, firms and individuals who have made such requests?
6.	What are the names of the 20 applicants who have made in each year since January 1, 1930, the greatest number of such requests?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The answer to a part of this question would disclose the business of private companies and therefore to that extent the question cannot be answered. There is no objection to answering the rest of the question. I suggest that it stand as an order for return.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. WALSH:: For a return showing direct and indirect relief by provinces, for each of twelve months, ending February, 1937, under the following headings:
1.	Total on direct relief;
2.	Homeless persons;
3.	Provincial works, number given relief work (Trans-Canada highway not included);
4.	Trans-Canada highway;
5.	Municipal works, number given relief work;
6.	Farm placement;
7.	Federal departments, number given relief work on wage basis;
8.	Relief in dried-out areas, other than direct relief;
9.	Relief settlement, number individuals assisted;
10.	Total numbers assisted.



DANISH, SWEDISH AND YORK PIGS-COPENHAGEN REPORT

Mr. GIROUARD (for Mr. Blair):: For a copy of: (1) the general report on the Danish, Swedish and York pigs, as given in the Copenhagen report as regards the age, feeding, size at birth, and prolific nature of each; (2) report of the testing in regard to feeding, grading and age of these pigs at the different stations in Canada; (3) the comparative report on the experiments with Swedish and York hams, with special reference to the Copenhagen report on Danish hams.

Sit-Down Strikes



GOVERNMENT-OWNED RAILWAY LINE, WINDSOR- WINDSOR JUNCTION, N.S.

Mr. PURDY:: For a copy of order in council, dated 14th November, 1914, dealing with lease between the Department of Railways and Canals and the Dominion Atlantic Railway, of the government owned line of railway from Windsor to Windsor junction, Nova Scotia.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled herewith.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to provide for the appointment, calling up for training and duty, and payment of a certain number of men as reserve constables, to be known as the "Royal Canadian Mounted Police Reserve," and for the appointment from among such constables of reserve non-commissioned officers; to provide also that time served in the permanent forces of Canada may be included in the term of service of an officer or a constable for pension purposes; and to provide further that any person who ceases to be a constable shall have the right to continue the payment of instalments for pension purposes or the right of withdrawal of all such contributions.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. A. McLARTY (Essex West):: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). In view of the reports in the press, does the government intend to take a stand with regard to what are called sit-down strikes in industrial establishments?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: In answer to the hon. gentleman, who communicated to me the question he was going to ask, I desire to make the following statement:
A "sit-down strike," so-called, is, I understand, instituted and carried out by the employees of a factory or other industrial or commercial concern, who, having entered the

premises legally in connection with their work, illegally remain and take possession of such premises, and hold same by physical force against the owners and employers. A sit-down strike in Canada would be entirely illegal, and would not only tend to undermine all respect for law and order, but would, if proceeded with on any large scale, likely disrupt the business and administration of the country. Such a sit-down strike would also likely tend to create a riot and public disorder, which is contrary to the views of organized labour in this country. Legitimate means of redressing grievances already exist in Canada.
The sit-down strike shall not be permitted to obtain any footing here. The administration of justice is of course committed to the provincial authorities and they are exclusively responsible for it. But the dominion government is prepared to utilize all the resources and agencies at its command and to the extent of its legal powers to the end of restraining and eliminating this illegal mode of procedure in Canada.



PETITIONS OF RIGHT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, during the last session of parliament, while the bill respecting National Harbour Board was under consideration, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in proposing the rejection of an amendment which I had submitted to provide for suits in tort against the board, gave an assurance that during the recess his department would prepare a bill to amend the existing law with respect to petitions of right, and providing for suits in tort against the crown. On January 26 last the minister assured the house that a draft of such a bill had been prepared and submitted to the government for approval, and the minister then expresed his intention to submit that bill to the house during the present session. It has not yet appeared on the order paper. I ask the Minister of Justice if he has any additional information to give to the house regarding the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: A draft of a bill along the lines mentioned was prepared and has been submitted to the various departments of the government, preparatory to being submitted for approval by the council. But I must say that there are many difficulties in the way, and strong objections come from almost every department. I have found that in the United Kingdom the committee which sat a few years ago prepared a draft of a bill

Mail Delivery on Good Friday
concerning this matter, which has never been enacted because of difficulties presenting themselves there. Under the circumstances I have decided to exclude from the ordinary course which is now followed, commissions of the government, such as the one concerning which my hon. friend moved an amendment last year, and others which deal more particularly with business and public utilities. But I am afraid that at this stage of the session it would be difficult to proceed with this legislation. I respectfully ask my hon. friend to give me a little more time to achieve the end he has in view.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the minister renew his assurance for the next session of parliament?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: May I inquire what additional legislation we may reasonably expect during the present session? I would have inquired on Monday but I thought possibly the Prime Minister might like an opportunity to determine the matter, and this seems to be the appropriate time to ask.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my right hon. friend that I think the house already has before it practically all the proposed legislation. There are one or two minor matters which will have to be considered; I shall give the house a list of them to-morrow. There is, I think, nothing more of special importance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is quite satisfactory.



MAIL DELIVERY ON GOOD FRIDAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask if there will be delivery of mail on Good Friday, a national, public and religious holiday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) is not in his seat at the moment, but I shall direct his attention to the hon. member's question, so that it may be answered to-morrow.


Thomas Langton Church: I thought this was a Christian country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It might be a Christian act to deliver the mail.
TAXATION OF WAR PENSIONERS On the orders of the day:


Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley), first, whether it would be possible to ascertain the amount of revenue the government derived in 1936 from the taxation of pensioned veterans of the late war, and second, whether the government has considered putting such pensions on a tax-free basis.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps the hon. member would put the question on the order paper. I shall try to get an answer to it.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North) r Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) if a return ordered on January 27 relating to dismissals from the Department of Agriculture can now be tabled?
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: It will be brought down to-morrow.
GRAND TRUNK RAILW'AY SECURITIES On the orders of the day:


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: Some weeks ago a question I had on the order paper from the early part of the session dealing with the matter of the Grand Trunk securities was passed as an order for return, but as far as I know the return has not yet been tabled. I would ask the government to look into the matter and see if I can have the return very shortly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have discussed the matter with my deputy, who has the matter in hand. It deals with a delicate legal situation, and it is necessary to obtain very complete legal advice before we answer the question.
NEW WESTMINSTER PENITENTIARY On the orders of the day:


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) if his attention has been drawn to a matter affecting the administration of the penitentiary at New Westminster, where the usual process has been reversed in that some person or persons succeeded in breaking into the penitentiary over the high walls surrounding that institution, and were able to
2116	COMMONS
Canada-United. Kingdom Trade Agreement
get away with some valuable equipment. My second question is this: Can the minister inform the house when the royal commission investigating the penitentiaries will reach the Pacific coast?


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to inquire into the first question raised by the hon. member, and do my best to satisfy his legitimate curiosity. In reply to the second question may I say the commission is in Kingston; it will complete its work there in the very near future, and will proceed to the Pacific coast.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, last night we completed the discussion of schedule IV and that brings us to article 6.
Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Article 6 is as follows:
The government of Canada undertake that the goods the growth, produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom enumerated in schedule IV appended hereto, when conveyed without transhipment from any part of the British empire enjoying the benefits of the British preferential tariff into a sea, lake or river port of Canada, shall not be subjected to duties of customs higher than those specified in that schedule.
The government of Canada undertake as regards goods the growth, produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom other than those enumerated in schedule IV that, under the British preferential tariff, no new protective duty shall be imposed and no existing protective duty increased except after an inquiry at which United Kingdom producers shall enjoy full rights of audience.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
On article 7:
The government of Canada undertake that goods the growth, produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom enumerated in schedule IV, when not of a class or kind made in Canada and when subject to duties of customs on
importation into Canada, shall, when conveyed without transhipment from any part of the British empire enjoying the benefits of the British preferential tariff into a sea, lake or river port of Canada, enjoy the benefit of preferential tariff margins which, in the case of any such goods, shall not be less than the difference between the rate of duty provided for in this agreement and the rate of duty now levied upon like goods the growth, produce or manufacture of any foreign country, provided however that, if the duty on foreign goods becomes less than such preferential tariff margin, no duty shall be levied on the like goods of United Kingdom origin.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that contemplate the possibility of a stop-over in any other country? The language is indefinite.


Mr. DUNNING:: Is the leader of the opposition referring to the method of shipment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is the usual shipment provision; there must be direct shipment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From British port to British port?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the schedule to be taken up now?


Charles Avery Dunning: Article 7 refers to schedule IV which was passed last night. We will now proceed to article 8.
On article 8:
The government of Canada undertake in respect of the goods the growth, produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom enumerated in schedule V appended hereto that the difference between the rates of duties of customs on such goods on importation into Canada, when conveyed without transhipment from any part of the British empire enjoying the benefits of the British preferential tariff into a sea, lake or river port of Canada, and the rates upon similar goods the growth, produce or manufacture of any foreign country shall not be less than the margins set out in that schedule.


Charles Avery Dunning: Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
The schedule now before us comprises ninety-one tariff items, eighty-four of which have already appeared in schedule IV, so far as rate of duty is concerned. In schedule V Canada undertakes to maintain the preferential margins indicated in the schedule. The chief difference between the present schedule V and schedule E of the old agreement is with respect to the number of items, there being 215 in the former agreement and 91 in this one. The 215 were qualified subsequently by negotiation between the two countries, with respect to some ten or fifteen-


Richard Bedford Bennett: More than that There were 100 free items with Great Britain when the late government left office.


Charles Avery Dunning: I believe my right hon. friend and I are not talking about the same thing. I am referring only to fixed margins.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were taken out, and therefore no longer were applicable. That was done by agreement between the Canadian and British governments. Some of these bound items were made free. As a matter of fact others of them ware found to have no value at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think there is anything further I can say about the schedule as a whole. We can take it item by item if that is the way the committee desires to proceed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only items that need be considered, I should think, are those not covered by the items already disposed of. We have gone over the rates of duty with respect to a number of these items, and, the effect of this schedule is to bind certain articles that we considered yesterday.


Charles Avery Dunning: To bind the margin.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, except with respect to certain of them, and I should think we could dispose of those certain items and the others might be taken as already disposed of. There are ninety-one items in all, and it could be done very quickly.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think I should indicate to the committee those items on which there is a change in the amount of margin; I believe that would facilitate discussion of the whole schedule. On item 410b, coal cleaning equipment, the preference is increased by means of a reduction in the British preference rate, which was effected yesterday in schedule IV. On item ex 427-ex 446a, motion picture equipment, the margin of preference is also increased by reducing the British preference rate in schedule IV. On item ex 445k, electrical instruments, the
margin of preference is increased by reducing the British preference rate, which we did yesterday. On item ex 392, forgings of steel, the preference is also increased by reducing the British preferential rate. On item ex 397b, pipes and tubes of iron and steel, the preference is increased by a reduction in the British preferential rate. There are twenty-one items on which the preferential margin is reduced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was those items I was going to ask the minister to mention; it seemed to me that we would save time in that way.	.


Charles Avery Dunning: These are the items: ex 208j, sal ammoniac; the margin is reduced. Item 208t, chemicals n.o.p.; the margin is reduced. Item ex 210, peroxide of soda and so on, is removed from the margin list. Item 216, acids n.o.p.; the margin is reduced. Item ex 219, solutions of hydrogen peroxide; the margin is reduced. Item 219d, sulphuric ether and chloroform; the margin is reduced. Item ex 247-247a, artists' colours and so on; the margin is reduced. Item 320, plate glass; the margin is reduced. Item 321, other plate glass; the margin is reduced. Item 339a, lead capsules for bottles; the margin is reduced. Item ex 353, certain manufactures of aluminum; the margin is reduced. Item 428f, combustion engines; the margin is reduced. Item ex 429, penknives and pocket knives; the margin is reduced. Item 440 (1), aircraft; the margin is reduced. Item 523c, cotton fabrics woven of yams of counts of 100 or more; the margin is reduced. Item ex 540 (a), pure linen fabrics; the margin is reduced. Item ex 540 (b), articles made from pure linen; the margin is reduced. Item 551c, hair yarns; the margin is reduced. Item 605a, pig leathers and moroccos; the margin is reduced. Item 392a, hollow forgings; the margin is reduced. Item 398a, polished tubing; the margin is reduced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In order that there may be no misunderstanding, that has reference not to the duty but to the established and fixed margin.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are two items to which I desire to direct attention. The maintenance of a twenty per cent margin on plate glass is referred to in one item, and without going into it in detail, I noticed that the report made yesterday with regard to automobiles dealt with this question. Frankly I glanced through that report very rapidly, and just noticed that there was some reference to the matter, but I intend to look at it more carefully when the opportunity arises. What
2122	COMMONS
Canada-United, Kingdom Trade Agreement
I desire to point out, however, is this: we seem to be in a most unfortunate position in connection with plate glass. It affects our furniture situation and our automobile situation, and the whole business seems to be in the hands of a cartel or syndicate. It does seem that we are bound to make our purchases under conditions and circumstances with regard to prices that certainly enhance the cost, of the production of some of our furniture and some of our automobiles. Can nothing be done in that regard? The margin of twenty per cent that is still maintained is much more than is necessary, having regard to the fact that the Belgian operations are under the control of the British, and the whole thing is operated by one vast-I hesitate to use the word "combine"-


Charles Avery Dunning: It goes beyond that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not use that word. I would use the word "cartel," but it is more than a cartel. They have a cartel, but in addition they have an overriding organization that deals with the subject. I have no doubt that the minister had this brought to his attention when he was discussing this agreement. Does he see no way out for us at all in connection with it? It has become a matter of substantial importance to the Canadian people.


Charles Avery Dunning: I agree.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is dealt with in these
two items, 320 and 321. I confess that I have no constructive suggestion to make, but I thought possibly the minister, having looked into it, might have in mind some method by which we could overcome the difficulty.


Charles Avery Dunning: Plate glass, of course, is
a splendid illustration of the extreme of the cartel situation. I think all who have studied the matter will agree with that statement. It will be noticed that in the ordinary budget tariff items this session a reduction of five per cent, which is one-fifth of the duty under the intermediate tariff, is being made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid that is not going to help very much. Probably anything short of free entry would not be of much help.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is some question
as to whether even free entry would help.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I know.


Charles Avery Dunning: I want to proceed with
reasonable care. The British government is fully aware of the views of the Canadian government, which are substantially similar

to those expressed by the leader of the opposition a few moments ago, and indeed this position is at least partly responsible for article 10 of the agreement, which will enable us to make plate glass free if cartelizing conditions continue to affect Canadian industry in the manner in which this plate glass cartel has affected and is affecting Canadian industry to-day. I am advised that there has been some little improvement, but I am not prepared to say that we regard the situation as at all satisfactory even yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As far as article 10 is
concerned, we had not reached it and I was not going to mention this matter until we came to it, but the truth is that we knew of the existence of the condition provided for in article 10 when we signed the agreement, because there is nothing new about it. I am sorry to say that it has been known to me for years and I think it has been known to the minister, so that as far as article 10 is concerned we signed it with full knowledge of the fact that it applied to plate glass. But by what method we can avail ourselves of that article to improve conditions is something else entirely, and I asked the minister if he had any suggestion to make, as to how that result might be brought about.


Charles Avery Dunning: The British government
know our views on the matter, of course, and plate glass is in a sense not now bound, if we wish to invoke the provisions of article 10' to unbind it. In a sense the producers are warned, and we shall take advantage of the provisions of article 10, unless there is improvement in this situation, to make plate glass free if necessary under the intermediate tariff. I know they are showing a disposition to cooperate, but as yet I am not prepared to guarantee the effectiveness of that cooperation. It is certain that both governments are now interested in eliminating the conditions complained of.


Mr. HARRIS:: Could the minister tell us something about crude peanut oil, item 278b, which was not mentioned in the other schedule?


Charles Avery Dunning: We are guaranteeing the continuance of the present preference of ten per cent on crude peanut oil from Great Britain. This means that a tariff of ten per cent will be continued during the life of this agreement under the intermediate heading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the margin.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Joseph Henry Harris: There are large imports of this commodity from China. A refinery is nearing completion in British Columbia which

Canada-United, Kingdom Trade Agreement
I believe is to be used for the treatment of Chinese peanut oil. It is the intention to refine a product which comes in as not being for food and sell it for food purposes. I should be glad if the government would see to it that the statistics are so arranged as to give some indication of these imports of inedible products which are refined in this country and sold for food purposes.
The ten per cent preference to Great Britain is not enough perhaps and the margin of preference might well be increased in the interests of Canada. I think the United Kingdom will find it impossible to freight the crude peanuts from China, process them in England and then transport the resultant product to Canada on a ten per cent preference. The tendency will be to increase the imports from China direct. The cost of producing peanut oil or ground nut oil in China is so small that it comes into serious competition with the production of fats in Canada. Any increase in the preference would benefit Great Britain, and any excise tax, duty or processing tax which should be placed against this product would enure to the benefit of the Canadian producers of animal fats.


Charles Avery Dunning: Item 278b covers crude peanut oil, for refining for edible purposes, used as materials in Canadian manufactures. The imports last year from the United Kingdom were valued at $1,650,000; from China, $900,000, and from the Netherlands, $580,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would come from their East Indian islands.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. While in England we were advised that they were pressing Indian peanuts to produce some of the oil which is sent to Canada. There is some question as to whether Chinese peanuts would qualify under the content clause of the agreement which stipulates fifty per cent British content. There was some indication that the product from Chinese peanuts crushed in England would not qualify, in that there has been a desire on the part of some of those interested to get the content requirement reduced as applied to this particular commodity. This parliament has the power to increase the margin at any time; we are simply guaranteeing that it will not be reduced.


Joseph Henry Harris: Could you give the imports in pounds?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are given in hundredweights.


Joseph Henry Harris: I wanted to compare them with the other figures which were given in pounds. The minister can give the figures in tons if he likes, but we do not sell butter
by the ton; it is sold to the housewife by the pound. A tank steamer load of this product was landed in Canada from China at a cost of less than two cents per pound. This oil was made up into a product which was described as capable of doing any shortening work that butter would do. When close to eighty per cent of a product which costs two cents per pound is made into shortening, it is pretty difficult to produce butter to compete with it.


Charles Avery Dunning: The total imports under this item were 566,500 hundredweight, which reduced to pounds amounts to 56,650,000. The imports from the United Kingdom amounted to 264,380 hundredweight or 26,438,000 pounds.


Joseph Henry Harris: And from China?


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports from China amounted to 18,600.000 pounds.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: I should like to refer back to item ex 710, which reads:
Coverings, inside and outside, used in covering or holding goods imported therewith, shall be subject to the following provisions.
Would that pertain to the importation of British hats that are in a hat box as an inside container?


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: The hon. member is out of order. That item was passed last night.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: It is just for information that I am asking the minister whether the reduction of five per cent is on the hat-boxes that would be contained in the large box container, or the container itself, or both.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not wish to call my hon. friend out of order; he appreciates, I know, that the item about which he is asking the question is not before us in this schedule, and as it was passed last night I have not here to-day the detailed notes with respect to it which I had yesterday. But I can read to him the wording of the item, which of course must be interpreted by the National Revenue department in administration. In that connection I can indicate to him at once that there is no change in the wording of the item, so that whatever has been the practice will continue to be the practice so far as the wording is concerned.
The item reads:
Coverings, inside and outside, used in covering or holding goods imported therewith, shall be subject to the following provisions, viz:
(a) Usual coverings, containing free goods only; usual coverings, except receptacles capable of holding liquids, containing goods subject to a specific duty only, n.o.p.
2124	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
And:
(b) Usual coverings, containing goods, not machinery, subject to any ad valorem duty, when not included in the invoice value of the goods they contain.
There is no change in the wording of that item.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: What shall we now deal with?


Charles Avery Dunning: If we have carried schedule V we shall go back to article 9.
Schedule V agreed to.
On article 9:
The two governments undertake that, except as provided for in legislation already in force, goods the growth, produce or manufacture of either country covered by the provisions of articles 1 and 2, or of the first paragraph of article 6. as the case may be, shall not be subjected on importation into the other country to any imposts or charges other than the customs duties leviable in accordance with the provisions of the said articles unless equal imposts or charges are imposed on similar goods the growth, produce or manufacture of the importing country.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is the usual standard clause in commercial treaties.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
On article 10:
Each government reserve the right to suspend or modify the preferential margin specified in respect of any item in schedule III or schedule V, as the case may be, if, after inquiry, it appears to that government that a predominating share of the trade in such item is controlled by any organization or combine of exporters and that by virtue of the guaranteed margin that organization or combine, is exercising this control to the prejudice of consumers or users of the goods in question.
Article agreed to.
On article 11:
Neither government will, without the consent of the other government, amend their regulations regarding qualification for preferential tariff treatment so as to increase above fifty per centum the prescribed proportion of the value of any class of manufactured articles which must be derived from expenditure in the British empire in order to entitle the articles to preference.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That fixes it at fifty per cent, then.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what it says.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is an undertaking that neither country will increase the proportion beyond fifty per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I say.


Charles Avery Dunning: It fixes the maximum, but it does not fix fifty per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. That is the maximum.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
On article 12:
The government of Canada, recognizing that the entry of Canadian goods into the United Kingdom market free of duty, as assured in article 1 of this agreement and, in particular, their exemption from liability to any special or dumping duty, even if sold in that market at less than their comparable selling price in Canada, warrant more nearly reciprocal treatment of United Kingdom goods offered for sale in similar circumstances in Canada, agree to exempt particular classes of United Kingdom goods from special or dumping duty under the conditions set out in the following paragraphs.
If it appears to the government of the United Kingdom that any goods enjoying entry free of duty into the United Kingdom under the provisions of article 1 of this agreement are exported from Canada to the United Kingdom at export or selling prices lower than the fair market value for home consumption, as determined on the bases laid down in section 6 of the customs tariff of Canada, and that in consequence thereof the sale of similar United Kingdom goods is being prejudicially or injuriously affected, they may notify the government of Canada of the facts of the case and request that United Kingdom goods of each or any class or kind normally manufactured by the Canadian industry manufacturing the goods in question shall be exempt from special or dumping duty on importation into Canada.
On receipt of such notification and request the government of Canada will take suitable steps to correct the situation complained of and, if other measures are ineffectual, will exempt United Kingdom goods, as specified in the notification, from special or dumping duty for such period as may prove necessary. Recognizing that in certain circumstances it may be found necessary to exempt from special or dumping duty other United Kingdom goods of a class or kind normally manufactured by the Canadian industry manufacturing the goods in question, the government of Canada agree that they will accord sympathetic consideration to any request that the United Kingdom government may make under this article for such exemption and will, in consultation with the United Kingdom government, determine what measures shall be taken to restore fair trading conditions.
Mr. MacNICOL:: I have been wondering whether there is any means by which the minister could induce the Canadian manufacturer, or be assured that the Canadian manufacturer will do so, to honour the intent of the agreement and eliminating any possibility of the United Kingdom finding it necessary to inflict upon Canadian industry the penalties herein contained. I am certainly not in accord with the Canadian manufacturer dumping on the British market or the British manufacturer dumping on our market;

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
there should be the strictest fair play. Perhaps there is some necessity for all the provisions of this article, but as I have said, I wonder if there is no other way whereby the government could ensure fair trade between the manufacturers of the two countries. I note that the article states:
If . . * any goods ... are exported from Canada to the United Kingdom at export or selling prices lower than the fair market value for home consumption . . .
Such a condition should not exist. I mean that no manufacturer should so violate the principles of fair trading as to permit such a condition to arise. A little further on it is stated that the United Kingdom government-
. . . may notify the government of Canada of the facts of the case and request that United Kingdom goods of each or any class or kind normally manufactured by the Canadian mdus-try manufacturing the goods in question shall be exempt from special or dumping duty on importation into Canada.
It is provided further:
On receipt of such notification and request the government of Canada will take suitable steps to correct the situation complained of and, if other measures are ineffectual, will exempt United Kingdom goods as specified in the notification, from special or dumping duty for such period as may prove necessary. Recognizing that in certain circumstances it may be found necessary to exempt from special or dumping dutv other United Kingdom goods of a class or kind normally manufactured by the Canadian industry manufacturing the goods in question, the government of Canada agree that they will accord sympathetic consideration to any request that the United Kingdom government may make under this article for such exemption ....
It is pointed out that where the United Kingdom finds it necessary it may apply to the Canadian government for permission to dump into Canada any line of goods of a kind made by a Canadian company which is violating the article. I find from certain surveys I have made that in England there are a large number of companies that manufacture on a mass scale, confining themselves to one line whereas in Canada many companies make many lines-I speak about the line that I am more familiar with-a certain company manufactures boilers, radiators, iron pipe, iron pipe fittings, castings in connection with the steamfitting trade, valves and so on. This condition does not exist in the old country in their large plants. As I understand this article, if the United Kingdom found that a Canadian company manufacturing radiators violated the spirit of the agreement by dumping radiators in England, then the United Kingdom could ask for permission to dump into Canada not only radiators but all the other lines I have mentioned as manufactured by a particular company making radiators in Canada. It strikes me that if we could use some means to prevent a violation of the spirit of the article-and evidently the hope is implied in the article that it will not be violated-trade would be much more amicable between the two countries than if it were necessary for Great Britain to seek to dump upon our market not only the particular line in respect to which the treaty might be violated but all the other lines manufactured by such a company as I have mentioned.


Mr. BROWN:: I have read article 12 several times and I am utterly unable to understand it. I do not get its meaning. No doubt the minister is aware that both countries engage in a certain amount of dumping, that is, selling goods in each other's market somewhat below the selling price in the home market. I am wondering what the actual meaning of this article is.


Joseph Henry Harris: The questions I have in mind are similar to the one asked by the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Brown). We might go as far as to say that all countries do some dumping, and in that direction I can see grave difficulties for Canadian industry under this Canada-United Kingdom agreement. The remarks I am now making I base on our exports to the United Kingdom at the present time and that proportion of those exports that might be termed manufactured goods. At present we export to the United Kingdom about 20 per cent of household food products; in round figures, about 40 per cent of grains, seeds and animal products; 35 per cent of building materials, and products for the secondary industries, such as lumber and so on; while our exports of manufactured goods to Britain amount to between 5 and 7 per cent in what might be described as manufactured goods, the main items being rubber products, footwear and so on, amounting to about $4,500,000; cotton products, $500,000; hardware, about $1,250,000; automobiles, about S2.000,-000; films, about $1,750,000; leather goods, about $750,000; soaps about $700,000, and other miscellaneous items making a total of about S16,000,000 of manufactured goods, largely the product of the Canadian workman and the use of Canadian raw material.
Under this article, as I read it, that trade is imperilled. We have in our customs act a provision, section 6, I believe, with regard to the fair market value for home consumption; and when one thinks of what that provision means in its relation to the dumping
2126	COMMONS
Canada-United, Kingdom Trade Agreement
of goods from foreign countries, and in conjunction with the adoption of article 12, one can see that one of the first consequences will be a decline in the standard of living here to the United Kingdom level. But it is much more far-reaching than that. As I understand the United Kingdom tariff structure, they have not in their customs law a provision similar to ours with respect to dumping, with the result that countries such as Czechoslovakia, Belgium, France and even Russia can pay the duty that is prescribed by the United Kingdom tariff and sell their products in England. For, as we all know, the duty there is not nearly sufficient to stop the practice of European dumping, and I understand that the United Kingdom has no dumping provision. The result is that the consumer in England of products that are made in these countries can very well buy those products at a lower price, even with the duty paid, than he would be able to buy them in the United Kingdom.
In view of these facts I wish to ask a few questions which perhaps will induce the government to make some satisfactory answers along this line. I would ask them to see to it, whenever one of these items is brought to the attention of the Canadian government by the United Kingdom authorities, that the Canadian manufacturer and exporter to the British market shall not be placed in any inferior position or at any disadvantage in relation to the European manufacturer who is able to supply the English market with the same commodity. Will the Canadian government act immediately on any submission received from a United Kingdom manufacturer, which is not supported by full evidence, that the Canadian export price is lower than the fair market value as determined in section 6 of the Customs Act. I would expect the answer to that to be that they would so act. The minister will correct me if my surmise is wrong. Is it the understanding of the Canadian government that the United Kingdom government will investigate and determine whether the submission to it is a pertinent submission of facts which prove that the Canadian goods in question were actually dumped on the United Kingdom market?


Charles Avery Dunning: The answer to that is
that the United Kingdom government is under obligation to be certain of its facts before communicating with the Canadian government about the matter.


Joseph Henry Harris: If the United Kingdom
manufacturer merely submits to the United Kingdom government a claim as to alleged 
dumping, will that submission be accepted by the Canadian government for investigation without the United Kingdom government first investigating the complaint? Is the Canadian government just going to let the United Kingdom manufacturer make a complaint to the British government which is passed on by the British government without investigation, or will the United Kingdom government make an investigation before submitting the complaint to the Canadian government?


Charles Avery Dunning: The second paragraph of the article I think makes that clear.
If it appears to the government of the United Kingdom that any goods enjoying entry free of duty into the United Kingdom . . . are exported from Canada to the United Kingdom at export or selling pries lower than the fair market value for home consumption, as determined on the bases laid down in section 6 of the Customs Tariff of Canada. . . .
The United Kingdom government obligates itself to satisfy itself as to the facts. My hon. friend may be very sure that on any complaint from the British government under this section the Canadian government will also assure itself as to the correctness of the facts. This was one of the difficulties, in fact one of the chief criticisms made by the United Kingdom government, as regards the operation of trade between the two countries. The Federation of British Industries have made vigorous complaints to their own government regarding the dumping of free goods into the British market. As is well known, the federation rather desires the enactment of antidumping legislation in the United Kingdom. Up to this time no anti-dumping legislation has been enacted, and there does not appear to be a disposition to meet the problem in that way. There was however a complaint by the British government-a strong complaint, may I say-that when they are admitting our goods free of duty it is going pretty far to dump them on that market at prices lower than are charged for the same commodity under like conditions at home. It is very difficult to meet that argument. The manifest intention of both governments was to encourage fair trade practices and to go as far as possible to discourage unfair trade practices, and it was hoped that this provision would be itself effective in stopping the abuses, specific instances of which were brought to the attention of the Canadian ministers during the negotiations. The accuracy of the instances we could not question at the time, and investigations since have demonstrated that they were well founded in several rather important cases from the point of view of British trade.

Canada-United, Kingdom Trade Agreement
I may say that with respect to this article I expected more complaint from Canadian industry than I have received. I have not had a single complaint, and only one inquiry as to its bearing, along the line that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) took this afternoon. There is, I think, a fair understanding on the part of Canadian industry that the design of article 12 is to ensure fair trading as far as we can under the agreement.


Joseph Henry Harris: As to the last observation of the minister I may say there are quite a number of complaints under way. Within forty-eight hours of the tabling of the agreement certain groups, members of the federation in the United Kingdom, got very busy, and if the minister has not received many complaints so far-


Charles Avery Dunning: I meant complaints from Canadian manufacturers.


Joseph Henry Harris: Answering my consumer friend sitting behind you, we are all anxious to do all we can for the consumer in Canada, yes; but let my hon. friend take a broad view of the situation and see what is actually going on the world over. The cartels in Europe, subsidized in some cases, are dumping the surplus products that they do not require for home consumption. Thus Great Britain finds herself the recipient of many million pounds' worth of cheap goods, and it is very difficult for us to hold our own against that position.
In regard to the British Federation of Industries, I think it is time that the government in Canada, regardless of its political stripe, should take into its confidence industry in Canada, in the same manner as the federation of British industries enjoys the confidence of the government of the United Kingdom. And I say to industry in Canada that they ought to get together and see that their representations are properly made to governments, divorcing the matter from politics, and that fair consideration is given to the possibility of making for diversified industry in this country.
Section 7 of the Customs Tariff contains these words: "If other measures are ineffectual to correct dumping." Does that mean that the Canadian government will authorize the dumping of United Kingdom gloods into Canada if it appears that it cannot otherwise stop the Canadian manufacturer or exporter from dumping?
Furthermore, article 12 provides that a Canadian industry manufacturing the goods in question shall have these provisions applied against it. If onie or two manufacturers, which may represent ten per cent of the
trade, should transgress the dumping provisions, does this mean that the entire industry is to be penalized? Because we are bound to find among our industries a few people who will endeavour to dump a surplus in order to get ready cash or for some other reason. Is the entire industry in Canada to be penalized under this clause?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will notice the last words of article 12:
. . . the government of Canada agree that they will accord sympathetic consideration to any request that the United Kingdom government may make under this article for such exemption and will, in consultation with the United Kingdom government, determine what measures shall be taken to restore fair trading conditions.


Joseph Henry Harris: Is there a compensating clause for the Canadian industry?


Charles Avery Dunning: It means that both governments recognize that there is a problem here. During the discussions the possible case cited by my hon. friend was discussed. The fact of course is that the government of the United Kingdom and the government of Canada are not antagonists in this matter; they are not going to adopt an unreasonable attitude towards each other. We know it is a problem for which we cannot lay down strict and specific remedies in law. Here we provide a possible type of remedy which can be applied on mutual consultation as to the manner and extent it is desirable to do so under the circumstances. My hon. friend must look at article 12 in that broad spirit. First its intent is by its very presence to say to those who are guilty of something which they know is unfair that here is a piece of machinery under which they can be penalized unless they reform. Secondly, if one or two units in a large industry are guilty there is the moral effect of the possibility that the whole industry may conceivably be made to suffer; therefore the moral influence of the whole industry would we hope be brought to bear upon members guilty of unfair practices. Failing that, the two governments must consider the circumstances, and in an extreme case my hon. friend from Davenport would be quite right. If a company manufacturing radiators, among other articles, dumped radiators into Great Britain, while a return privilege to British manufacturers of radiators to dump those radiators in Canada would not be effective as a remedy, under this article the British government could say to Canada, "Well, will you, the government of Canada, consider giving ue the right to dump another article which is produced by the same industry that is dumping radiators into our
2128	COMMONS
Canada-United, Kingdom Trade Agreement
market?" One could not refuse at least to consider such a case if and when it arose, having regard to the basic fact which underlies this treaty, that our goods are going into their market not only free of dumping duty but free of any tariff duties whatever. It is a matter of elementary fairness, we think, to be willing to give consideration to some measures to prevent specific abuses such as were brought to our attention.
I do not claim for a moment that it is possible to put into language a clause which would be sufficiently tight to deal with this whole matter. One cannot imagine all the circumstances which might surround particular cases, but we do know that we can rely' upon the good faith of the government of Great Britain, and I am sure I can say that the government of Great Britain relies upon our good faith. The two governments can cooperate to prevent those trade practices against which Great Britain has no antidumping law but against which our manufacturers are protected by means of the dumping provision in our customs law. Someone has said something about the consumers being protected. In that regard I should like to direct attention to section 17 of the customs tariff:
In the event of producers of goods taking advantage of any duty imposed under this act to increase the price of such goods to the consumer, or using any such duty to maintain prices at levels deemed by the governor in council to be higher than should prevail, having regard to general economic conditions in the country, the governor in council may reduce or remove such duty.
It is just as well to remind ourselves once in a while of the existence of sections like that in. the customs tariff.


John Gordon Ross: Will the minister be able in another year, we will say, to bring down instances that may be brought to his attention by the British government under this article, with the names of the firms that have committed the offence?


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, at the moment I can see no reason why, one year from now,
I should not give any case in which the guilty party had not reformed, so to speak. I do not know that it would be doing any good to recite that we had a difficulty with a certain organization and that during the year the difficulty was removed. I can see no need to reflect upon anyone in that fashion, but I see no objection at all to communicating to the house the names of any who persistently occasioned difficulty in this regard and who were incorrigible, if I may put it in that way.


John Gordon Ross: It might be
good information to have, in regard to framing tariffs in another budget or before another house, if we knew that some of these people not only did not need any tariff but were able to sell for less than other firms could manufacture the goods in another market.


Mr. DEACHMAN:: Has section 17 ever
been invoked, and if so when and with regard to what commodity? The last case I recall was in connection with glass.


Charles Avery Dunning: One is compelled to rely upon one's memory and that of the officials who are here, and it is impossible to answer that question from memory.


Robert John Deachman: It has not been used
very frequently.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is there.


Robert John Deachman: It has not been used
very often.


Joseph Henry Harris: The minister recited the
last five or six lines of article 12. Without using time in reading that section again, as I see it this is all onesided. We all know that the English business man is a very shrewd trader, and we are not so highly organized here as they are in Great Britain. It seems to me it is the duty of our government to look after our people. I do not say for a moment that this provision was inserted in order to give the British government something to work on, but I do say there should be a compensating clause in similar language to take care of the Canadian manufacturer or the Canadian producer.
While I am on my feet I should like to ask what specific steps the government may take to restore so called trading conditions. Will the Canadian government see that these conditions are restored promptly, or as quickly as possible? Will our government see that this clause is not made to affect an entire industry when perhaps only ten or twelve per cent of that industry is incorrigible, to use the word of the minister?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid my hon.
friend is pressing me too far when he asks me to indicate what can be done in particular cases, when the clause provides for consultation between the two governments and a maximum of cooperation. I do not think I should be pressed as far as that.


Joseph Henry Harris: To come back to the other question, since there is nothing to prevent foreign goods from Belgium, Czechoslovakia and other European countries being dumped

Canada-JJnited. Kingdom. Trade Agreement
on the United Kingdom market, at a dump more than equal to the United Kingdom cost plus import duty, will the government take action against any Canadian industry under this clause if that industry seeks to market goods in the United Kingdom in competition with such foreign manufactured products? That is to say, if Czechoslovakia ships an article into the United Kingdom valued at $100, against which there is a duty of 20 per cent, giving a total cost of $120; if Canada ships the same commodity to the same market to sell at $120, and it is then proven that this amount is a little less than the selling price of that article in Canada, would that constitute a matter which should receive sympathetic consideration on the part of the Canadian government on receipt of a complaint from the United Kingdom government? Or, on the other hand, will the government keep in mind at all times the fact that the value of goods shipped from these countries, plus the duty, should not be considered to be the value of similar goods coming from Canada? In other words, will the government see to it that our market for manufactured goods in Great Britain, which now absorbs only seven per cent of our total exports, is maintained and not thrown open to European countries, as I am rather afraid may happen in this case? I put that statement on record for the benefit of our friends overseas, and in order to bring this point to the attention of the minister. Where goods of the same class are manufactured in Europe, in Great Britain and also in Canada, in days gone by this has happened: They have been dumped into the United Kingdom by the European country and consumed by the people of the United Kingdom. In turn the goods produced in the United Kingdom were shipped to Canada under the preference, and here they competed with our own goods. But getting back to the main question, I should like the minister to say a few words with regard to the possibility of the dump being applied against Canadian goods when the total duty paid value of similar goods imported from European countries might be less than the selling price in Canada of the Canadian goods.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course such a case would have to be examined in the light of the evidence bearing upon the circumstances.


Joseph Henry Harris: It is just the principle I wish to discuss.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am certainly not going to answer positively a hypothetical question regarding the application of this clause. I am sure the hon. member does not expect that, but simply desires to put his remarks on record.


Joseph Henry Harris: If I said to the minister that this is not a hypothetical case, would he enunciate a principle?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend was not asking me to enunciate a principle, but has asked me as to the treatment of a particular case, one which did not involve the naming of the guilty industry, the nature of the commodity or anything other than an assumed set of facts. I am sorry I cannot answer him on that, but I can point out to him, with respect to that part of his question relating to the importation of foreign goods into Great Britain, that on foreign goods there is a duty, as he recognizes.


Joseph Henry Harris: Yes, quite.


Charles Avery Dunning: But does he also recognize that the British Import Duties Advisory Committee has power to act immediately in connection with such matters?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only to recommend, that is all; they have no legislative power, and never have had.


Charles Avery Dunning: We will get details of that. My officers assure me-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That they have legislative power?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, not legislative power.


Joseph Henry Harris: Would the minister-


Charles Avery Dunning: Will the hon. member permit me to finish? I was about to say Great Britain can raise its duties against foreign countries to prevent the kind of abuse to which the hon. member has referred. The agreement relates to goods concerning which they are continuing to allow free entry from Canada. Under no circumstances, except by agreement between the two parties to the agreement, can any duty be placed upon those articles. Great Britain says to us, "Under these circumstances surely you are willing to cooperate with us in seeing to it that your manufacturers do not dump on our market goods which they are offering below the price at which they sell similar goods in their own market."
The whole design of the clause is to give notice to industry in both countries that the governments concerned take cognizance of the problem, and that they are deliberately setting up machinery for complaint and consultation as to the cause of complaints and the merits of them, and also, under certain circumstances, for the application of a remedy which the British government suggested would be a fair one. The application of that remedy, so far as Canada is concerned, is surrounded

2130	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
by safeguards, and I can assure the hon. member the government will take every possible care to see that injustice is not done Canadian manufacturers. But I do not want to say a word in committee this afternoon which could be interpreted by any Canadian manufacturer as offering to him encouragement to dump in the British market, and thereby disturb proper and fair trading conditions there. I have no doubt at all that with respect to meeting foreign competition in the British market, these cases will be taken up on their merits, and that those merits will be apparent in the result.


Joseph Henry Harris: I appreciate the minister's point, but I should like to follow it through to a conclusion. None of us encourages or wants to see our industry dump on the British or any other market, but I should imagine it would be a principle underlying the operation of this trade agreement, and that this government would accept it as a principle, that legislation under article 12 would not be effective against Canadian industry until such time as the United Kingdom corrected a case similar to the hypothetical one, so called by the minister, which I have brought to his attention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This article says just the opposite.


Joseph Henry Harris: That is to say, that the Canadian government would not feel disposed to permit the imposition of a dumping duty against Canadian goods going into the United Kingdom until such time as the United Kingdom had put her house in order with regard to the same commodities coming from Europe.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The agreement says the opposite to that.


Joseph Henry Harris: I cannot just understand it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, this is the most extraordinary article ever put in any agreement that has ever been before parliament. It is clear, from the explanation made by the minister, that he himself realizes that fact. Let us look at the article to find out first what the subject is, and then the predicate. It says:
The government of Canada-
Leaving out all the words in between-
-agree-
To what do they agree?
... to exempt particular classes of United Kingdom goods from special or dumping duty under the conditions set out in the following paragraphs.

That is a definite, positive and complete obligation assumed by the Dominion of Canada under the terms of a solemn written agreement. Let us have no misunderstanding about it:
The government of Canada . . . agree to
exempt particular classes of United Kingdom goods from special or dumping duty under the conditions set out in the following paragraphs.
That is our obligation. All that comes between the words "the government of Canada" and "agree" are recitals of existing conditions. The obligation is what we agree to do, and we agree-there is no halfway house about it-
. . . to exempt particular classes of United Kingdom goods from special or dumping duty-
Under the following conditions. Therefore the next inquiry is: What are the conditions? They are five or six. Number one is:
If it appears to the government of the United Kingdom that any goods enjoying entry free of duty into the United Kingdom under the provisions of Article 1 of this agreement are exported from Canada to the United Kingdom at export or selling prices lower than the fair market value for home consumption, as determined on the bases laid down in section 6 of the customs tariff of Canada.
This has nothing to do with what other countries are doing. It has nothing to do with anything else in the world except-


Charles Avery Dunning: And with something else.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hold on; I am talking about condition number one, under which these goods are offered for sale at other than a fair market price in Canada, under the provisions of our law. That is condition number one. Condition number two is-


Charles Avery Dunning: "And"-


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister will, to use his own language, permit me to make my observations I shall be obliged.
"And," number two-
-that in consequence thereof-


Charles Avery Dunning: Of the first.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -in consequence thereof-
That is, in consequence of condition number one, the sale of these goods at other than a fair market price-
-the sale of similar United Kingdom goods-
That is, the sale of goods produced in the United Kingdom-
-is being prejudicially or injuriously affected-

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Those are the words which are in our statute: "prejudicially or injuriously affected." If the second condition is complied with, namely, that the sale of United Kingdom goods is prejudicially or injuriously affected, which effect is to be determined, then condition number three arises whereby the United Kingdom government-
. . . may notify the government of Canada of the facts of the case and-
Condition number four-
. . . request that United Kingdom goods of each or any class or kind normally manufactured by the Canadian industry manufacturing the goods in question shall be exempt from special or dumping duty on importation into Canada.
Observe those four points. Let us have no misunderstanding about it. There are no conditions with respect to the conditions themselves. They are absolute, definite and certain. (1) You have the fair market price contravened; (2) you have an injurious or prejudicial effect upon United Kingdom goods, and (3) you have a request that United Kingdom goods shall take the place in the Canadian market, not somewhere else, of goods normally manufactured by Canadian industry, and shall thereupon be exempt from special or dumping duty on importation into Canada. Those are the conditions. The minister asks about our being sure of our facts, but I am saying that all that has to be done is to comply with the conditions named in this article. Then number 5, as mentioned in the first paragraph reads:
On recept of such notification and request the government of Canada will take suitable steps to correct the situation complained of and,
We are not to make inquiries. The government has bound itself and the honour of Canada to take steps to correct the situation complained of-nothing else-just that. The honour of this country has been bound to correct that situation by suitable steps, without any variation, without any condition of any kind being imposed with respect to it. I proceed to the next point:
... if other measures are ineffectual, will exempt United Kingdom goods,
That is the sixth condition.
... as specified in the notification, from special or dumping duty for such period as may prove necessary. Recognizing that in certain circumstances it may be found necessary to exempt from special or dumping duty other United Kingdom goods of a class or kind normally manufactured by the Canadian industry manufacturing the goods in question, the government of Canada agree that they will accord sympathetic consideration to any request
31X11-135J
that the United Kingdom government may make under this article for such exemption and will, in consultation with the United Kingdom government, determine what measures shall be taken to restore fair trading conditions.
That refers to the last condition only and to nothing else. I put this to the committee: Have they ever heard the like of that? If only one man sells a bankrupt stock in England, at a time when he is about to go under, at a price which contravenes the definition of fair market price so as to affect the sales of a United Kingdom manufacturer, this government may be asked to do certain things, and this government has pledged the honour of the Dominion of Canada that they will take suitable steps to correct the situation complained of.
Then they say, "if we cannot do it one way, we will do it another way." The other way is to threaten the manufacturers in Canada, because one of their number has done wrong, with the deprivation of the protection which Mr. Fielding first put upon the statute books of this country with reference to dumping duties. In other words, because one has sinned, all are to suffer. But this is only ancillary to the main thing.
The main thing is that they have pledged this country to take suitable steps to correct the situation complained of. The situation complained of is the sale in Great Britain by a Canadian of goods at less than the market price as defined by the Canadian statute so as injuriously or prejudicially to affect the British trader. I cannot conceive of any government agreeing to a proposition of that kind. I can conceive of them agreeing to the latter clauses; I can conceive of them saying that they will punish the whole if they cannot succeed in keeping one of their number from doing so and so; but that is not what is being done. What they have undertaken to do is to pledge the honour of Canada to take suitable steps to>
correct the situation complained of. There is no question of price or anything of that, sort. They simply say: "We have bound* ourselves to agree to exempt particular classes of United Kingdom goods from the special or dumping duty and from the conditions set out in the foregoing paragraph." I have given those conditions. And all the casuistry in the world is not going to change it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All the casuistry of the minister this afternoon when he talked about investigations by governments and all that sort of thing perishes. We agree to do certain things. When a complaint is presented

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
we agree to take suitable steps to correct the situation complained of. If those steps do not succeed, then we proceed, in another way. The other way is to threaten every Canadian manufacturer with the deprivation of the protection which Mr. Fielding thought he should have by means of the dumping duty. That is the position, and I should like to hear a justification of it.
Mr. DUNNING I should like to give some justification, not for the condition upon which the leader of the opposition bases his remarks-


Mr. RYAN:: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: -but with respect to the condition which both governments anticipate might occur.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member does not know what I am talking about.


William Michael Ryan: I rise to a point of order; the right hon. gentleman says I do not know what he is talking about.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think so.


William Michael Ryan: I ask him to withdraw it. I must say I have a little more respect for the people of the United Kingdom than he has. He gives as an example, one bankrupt stock going Into Great Britain and the English merchants thereupon rising up in arms and threatening the people of this country. If that is the attitude he takes in the matter, I am sure I have greater respect for the people of the United Kingdom than he has.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think my remark has been absolutely justified. The hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Ryan) has demonstrated that he did not know what I was talking about. I do not suggest that the people of Great Britain would take up arms. Apparently he has not read the section.


William Michael Ryan: I beg to differ with the right hon. gentleman. I followed him very closely and he said the merchants of the United Kingdom would ask that certain conditions be imposed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the government, not the merchants.


William Michael Ryan: The government would speak for the merchants.


Charles Avery Dunning: It seems to me that we have got a little off the track.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have not got down to the facts.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are rather in the realm of remote speculation when the leader

of the opposition assumes that this article will be enforced because of the dumping of a bankrupt stock of Canadian commodities in England. I am not a lawyer, but I think 1 understand something of the English language. Certainly I understand the intent of the British manufacturers who were negotiating with me. I would regard it as an absolute breach of faith on the part of the British government if they based any application to the government of Canada under this section upon the dumping of a bankrupt stock of Canadian goods. I am quite sure that such will not occur. I think the language itself is sufficient indication of the intention. Look at the second paragraph, which reads:
If it appears to the government of the United Kingdom that any goods enjoying entry free of duty into the United Kingdom under the provisions of article 1 of this agreement are exported from Canada to the United Kingdom at export or selling prices lower than the fair market value for home consumption, as determined on the bases laid down in section 6 of the customs tariff of Canada, and that in consequence thereof the sale of similar United Kingdom goods is being prejudicially or injuriously affected,
The plain intent being a continuing condition, a continuing industrial competition, not the dumping of a few hundredweight or a few tons of bankrupt stock of a certain article. Surely my right hon. friend knows that just one bankrupt stock was not in the minds of either government. Will he take my assurance that never in the discussions was the interpretation placed upon it that he now puts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly would accept the hon. gentleman's statement.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can assure my right hon. friend that there was no such intention on the part of the British government. It is a continually disturbing dumping condition which the British government has in mind, and which	the	language	of	this	section isintended to cover. The article states that on receipt of such notification and request the government of Canada will take suitable steps. Remember,	the	notification	and	request is
accompanied by a statement from the British government of the facts complained of.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where does that appear?


Charles Avery Dunning: The	second	paragraphstates that they may notify the government of Canada	of	the facts	of	the	case. The
next paragraph states that on receipt of such notification, accompanying the facts-and the notification is sent only for the purpose of giving the facts-the government of Canada will take suitable steps to correct the situation complained of. What are the suitable steps?

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know.


Charles Avery Dunning: Neither do I.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite. That is my point exactly.


Charles Avery Dunning: But we are prepared to ask the cooperation of Canadian industry to help us to remove one of the greatest causes for complaint we had to face in negotiating with the British government. We believe that Canadian industry generally will cooperate with us to remove the abuses which are intended to be covered by article 12 of the agreement. Not one Canadian industry has complained to me of the unfairness of article 12, and that from only one source has there been a request for information about it, I think speaks very well for the good intent of Canadian industry to cooperate with the government in this regard. We certainly do not intend to sacrifice the interests of Canadian industry, nor do we pledge the honour of Canada to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under this article you have pledged the honour of this country to take suitable steps to correct the situation complained of. I am familiar with this difficulty. During our term in office complaints were made about the dumping of Canadian goods on the British market, I said then, as I say now, that no one would complain if the British government passed a statute dealing with dumping.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was my answer to them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will mention one item; they complained that we were dumping flour in the British market, and I dare say they told the minister the same thing.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was no complaint about that particular item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The then secretary for the dominions stated that he had received a formal complaint from the milling interests that we were dumping flour on the British market. I think I was able to assure him that there must have been some misunderstanding with respect to it. But that same complaint was made with respect to manufactured goods other than flour-not natural products-which were being manufactured largely in the province of Ontario. Undoubtedly these goods were being sold there lower than they were being sold here. Since the days of Mr. Gladstone-and he frequently indicated this-the British government have never been hesitant in saying that goods were sold abroad cheaper than they were sold at home, that the home consumer had to
pay a higher price than the foreign buyer. The explanation was given that this was the only method of maintaining the foreign trade of Great Britain against the competition that arose from time to time.
The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) gave in a nutshell an outline of our difficulties in meeting foreign competition. Foreign goods entering Great Britain have to pay a duty while our goods have free entry. The contrast is between free entry and the payment of a duty. The British government says that we should not dump our goods in their market because we are being protected by the duties imposed against foreign producers. But under the conditions that are imposed those are not the factors to be considered. The conditions are named:
First there must be a sale of goods-not a continuing sale-at a price other than the fair market price. That is set out as condition number one. Condition number two is that this sale must injuriously or prejudicially affect the British producer. As a matter of fact, we have had this condition before us many times. The adviser of the minister who is sitting here can give him some of the details of cases which have been brought up where it was claimed that the British manufacturer had been injuriously or prejudicially affected by such sales. That is a condition which I say should not react upon the industry as a whole. Obviously this does not contemplate a remedy for a Canadian who is trying to seek a market and who is not selling his goods cheaper than the goods of Czechoslovakia, Belgium or Germany are being sold. In other words, he loses his profit even though they pay the duty. He sells his goods in England at "X" whereas his price in Canada is "X" plus. The fair market price in this country is the determining factor. When the price at which goods are sold in Great Britain is less than the fair market price in Canada, the claim can be made that such sale is injurious and prejudicial to the manufacturer in Great Britain. The Canadian replies that he is compelled to sell at this price because a cargo came in the day before from Czechoslovakia and he is meeting the price at which those goods are being offered. In other words, they have overcome the duty and are selling at a price which he has to meet. When such a case is reported to us we are hereby binding ourselves to take suitable steps to correct the situation complained of.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is one alternative open to us. A while ago I hesitated to be positive with respect to the powers of the British import duties advisory committee. I have the statute before me and I should like to outline those duties.
2134	COMMONS
Canada-United. Kingdom Trade Agreement


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to have them read.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think they have a bearing upon the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The president of the board of trade may ask for an inquiry.


Charles Avery Dunning: I quote from the Import Duties Act, 1932, of Great Britain:
3. (1) Where it appears to the committee that an additional duty of customs ought to be charged in respect of goods of any class or description which are chargeable with the general ad valorem duty and which, in their opinion, are either articles of luxury or articles of a kind which are being produced or are likely within a reasonable time to be produced in the United Kingdom in quantities which are substantial in relation to United Kingdom consumption, the committee may recommend to the treasury that an additional duty ought to be charged on goods of that class or description at such rate as is specified in the recommendation.
(2)	In deciding what recommendation, if any, to make for the purposes of this section, the committee shall have regard to the advisability in the national interest of restricting imports into the United Kingdom and the interests generally of trade and industry in the United Kingdom, including those of trades and industries which are consumers of goods as well as those of trades and industries which are producers of goods.
(3)	The treasury, after receiving a recommendation from the committee that an additional duty of customs ought to be charged on goods of any class or description, may, if they think fit so to do, and after consultation with the appropriate department, by order direct that such additional duty of customs as is specified in the order (being a duty at a rate not exceeding the rate specified in the recommendation) shall be charged on the importation into the United Kingdom of goods of all or any of the classes or description specified in the recommendation, and an additional duty so directed to be charged shall for all purposes be deemed to be chargeable under this section.
(4)	An order under this section directing an additional duty to be charged may direct that it shall be charged-
(a)	by reference to value or to weight or any othere measure of quantity;
(b)	for any period or periods, whether continuous or not, or without any limite of period;
(c)	at different rates for different periods or parts of periods.
I do not think it is necessary to read any more to demonstrate that the treasury of Great Britain has power to deal with the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the contrary, the
minister intimated that it was the committee that had the right, and I told him that the committee had no legislative power.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was meeting the point
that immediate action could not be taken in Great Britain. Certainly the inference I drew from the reply of the leader of the opposition was that action could not be taken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let the minister read
what I said. Because the minister is wrong is no reason why he should put wrong words into my mouth.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend was meeting my argument that the British government had machinery whereby they could meet foreign dumping by an increase in duties in a particular instance, and I am merely reading the sections of the British Import Duties Act which creates the machinery I had in mind, and which I was advised existed. With that machinery, if a case should arise under article 12 of the agreement now before the house, and if it is shown that action is necessary in order to meet competition from Czechoslovakia-I believe that was the country named, but any other country will do by way of illustration-then surely it will be expected that the government of Canada would call attention to the fact and that its representations will be given due consideration. The two governments are not antagonistic in this matter; we are not trying to get the better of each other.


Joseph Henry Harris: I do not think anyone
suggested that.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is not a lawsuit in which one party is trying to beat the other; it is a matter of two countries recognizing that a problem does exist and that there should be, if possible, some reasonable machinery for dealing with it. I admit at once that the machinery here proposed is not and cannot be perfect, and that the obvious method is for the British government themselves to impose dumping duties. But one can scarcely expect the Canadian government to advocate that the British government should impose dumping duties on Canadian goods. That is their business. It was with a view to having some means whereby improvement could be effected that article 12 was evolved. I do not look for abuse under it, but if there is abuse I can assu-e my right hon. friend at once that under the provisions of a later article steps will be taken towards consultation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You can consult and
revise the agreement, of course.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the general consultative article we can negotiate for such

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
adjustments as are necessary. This afternoon's discussion, I fancy, assumes a great deal of difficulty which will not in practice arise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 1 have stated that the import duties committee had no legislative power. The book was sent for and the article read, and it sustains the view 1 expressed, namely, that they have power to recommend. The British treasury issues what is equivalent to our order in council; they have done so previously. To all intents and purposes it is the same as an order in council of the Canadian government.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no such power here, though.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have power by order in council-


Charles Avery Dunning: Not to raise duties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no; we have no power to do that. I am only saying that an order of the British treasury pursuant to a recommendation is the equivalent of an order in council made here upon a recommendation for any purpose. Instead of calling it an order in council as we do, they speak of it as an order of the treasury. But legislative power does not rest with and has not been delegated to the committee, and the treasury is not bound to accept a recommendation in whole though it may do so in part. I saw it in operation once.
The minister seems to think that this is not likely to become an acute question, and I only wish that we could share his confidence. But he has already intimated that it has caused much difficulty in the working of the old agreement, and in fact it has caused difficulty all the time. For it has been contended that our people were dumping goods on the British market. That contention has been made continually. It was made about flour, and I could mention other items which perhaps it would be inadvisable at the moment to do.


Charles Avery Dunning: No doubt we have the same items in mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, no doubt. On the other hand, the British complained that we had imposed a dumping duty on certain steel products with the result that they could not sell those products in this market, the presumption being that they were offering their goods here at a lower price than they were selling them for at home and were therefore subject to the dumping regulations.
As things are now, the power of the imports duty committee to make recommendations to the treasury is not always acted upon very expeditiously, I may tell the minister. I know that in some instances they took a very long time to become operative. That is one of the difficulties I see, and my point is that we have bound ourselves to take steps to correct the situation. The rest is only ancillary to that, and if we cannot evolve any other method we may punish the whole industry in Canada because of the sins of one.


Charles Avery Dunning: But we do not bind ourselves to do that. We have put ourselves in the position where, if no other suitable method is available, we may consult.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have put ourselves in a difficult position. What we shall in fact have accomplished is this: We shall have provided for non-dumping sales in Canada of goods from the United Kingdom at prices which they will make, and which in their judgment will be satisfactory to them and their producers, regardless of the effect upon Canadian production. That is what it means if it becomes effective. I hope the minister is right when he says that he does not believe it will be necessary to do this, but I think it is my duty to point out that it is an extraordinary thing to say that all must suffer, all must be punished, because of the sins of one. In the extreme case which I took, the contemplated bankruptcy, the person involved was in that position where he did not care what might happen so long as he got rid of his goods; and there being no other place where he could get rid of them he shipped his cargo there. It was not a question of the bankruptcy of a single man but of an entire stock which was going to be unloaded on the British people on terms that were satisfactory to him for his purposes, but which might and probably would be prejudicial and injurious to the interests of the British producer. I must say I have never seen the same provision; but I am reassured when the minister says that he has received only one complaint.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was not really a complaint but an inquiry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the circumstances it seems to me that there is less cause for worry than I thought, and if the minister says that only one person has made inquiries with respect to the matter it seems to be fairly obvious that the difficulties which I foresee will not arise. At any rate I hope they will not.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
!136	commons
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
On article 13:
The government of the United Kingdom will invite the government of the non-self-governing colonies and protectorates to continue to accord to Canada any preference which may for the time being be accorded to any other part of the British Empire:
Provided that the operation of this paragraph shall not extend to any preferences accorded by Northern Rhodesia to the Union of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and the High Commission Territories in South Africa.
The government of Canada undertake to accord to those non-self-governing colonies, protectorates and mandated territories, to which the benefits of the British preferential tariff are at present accorded, and also to Malta, the benefit of any preferences for the time being accorded to any part of the British Empire:
Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall interfere with existing obligations or special arrangements already in force between Canada and other parts of the British Empire; and,
Provided further that the government of Canada shall not be bound to continue to accord any preferences to any colony or protectorate which, not being precluded by international obligations from according preferences, either (i) accords to Canada no preferences, or (ii) accords to some other part of the British Empire (in the case of Northern Rhodesia, excepting the Union of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and the High Commission Territories in South Africa) preferences not accorded to Canada.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the existing agreement, no change?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Vrticle agreed to.
On article 14:
The government of Canada undertake to accord to goods the growth, produce or manufacture of any of the non-self-governing colonies, protectorates or mandated territories of Togo-land under British mandate, the Cameroons under British mandate, the Tanganyika Territory or Palestine, treatment not less favourable than that accorded to similar goods the growth, produce or manufacture of any foreign country.
Charles Avery Dunning: This gives the most
favoured foreign nation treatment to the mandated territories.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Including Palestine, for which there was a separate provision under the old agreement, which was not included in the original agreement?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
On article 15:
The government of the United Kingdom will invite the governments of the colonies and protectorates shown in schedule VI appended hereto to continue in operaton the preferences accorded to Canada on the commodities and at the rates shown in that schedule, and the government of Canada will continue in operation the preferences accorded to the colonies, protectorates and mandated territories by Canada as set out in schedule VII appended hereto:
Provided that the government of Canada shall not be bound to continue to accord any preferences to any colony or protectorate which, not being precluded by international obligations from according preferences, either (i) accords to Canada no preferences, or (ii) accords to some other part of the British Empire (in the case of Northern Rhodesia, excepting the Union of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and the High Commission Territories in South Africa) preferences not accorded to Canada; and,	_
Provided further that, in the event of the denunciation and termination of the Canada-West Indies Trade Agreement dated the 6th July, 1925, either government shall be at liberty, on giving at least six months' notice, to terminate the provisions of this article not earlier than the termination of that agreement.
Charles Avery Dunning: Palestine never before
had most favoured nation treatment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It had by special order in council.


Charles Avery Dunning: Only on oranges.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the question of mandated territories was considered at some length and the British government was of the opinion that we might do it, but the League of Nations took the other view, so there was no extension except with respect to oranges.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was with respect to the British preference. I am speaking of most favoured foreign nation treatment.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
Schedule VI:: Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
SCHEDULE VI		
(See Article	15)	
-	Commodity	Margin of preference(1) The Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British Guiana, British Honduras, Jamaica (including the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Cayman Islands), the Leeward Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, the Windward Islands, Fiji, the Federated and Unfederated Malay States, Mauritius and Northern Rhodesia.	Rubber boots and shoes and canvas boots and shoes, rubber-soled.	Is. per pair (or the equivalent in the local currency), that is to say, the general rate to be the Preferential ad valorem rate, if any, plus Is. per pair specific duty.(2) All the colonies and protectorates, except Bermuda (so long as the importations of motor vehicles is prohibited), Northern Rhodesia, and Trinidad, mentioned in (1) above, and also Ceylon, Hong Kong, Malta and the Straits Settlements.	20 per cent ad valorem.(3) All the colonies and protectorates mentioned in (2) above except the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong.	Parts of motor vehicles, including rubber tyres.	20 per cent, ad valorem.All the colonies and protectorates mentioned in (1) above except Fiji, the Federated and Unfederated Malay States, Mauritius and Northern Rhodesia.	Hosiery of cotton or artificial silk.	6d. per pair, that is to say, the general rate to be the preferential ad valorem rate, if any, plus 6d. per pair specific duty.9d. per pair, that is to say, the general rate to be the preferential ad valorem rate, if any, plus 9d. per.pair specific duty.
1 \d. per lb. The preferential drawback of 25 per cent, of certain customs duties to be increased to 50 per cent, of those customs duties.
		
		
		15 per cent, ad valorem.
	and apparatus.	
		\d per lb. pitch pine to be assimi-wood and timber and a of not less than 10s. per ished.
(7) Barbados, British Guiana, the Leeward Islands (Antigua only) and Trinidad.	The tariff treatment of lated to that of other margin of preference 1,000 feet to be establ	
		10 per cent, ad valorem{or the equivalent specific rate).
		
		10 per cent, ad valorem. 2s. per 100 lbs. 9d. per 100 lbs. 10 per cent, ad valorem.
		
		
(11) Bermuda, Jamaica (including the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the Cayman Islands), the Lee ware] Islands and the Windward Islands.		
		
	Eggs		
		10 per cent, ad valorem. 15 per cent, ad valorem.
	Canned fruit and cannec vegetables.	
	Furniture		10 per cent, ad valorem.
2138	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Commodity
(13)	Jamaica	
(14)	Ceylon	
(15)	Cyprus	
(10) The Federated and Unfederated Malay States
Apparel of all kinds (other than hosiery).
Wood and timber. Bacon and ham...
Canned fruit and vegetables.
Canned fish.
Butter, cheese, tinned fish, and timber.
Condensed milk	
Printing and wrapping paper.
Canned fruit and canned vegetables.
Canned fish	
Electric batteries for use in motor cars.
(17) Fiji.
Confectionery	
Timber, dressed and undressed.
(18) Malta.... (19; Mauritius.
(20) Northern Rhodesia.
Wheat flour	
Bacon and ham	
Cheese	
Canned fish	
Electric stoves and household appliances.
Electrical batteries and accumulators.
Boxes, wooden, empty, or in shooks.
Wood, unmanufactured, including ceiling and flooring boards.
Newsprint paper; wrapping paper; unspecified plain or composite paper.
Motor trucks, etc., as specified in Tariff Items 130 (a) and (b).
Motor cars, chassis and rubber pneumatic tyres and tubes of Canadian origin.
(21) Sarawak
Condensed milk.
Margin of Preference
10 per cent, ad valorem.
10 per cent, ad valorem.
10 per cent, ad valorem.
15 per cent, ad valorem.
15 per cent, ad valorem.
One-third of the duty in lieu of one-sixth.
10 per cent, ad valorem.
10 per cent, ad valorem.
15 per cent, ad valorem.
15 per cent, ad valorem.
15 per cent, ad valorem.
10 per cent, ad valorem. 2s. per 100 super, feet.
2s. per 100 kilog.
5 rupees per 100 kilog.
10 per cent, ad valorem.
15 per cent, ad valorem.
15 per cent, ad valorem.
15 per cent, ad valorem.
10 per cent, ad valorem.
10 per cent, ad valorem.
10 per cent, ad valorem.
10 per cent, ad valorem.
To be admitted at the same rates as those of United Kingdom origin under tariff items 129 (a) and (c) and 260.
10 per cent, ad valorem.

Canada-United. Kingdom Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: Schedules VI and VIIare part of article 15 and are a continuation of the old schedules in those cases. I point out that these schedules with respect to the colonies need not extend to the full term of this agreement, but they extend to the time of expiry of the West Indies agreement, in order that the West Indies and the other colonies may be considered together by Canada when that time comes, instead of having the overlapping condition which I believe was embarrassing before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We were precluded from dealing with matters because of the West Indies agreement.


Joseph Henry Harris: I understand we are not precluded, that the articles in the tariff await the expiration of the West Indies trade agreement. Under the present agreement, section 16, they can still deal with articles coming from the colonies.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, that is a matter of arrangement between the two parties.


Joseph Henry Harris: So, as I understand it, we are not precluded from dealing with these items until the expiration of the West Indies trade agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the point. We are precluded from dealing with articles covered by the West Indies agreement until such time as that expires.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
On article 16:
In the event of circumstances arising which in the judgment of the government of the United Kingdom or of the government of Canada, as the case may be, necessitate a variation in the terms of this agreement, the proposal to vary those terms shall be the subject of consultation between the two governments.
Article agreed to.
On article 17:
The agreement will come into force on a date to be mutually agreed between the two governments. On the coming into force of the present agreement, the agreement concluded between the two governments at Ottawa on the 20th August, 1932, shall cease to have effect. Pending the coming into force of the present agreement, the two governments will apply its provisions as far as may be possible and will consult together with regard to the dates on which particular provisions of the 1932 agreements shall be deemed to have been replaced by provisions of the present agreement. The agreement will remain in force until the 20th August, 1940. Unless six months before the 20th August, 1940, notice of termination shall have been given by either government to the other, the agreement will remain in force until the expiry of six months from the date on which a notice of termination is given.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What provision does the government propose to make in connection with the coming into force of the agreement?


Charles Avery Dunning: The British government is dealing with the matter in their Finance Act, I gather. That is our latest advice; we have no assurance as to date. But the government of Canada purposes to deal with the matter by proclamation when we get accurate information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason I asked was in connection with the various tariff items. The resolution becomes effective at midnight on the day submitted to the house. Some it is not intended should be thus dealt with, I take it, or are they all becoming effective? Section 17 does not make that clear.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my right hon. friend will refer to article 9.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Article 17 is the effective article in regard to coming into force.


Charles Avery Dunning: By article 9 the two governments undertake that, "except as provided for in legislation already in force."


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is happening is this: I had sent to me a memorandum from an importer stating that all imports are now subject to revised entries since the date of the budget speech. The date of coming into force is not clearly indicated unless it is meant that they come into force by proclamation.


Charles Avery Dunning: We cover that in the bill. The arrangements are indicated in the budget speech: "By arrangement with the government of the United Kingdom, which is as anxious as we are to put the tariff changes arising from the agreement into force at the earliest possible moment, it has been agreed that the provisions of article 9 and schedule E of the 1932 agreement shall cease to have effect from twelve o'clock to-night, when the provisions of articles 6, 7 and 8 and schedules 4 and 5 of the new agreement will be in effect."


Richard Bedford Bennett: But how can you do that?


Charles Avery Dunning: Under article 16 of the old agreement, and 17 of the new, and the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill founded on this. I think that is the only way it can be done, because it is a statute of the parliament of Canada, which your agreement does not change.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, section 3 of the bill, which I hope to introduce immediately, will say:
From the date of the coming into force of this act, and subject to the provisions of article 17 of the agreement, the United Kingdom Trade Agreement Act, 1932, shall be repealed-
2140	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
And section 4:
The governor in council may make such orders and regulations as are deemed necessary to carry out the provisions and intent of this act and of the said agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Should you not add a clause prov'iding for proclamation?


Charles Avery Dunning: It comes into force on proclamation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should say, " in whole or in part."


Charles Avery Dunning: That is covered by the agreement itself, I think.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, there is no reference to proclamation. If you provide that proclamation may bring it into force in whole or in part you then will admit the provisions ol article 17.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
SCHEDULE VII (See Article 15)
Number of Canadian tariff item
ex 39a 77b ex 87 143 ex 254 264 267b
ex 273
278
278c
616a
616b
Article
Sago and tapioca flour	  pound
Vanilla beans, crude only	
(n) Tomatoes	  pound
CiSars	per pound
Gums, viz: copal, damar, gum chicle or sappato gum, crude	
Essential oils, n.o.p., including bay oil, otto of limes and peppermint oil.
Petroleum tops; blends of petroleum tops or petroleum products with crude petroieum; all the foregoing -7249 specific gravity (63-7 A.P.I.) or heavier, at 60 degrees lahrenheit, when imported by oil refiners to be refined in their own factories	  gallon
Asphalt or asphaltum, solid	
Palm and palm kernel oil, unbleached or bleached, not edible; shea butter	
Oils, viz:-cocoanut, palm and palm kernel, not edible, for manufacturing soap; carbolic or heavy oil	
Cocoanut oil, not edible, when imported for use in the manufacture of refined cocoanut oil	
Batata, crude, unmanufactured	
Gutta percha, unmanufactured	
In item 106 (b), fruits, prepared . . . pineapples, British Preferential rate not to exceed 1 cent per pound.
Margin
of
preference
\ ct. 10 p.c. 2 cts. 50 ets. 10 p.c. 7J p.c.
1 ct.
10 p.c. 10 p.c.
10 p.c.
10 p.c. 10 p.c. 10 p.c.
Schedule agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it proposed to include the letters and annexes as part of the bill?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. I think we should make better progress if we now reported these resolutions relating to the agreement and its schedules, and asked for leave to sit again this day with respect to other items, in order that this bill may be introduced. It is a separate measure entirely and should be dealt with in that way, I think.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do I understand it is not intended in the bill to introduce a provision with respect to lead and zinc and these other matters?
IMr. Dunning.]


Charles Avery Dunning: Not in the bill. It is not essential that there should be; in fact, such conditions are changeable, and therefore it would only be confusing if it was included in the bill.
Resolutions reported, read the first and second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 79, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Customs Tariff




[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Customs tariff-8. Canned meats, poultry or game: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is the residue of the item after extracting that portion which formed a part of the trade agreement. There is no change either in wording or in rate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-105a. Lemon, orange, grapefruit or citron rinds, sulphured or in brine: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: These are rinds which are used in making candied peel and for making marmalade. Grapefruit rind is included with the other varieties.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-105b. Olives and cherries, sulphured o' in brine, not bottled: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 171 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Mr. STIRLING:: I take it that the change in wording here is to conform with the report of the tariff board?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The investigation
of the situation with respect to cherries carried on by the tariff board indicates that processing of cherries in Canada is of fairly recent origin. Small quantities were processed in Ontario in 1928, but it was not until 1933 that real interest was shown. In 1936, 924,000 pounds of cherries, of which ten per cent were dark coloured cherries, were processed in British Columbia, and approximately 185,000 pounds of Niagara peninsula cherries were processed. This quantity of fresh cherries resulted in a production of 776,300 pounds of processed cherries. The change in wording is to deal with the method of packing. The previous item read "in brine" and the practice has been to import them in sulphur, so the usual difficulties occurred.


Grote Stirling: Can the minister go further and say whether the balance of that same recommendation will be adopted by the government?


Charles Avery Dunning: The question of valuation, of course, is a matter of government policy from time to time, so I would not
care to say.


Grote Stirling: The minister is not prepared to state whether or not the balance of the recommendation will be adopted?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, not at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-120.	Anchovies, sardines,
sprats or pilchards, packed in oil or otherwise, in sealed tin containers, the weight of the tin container to be included in the weight for duty:
(a)	When weighing over twenty ounces and not over twenty ounces each, per box: British preferential tariff, 2i cents; intermediate tariff, 5 cents; general tariff, 6 cents.
(b)	When weighing over twelve ounces and not over twenty ounces each, per box: British preferential tariff, 24 cents; intermediate tariff, 4 cents; general tariff, 4\ cents.
(c)	When weighing over eight ounces and not over twelve ounces each, per box: British preferential tariff, 2 cents; intermediate tariff, 3 cents; general tariff, 34 cents.
(d)	When weighing eight ounces each or less, per box: British preferential tariff, II cents; intermediate tariff, 2 cents; general tariff, 21 cents.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is what is left of the item after taking out what was specially dealt with in the British agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-157c. Isopropyl alcohol, per gallon: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 50 cents; general tariff, $1.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There must have been
an n.o.p. item previously, because the general rate is now SI per gallon whereas it was 25 per cent before.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is a very difficult
subject; in fact, I do not think we have finished with it by imposing this tariff. As my right hon. friend indicates, formerly it came under an n.o.p. item at 25 per cent, and one of the difficulties is that it is being consumed by individuals and from time to time a great deal of difficulty is created.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From what is it produced?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is an alcohol, but
curiously enough it is derived from petroleum, and I doubt if this will be the last step we will be compelled to take with regard to it because of recent reports-some, in fact, since this item was first discussed-from the mounted police with regard to the rather terrible misuse of this new type of alcohol.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I would have suggested that the intermediate rate should be SI, because it must be perfectly clear that most of this alcohol will come from the
Customs Tariff

United States, where petroleum exists in such large quantities, rather than from countries under the general tariff. Just why it is 50 cents under the intermediate tariff instead of the old 25 per cent, I do not know.


Charles Avery Dunning: What we are thinking is that we may require to have excise control over the item, as similar alcohols are controlled. That, of course, would be a much more effective way of dealing with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it is real alcohol, it falls under the statute now.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the question; and the lawyers are considering that point now. At the present time it is deemed to be a chemical. I do not know if we can persuade our legal advisers to take a different view, but certainly it is being used as alcohol and the effects it is producing are terrible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would it not be better, then, to describe it by the scientific name and say "commonly known as isopropyl alcohol" to remove any doubt about it? I have heard something of its bad effects upon humans, but I have never seen it and I did not know how it was manufactured. It does seem to me, however, that it would be well to describe it by its chemical name and then say, "otherwise known as isopropyl alcohol" so as to get away from any difficulties that might arise in administration.


Charles Avery Dunning: "Isopropyl" is its name, and we are adding the word "alcohol" because that really covers the debatable part of it. There is no doubt about the term "isopropyl" being appropriate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then if the word "alcohol" is used at all I should think the excise would apply.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what we are hoping.
Mr. BENNETT The very minute you use the word "alcohol" the provision of the excise act becomes active.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is why we are using it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-160. Alcoholic perfumes and perfumed spirits, bay rum, cologne and lavender waters, lotions, hair, tooth and skin washes, and other toilet preparations containing spirits of any kind:
(a)	when in bottles or flasks containing not mitre than four ounces each: British preferential tariff, 30 per cent; intermediate tariff, 90 per cent; general tariff, 90 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is giving the farmer a chance on his eyewash.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am trying to regularize my right hon. friend's system of eyewash; that is the real fact. It is a reduction in duty already effected by reason of arrangements made bs' the last administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is an old item.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: Before we reach the next item in the schedule I have an amendment I should like to have moved to customs tariff 178a.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move:
That schedule A to the customs tariff, as amended by resolution No. 2 of February 25, 1937, be further amended by striking thereout tariff item 178a, and by inserting in lieu thereof the following item, enumeration and rates of customs duties:
178a. Provided, that on the goods specified in item 178 and dutiable under part (ii) of the item, when forwarded to Canada by mail, duties may be prepaid by customs revenue stamps, under regulations by the minister, at the rate specified in the said part item, except that on each separate package weighing not more than one ounce, the duty shall be each: British preferential tariff, 1 cent; intermediate tariff, 2 cents; general tariff, 2 cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is in addition to the new item in the budget.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no change, except in the numbering and form of this item so as to harmonize with the agreement item. But it is necessary to do it this way, in order to have it effective.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-187b.	Sensitized negative
film, one and one-eighth inches in width or over, for exposure in motion picture cameras: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a reduction based upon a report in connection with reference 95 of the tariff board, dealing with motion picture and sound equipment. I have the report before me, if there is a disposition on the part of any hon. member to question it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been tabled, has it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, on budget day.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-219a. Non-alcoholic preparations or chemicals, such as are used for disinfecting, dipping, spraying or fumigating, n.o.p.:
(i)	when in packages not exceeding three pounds each, gross weight: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(ii)	otherwise:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: I have a motion with respect to item 219a.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move;
That tariff item 219a, as contained in resolution No. 2 of February 25, 1937, be amended in wording by striking thereout the phrase "such as are used" immediately before the phrase " for disinfecting."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-219e. Cliloropicrin, ethylene oxide, methyl bromide, methyl formate, cyanides, or mixtures containing any of these, for use in combating destructive insects and pests: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: This item accords free entry from all countries to specified insecticides and fumigants. It is proposed to extend it further to include methyl bromide and methyl formate. The federal Department of Agriculture has used methyl bromide successfully in the treatment of vegetables and fruits, and the methyl formate is used as a disinfectant to kill vermin in furs. At present these two commodities would be classified at rates of free, 15 and 15 per cent. They are not made in Canada, the United States being the chief source of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-232d. Casein: British preferential tariff. 17£ per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 27i per cent.
And per pound: British preferential tariff, 2 cents; intermediate tariff, 2i cents; general tariff, 3 cents.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is casein worth, per pound?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have only the import figures, showing an amount of $10,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-235. Liquorice fibres, whether or not dried, cleaned, cut to size, ground or sifted: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This and the two following items constitute a rearrangement of the
items covering liquorice fibres now dutiable as vegetable fibres n.o.p. The revised item in the first instance makes provision for lower rates of free; 10 per cent and 15 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-235a.	Liquorice paste, not
sweetened: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 174 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-235b. Liquorice in rolls or sticks, not sweetened:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 224 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-236b. Spinal braces and parts thereof: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does it not create some difficulty for a Canadian industry when the duties are made free all across the board?


Charles Avery Dunning: The matter was examined by the customs officials to get a wording which would meet the requests received from many sources with respect to spinal braces. We cannot find whether or not spinal braces of this kind are made in Canada, but we have no trace of such production.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-237.	(a) Synthetic resin
moulding compositions containing synthetic resin derived from phenol and formaldehyde or their homologues or mixtures thereof, in powder or granular form: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
(b)	Synthetic resin moulding compositions,
n.o.p., in powder or granular form:	British
preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
(c)	Synthetic resins, n.o.p., in liquid, powder, granular, or lump form; or in tubes, cylinders, strips, sheets, plates, blocks, bars, rods, angles, channels, tees or other shapes or sections, when for use in Canadian manufactures: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
(d)	Laminated products of which any synthetic resin or resin-like substance is the chief binding agent, in tubes, cylinders, strips, sheets, plates, blocks, bars, rods, angles, channels, tees or other shapes or sections, n.o.p.: (i) with a base of paper or of fibreboard: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 26 per cent.
(ii) with a base of cotton fabric or other woven fabric: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: I have an amendment to the wording of 237 (c). The process of extruding is now a recognized process, and must be covered.
Customs Tariff


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move:
That tariff item 237 (e) as contained in resolution No. 2 of February 25, be amended by inserting the words "not further manufactured than moulded, extruded or pressed," immediately after the word "sections" in line 4 thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: We now come to another group of plastics, also the subject matter of a tariff board report.
Customs tariff-238b.	Cellulose nitrate or
pyroxylin plastics, in tubes, cylinders, balls, strips, sheets, plates, blocks, bars, rods, angles, channels, tees or other shapes or sections, not further manufactured than moulded or pressed, when for use in Canadian manufactures: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-238c. Moulding compositions of cellulose acetate or other derivatives of cellulose, in powder or granular form: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-238d. Cellulose acetate in sheets not less than five one-thousandths of an inch in thickness, and in rods, bars, tubes and other shapes or sections, not further manufactured than moulded or pressed, when for use in Canadian manufactures: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I move, Mr. Chairman:
That tariff item 238d as contained in resolution No. 2 of February 25, be amended by inserting the word "extruded" immediately after the word " moulded " in line 4 thereof.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is simply to insert the word " extruded," as was done in the former item.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-238e. Regenerated cellulose, and cellulose acetate, transparent, in sheets, not printed, and manufactures of regenerated cellulose or of cellulose acetate, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-238f. Interlined sheet stock, composed of sheets of cellulose plastics cemented to cotton fabric: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 174 per cent.
Item agreed to.

Customs	tariff-238g.	Synthetic plastic
materials with a basis of casein, soybean, gelatine or starch, in tubes, cylinders, strips, sheets, plates, blocks, bars, rods, angles, channels, tees or other shapes or sections, when for use in Canadian manufactures: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is an amendment to this item, covering the same point.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move:
That tariff item 238g, as contained in resolution No. 2 of February 25, be amended by inserting the phrase, "not further manufactured than moulded, extruded or pressed, but not including casein button blanks in the rough," immediately after the word "sections" in line 4 thereof.


Charles Avery Dunning: These items are of considerable importance. It is quite an advance to get them into one schedule, and have them properly classified.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-241.	Litharge, which may
contain up to two per cent of carbonaceous matter, and mixtures or combinations of such litharge with lead or other products of lead, litharge being the chief constituent by weight, when imported by manufacturers of electric storage batteries, for use exclusively in the manufacture of storage battery plates, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a rewording which involves a reduction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-242. Dry red lead; orange mineral; antimony oxide, titanium oxide, and zinc oxide such as zinc white and lithopone; white pigments containing not less than 14 per cent by weight of titanium dioxide: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; genera] tariff, 15 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-246b.	Stains and oxides,
valued at not less than 20 cents per pound, for use exclusively as colouring constituents in the manufacture of vitreous enamels and pottery glazes; finely divided metals or compounds of metals, whether dry, or suspended or dissolved in a liquid, for use exclusively in the manufacture of tableware of china, porcelain or semi-porcelain: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 224 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a rewording of this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-254. Gums, viz:-Australian, copal, damar, elemi, kaurie, mastic, sandarac, Senegal, tragacanth, gedda, and barberry; lac, crude, seed, button, stick and shell; ambergris; Pontianac; gums and blends of gums, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: I desire to move an amended wording here.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I beg to move:
That item 254, as contained in resolution No. 2 of February 25, 1937, be amended by substituting for the phrase " gums and blends of gums, n.o.p." in line 4 thereof the following:
" gums and blends consisting wholly or in chief part or gums, n.o.p."..


Charles Avery Dunning: The amended wording is desired because of the difficulty in distinguishing precisely what are blends of gums, and to permit the entry of such blends of gums even in the event that they contain in minor part some substance necessary to the admixture which may not be chemically a gum.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-282b. Saggars, when for use in the manufacture of ceramic products: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-287. All tableware of china, porcelain, semi-porcelain or white granite, but not to include tea-pots, jugs and similar articles of the type commonly known as earthenware: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff. 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the wording of that quite satisfactory-"not to include tea-pots, jugs and similar articles of the type commonly known as earthenware"?


Charles Avery Dunning: "Similar articles."


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right if the department thinks so.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is already included in
the agreement. I do not think we had better go any further in definition.


Robert John Deachman: I should like to point
out that the product referred to in this item is not made in Canada, and we are giving to the British manufacturers under this rate a very substantial exclusive market because the duty under the intermediate and general tariffs is practically prohibitive. My understanding is that within the last few years the British manufacturers have raised their prices very materially and are taking advantage of a situation which gives them practically a monopoly in this market. I believe there would be a decided improvement in the dominion at the 31111-136
present time both from the standpoint of revenue and price if the intermediate and general tariffs were at a lower rate.


Charles Avery Dunning: The free entry of this
class of tableware is not new. I think my hon. friend knows that we are continuing the free entry, and we are amending the wording to define clearly what we intend. I do not like to discuss in detail the difficulties attendant upon the handling of the intermediate tariff under present conditions. The matter is a very complex one, and nowhere are there more difficulties than with commodities such as these. The hon. member says that they are not made in Canada. It is true of a great many articles that while they may not be made in Canada, similar articles may and often do displace articles that are made in Canada; they are alternative to them. The ordinary earthenware is made here. Medicine Hat pottery is, I think, developing very substantially, and I understand that semi-porcelain tableware is made at Hamilton. The effective competition under the intermediate tariff in respect of this particular item is from such a wide range of foreign countries that I would certainly prefer to get a little quid pro quo by way of the admission of certain Canadian products to the interested countries before we undertake to reduce the intermediate duty. In fact, even over the present intermediate duty, certain types of these goods are being imported in volume.


Robert John Deachman: I would point out
that this is one of the substantial items in our tourist trade with the United States, where prices of china are extremely high, and tourists come here and buy large quantities to take back. If the British producer will put these articles in at a low price to give us a chance to market a large quantity and make a substantial profit on them we can do an important business with the United States; but if the British price, through restrictions imposed by the intermediate tariff, remains too high we lose a large portion of that market, which is well worth while.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: Now item 296e, Mr. Chairman, a new item. My colleague will move it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move:
That schedule A to the Customs tariff, as amended by resolution No. 2 of February 25, 1937, be further amended by inserting therein the following item, enumeration and rates of Customs duties:
296e. Magnesite, calcined, not further manufactured than ground, when imported by

Customs Tariff

manufacturers of insulating materials for use exclusively in the manufacture of such insulating materials in their own factories:	British
preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, 30 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: The item is intended to afford a reduction in duty on certain calcined magnesite imported for use in manufacturing in Canada, the insulating material commonly known in Canada as eighty-five per cent magnesite insulation. Magnesite is produced in Canada, including the calcined magnesite, but the Canadian product is too high in calcium to permit of its use in insulating material, and there is no objection by Canadian magnesite industries to the insertion of this item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the reduction?


Charles Avery Dunning: The rates will be free, free, and 30 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Properly speaking, notice of this should have been given in the votes and proceedings.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not anticipate that we should be going on with it to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If there are only a few items it is not important.


Charles Avery Dunning: They are mostly matters of wording. This is the exception so far.
. Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-306d. Ornamental or decorative marble (not including chips), unicolour or variegated, of colours and/or texture not produced in Canada, rough, hammered, sawn, sand rubbed, chiselled or polished, with or without design thereon, when specially imported and used for interior work in churches and public buildings, not to include buildings operated for commercial purposes or for private gain or profit: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is contentious; I have had representations against it. I suppose that everyone who has had anything to do with the Finance department or with the Department of National Revenue over a number of years will remember that many applications are received for remissions of duty in connection with ornamental marble imported for church uses. We have thought it well to face the matter squarely and to do outright what has really been the administrative practice over a period of years, so that there will not be any doubt or embarrassment to trouble future ministers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The important words are "not produced in Canada."
[Mr. Ilsley.l


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I should say in fairness that it is represented to me that while this class of article is not produced in Canada-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Something takes its place?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This largely covers Italian marbles.	-


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-320. Plate glass, not bevelled, in sheets or panes not exceeding seven square feet each, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister say anything more about plate glass than he has said already? I am not going to discuss the item at length, but the other day I glanced through the report, which shows that this certainly affects our furniture business and our automobile costs. I do not know what would be the effect of putting the intermediate tariff much lower-whether or not the cartel does not extend even to the United States. I am not sure on that point.


Charles Avery Dunning: By this reduction, which became effective only on budget day, the duty is reduced by one-fifth. This is our first step. We shall now see what will happen under the reduced duty with respect to United States and Belgian producers. If it should happen that in spite of the reduction the present condition continues, we shall have to use the escape clause in the agreement passed, this afternoon in an endeavour to settle the matter. There is no doubt at all that an abuse exists. I prefer to deal with it in this manner, but of course we have a perfect right to move under the other method at any time.


Mr. HEAPS:: Could the minister inform the committee of the extent of the control exercised over glass production by this cartel?


Charles Avery Dunning: I doubt if I could put any limits on it in its relation to plate glass and window glass. If my memory serves me right there is only one British firm. With respect to other types of glass I do not think the crystallization is at all complete, or really pressing.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the minister believe that by introducing a tariff the difficulties which are presented by a cartel controlling so much of the production can be overcome?

New Brunswick National Park


Charles Avery Dunning: I am trying that experiment. I do not know. It is one remedy that is available to us, and this reduction is the first step. A possible further step might be the utilization of the escape clause of the agreement and making plate glass free. I am not prepared to take that step until we see the results of this one. It is impossible to forecast accurately.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-321. Plate glass, not bevelled, in sheets or panes, exceeding seven square feet each, and not exceeding twenty-five square feet each, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-328a. Parts, unfinished, for the manufacture of spectacle and eyeglass frames: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 5 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: We have dropped the word "metal," because there are parts of things other than metal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-342a. Copper alloys containing boron, for use exclusively as a flux or a deoxidizer in melting non-ferrous metals: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the reason for such a great cut in these duties?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is an entirely new item. It is designed to effect free entry of copper alloys containing boron for use in the smelting of non-ferrous metals. These alloys had been dutiable previously at 15, 25 and 25 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under n.o.p.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. It is represented
that the duty on these alloys has caused an actual deterioration in the quality of the final products because of the enforced substitution of inferior fluxes and deoxidizing agents.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-348a.	Sculptures in any
material, in round or in relief, cast or cut from models prepared in Canada and designed by sculptors domiciled therein, not to include more than two replicas or reproductions of the original model, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I remember making an inquiry some months ago. We were endeavouring to develop in this country the business of casting copper or bronze, and I was told that they had made great improvements of late. Of course this will end that industry. Whether it amounts to anything I do not know. Entry will be free from all countries of the world.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is asked for by the sculptors' society, and we have not been able to find any successful development of casting in Canada. Certainly those interested from the artistic point of view are not satisfied with what they can get done here. It will be noticed that in the wording we have endeavoured to ensure that the permission will not be abused by saying: " cast or cut from models prepared in Canada and designed by sculptors domiciled therein, not to include more than two replicas or reproductions of the original model." We think we ought to encourage our artists to this extent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. There is no need, though, of putting on the limitation of two.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What are we proceeding with this evening? Really, I am not very fit.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The supplementary estimates of the present fiscal year, and one or two items on the order paper which were mentioned last night-the second reading of the bill to establish Trans-Canada, Air Lines,'the New Brunswick national park bill, and the fisheries research board bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the Minister of Finance going on again to-night?


Charles Avery Dunning: If I could be relieved tonight, I should appreciate it. If further supplementary estimates for the current year could be taken up in case of need it would relieve me, because I have had a pretty hard -time.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Progress reported.


NEW BRUNSWICK NATIONAL PARK
[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 75, respecting the establishment of a national park in the province of New Brunswick and to amend the Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island National Parks Act, 1936.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
New Brunswick National Park
Oa section 2-Lands set apart as a national park in New Brunswick.
Mr. STEWART:: Has the minister any more information to give regarding the probable site of the park?


Mr. CRERAR:: No. When the resolution was before the house I explained the position, but perhaps my hon. friend was not in his seat on that occasion. Several sites have been reported upon. Under the parks act the New Brunswick government has to supply the federal authority with the park area free of charge. That involves on the part of New Brunswick the repossession of certain properties in almost any park area that may be selected. That matter is now before the government of the province, and I daresay they are looking into it with a view to offering a satisfactory site at the least possible expense to the province.


Thomas Langton Church: I see no objection to these provinces having parks but we are passing legislation in advance of the securing of the sites. Why cannot Ontario have equal treatment in this matter? There is a great deal of discussion in the Ontario papers about the linking up of the parks I mentioned the other night, .tand I suggest that the minister should have a survey made there. I do not object to :thera being parks in the provinces by the 'sea, but I submit that there should be permissive legislation under which a survey might be made in Ontario of various properties which the government owns in that province.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is a matter which in due time, and I hope before long, will be considered. There are three small park areas in Ontario-quite small. Work on the park in Nova Scotia was begun last year, and so far as New Brunswick is concerned this bill is to enable the work to get under way there. I trust that before many years have passed we shall be able to give consideration to the useful suggestion made by my hon. friend.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 77, to repeal the Biological Board Act and to create the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is not on the list given last night. I have no objection to our proceeding with it but no notice was given of it.


Grote Stirling: Yes, it was mentioned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was mentioned.


Mr. MICHAUD:: As I explained when the resolution was before the house, this is really an amendment to the present act, although according to the title it is to repeal the Biological Board Act. The purpose is to change the name of the board, also the method of selecting the members of what is now known as the biological board. The members of the board are scientists, who work voluntarily and give their attention exclusively to the study of fish. They are asking for this legislation because they feel that the board's present title is misleading. The members are engaged exclusively in fisheries research; they do not investigate any other biological subject. Moreover, it has been found difficult to maintain the membership of the board under the provisions of section 4 of the act as it stands.
Under the amended act the members will be selected by the minister; there is no change in that regard, but the method of selecting them is changed to some extent. The new act directs from what class of people the members shall be selected, namely, two from the department, two representing the fishing industry on the Atlantic coast, and two representing the fishing industry on the Pacific coast, and nine scientists selected from a list including nominations which may be made by any Canadian university. Under the act as it stands to-day the minister selects seven members and then designates universities which recommend to him one member each. Some of the universities have not given, any attention to fisheries research lately, and in fact did not recommend any of their staff to this board. So this new act is asked for by the board as at present constituted to facilitate their work. There is no additional expense involved, and it is to satisfy them that it is presented.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have been interested in following the work of fish research for many years. Nothing struck me more than the character of the research work being carried on in New Zealand in respect to fish and the results obtained there through scientific research.
This bill is commendable in all respects except for the question whether this work should not be done by the National Research

Fisheries Research Board
Council, or under its direction. I do not know, for I have not had the opportunity to be advised, what possibility there is of the National Research Council devoting some time and effort to research work with respect to the fisheries of the country. When the council came into being I thought that it would be an aid to the federal power in connection with every branch of research work which it was desired to carry on. I have been disappointed in some cases, but I still think there should be provision for aid being given by the council through research on scientific lines to every branch of the federal power. I am sure, that it might be done. It was one of the many things that one would like to have had opportunity to deal with, but the pressure of other things made it impossible.
I do suggest to the minister that on this board of fifteen there should be a representative of the inland fisheries. There is provision for two from the Atlantic coast and two from the Pacific coast, but our great inland fisheries are left unrepresented. The great lakes supply large quantities of valuable fish. Undoubtedly the supply of fish shipped from Manitoba to the United States has been substantial. In the northern part of Alberta large quantities of fish are obtained and shipped to the American market in a frozen condition. It seems to me that should warrant some representation being given-I do not say necessarily two members-to the great inland fresh water fisheries of the country. In the lakes and rivers in the north, of the three prairie provinces, and in the great lakes we have extremely valuable fish resources, which should be developed and conserved. I think that question might be worthy of the minister's attention. I have no strong views on it but it did occur to me as desirable. It was not indicated how many members there are of the biological board.


Grote Stirling: Seven.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just why it should be increased from seven to fifteen is a little difficult to understand, but as they are serving without remuneration other than their expenses I suppose it is desirable to have as many scientists as possible. But one might well be selected to represent the inland fisheries.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Before the minister replies, might I offer another suggestion, namely that there should be representation on the board of the organized fishermen? The industry itself is to have representation.
Some of us have been listening to-day to Mr. Butler of the international labour organization and have been reminded that it consists of representatives of the government, of industry and of labour. It seems to me we might go so far in this legislation as to provide not merely for departmental officials, scientists and representatives of the industry) but also for a representative of organized labour. Surely in this matter the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour would agree. I do not want to offer an amendment, but I submit that such a provision ought to be included.


Mr. MALCOLM McLEAN (Melfort):: I should like to add a word to the plea of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) on behalf of our inland fisheries. He referred to the western provinces, but I think he left out the one in which I happen to be most interested, Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has great fisheries. The landlocked salmon of that country, or lake trout, is a very valuable fish, and something should be done to protect and propagate them if at all possible. Also in Saskatchewan particularly, and perhaps running over into Manitoba there is the last great reserve of sturgeon of which we know5 in this country. Occasionally specimens of sturgeon are caught elsewhere, but I think the commercial fishing of sturgeon is pretty much a thing of the past. There are sturgeon however, in the waters of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and if the fisheries research board devoted some attention to it they might discover a way by which the sturgeon supply could be much increased. I understand that up to the present the difficulty in connection' with the artificial hatching of these fish has not been overcome. Sturgeon is one of the most valuable fish in the world, and I should like to see some scientific representative on. the board who would devote particular attention to the fresh water fish problem, particularly in connection with landlocked salmon and sturgeon.


Mr. J. J KINLEY (Queens-Lunenburg):: I am glad to see that this bill provides for representation for the practical end of the fishing industry. Science is one thing, but practical application is another. In order to succeed, the two must work together. The county I have the honour to represent has been for years a great centre for deep sea fishing in Canada. With regard to research we find out some things for ourselves and copy some things from people in other countries who are carrying on the same indus-; try. It is true of all industry that a great deal can be learned by observation and looking around to see what other people are doing.
Fisheries Research Board

The practical end of this matter should be kept in mind, and the research board should have a strong commercial section who will seek to apply what is learned and make it of real benefit to the fishermen of this country.
There are two divisions of the fishing industry, strange as it may seem, there is the branch upon the sea, and that upon the land. The fishery upon the sea is national in its importance; the branch upon the land deals with the preparation of the fish, the care of the fisherman's family, and the social conditions surrounding the fishing industry, which are largely a matter of provincial concern. Therefore in the formation of this board I think it would be well for the dominion government to work with the provincial governments, especially those of the maritime provinces, and to consider their recommendations in regard to personnel.
I think the change proposed is commendable, and I am glad that provision is being made for the payment of the men who will do this work. I do not like boards that are supposed to work for nothing; usually they are worth what you pay them. In this instance provision is made whereby the minister will have some control over those who are working for the government, which is I think most desirable. Properly constituted and given the right instructions this board, I believe, will be of some benefit to the fishermen of Canada.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: I do not know of anything that is deserving of more attention by the research council and the biological stations than our fisheries. One thing is sure, and that is that unless some means are developed to take care of the situation, perhaps by artificial propagation, some of our greatest fisheries assets will be completely wiped out. When we see what has been accomplished in other lines, we have reason to believe that if this industry is given the attention it deserves similar results might be obtained. I hope the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) will see to it that the energies of this board are devoted to a very earnest endeavour to assist the fishing industry, and that artificial propagation is carried out wherever possible.
In the county which I have the honour to represent we have a biological station which has done valuable work, and no doubt the results that have been accomplished at that station in the special work they have undertaken can be achieved also in other lines. There was a time when there were lobster hatcheries all over the maritime provinces.

For some reason or other these hatcheries have been discontinued; perhaps the department felt they were not a success. But even if they were not successful in the past I do not see why this board could not develop some way of making the hatcheries a success in the future. I do hope that they will be re-established so that the lobster fisheries, which provide the best cash return for the fishermen of the maritimes, may not be completely wiped out.


Mr. VITAL MALLETTE (Jacques-Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the house of the extensive fisheries situated in the province of Quebec. In addition to the great commercial fisheries of Gaspe and the Magdalen islands, of the Saguenay and of the whole north shore of the St. Lawrence, the northern part of Quebec possesses numerous lakes, which swarm with fish and are the delight of the tourist. I must not fail to mention the St. Lawrence river and lake St. Louis, on the shores of which lies the county which I have the honour to represent in this house. As regards the preservation of our fisheries, I understand that the fishermen of these regions do not take sufficient interest in the matter. The federal government and the government of Quebec should co-operate with a view to finding a way to attain this end. I am of opinion that the province of Quebec should be represented on this Fisheries Research Board. I am certain that there are in Quebec men who possess all the qualifications required to fill these positions.


Mr. JEAN FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, in the Windsor Star of January 9 of this year I read a very interesting article, as follows:
Rail Cars Keep Meat, Fish Fresh New System, Devised in Canada, Being Studied by Lines Tests Described
Colder, More Constant Refrigeration Gained at Less Cost
Ottawa, Jan. 9.-A railway refrigerator car which provides colder, more constant and more evenly distributed refrigeration at less expense and labour than the type at present in use on Canadian railways, has recently been developed by the Biological Board of Canada, in cooperation with the National Research Council, and is now receiving the attention of the two railways, it was learned here yesterday.
After reading that article I felt rather curious about the matter and communicated with the proper officials of the Department of Fisheries in order to ascertain whether or not the National Research Council had anything to do

Fisheries Research Board
with this marvellous improvement. The letter I received in reply was dated January 25, and reads:
Experiments in the new method of railway ear refrigeration have been carried on now for some years by our Prince Rupert station staff. These experiments were conducted entirely by the staff. Mr. Young, who has been in charge of the work, was able to interest the Canadian Pacific Railway Company sufficiently to design a ear with his advice for the purpose of making a test shipment of fish or meat from Vancouver to Montreal. This took place last summer and Mr. Young accompanied the car across the continent.
While the new system was found to be highly successful and much more economical than the old method, curiously enough it was found, owing to the even distribution of the cold throughout the car, that when the door was opened in Montreal the rushing in of air from the outside caused condensation inside the car. With the old method of refrigeration in the railway cars the cold was not properly distributed throughout the car, consequently, in the centre of the car the temperature was higher than that at either end of the car so that when the door of the car was opened no condensation took place as the outside air struck the comparatively warm air in the centre of the car. This problem could have been easily solved by our station staff by the development of a dry air tunnel but it was known that the National Research Council had worked out an arrangement for the unloading of cooled fruits. It is proposed that this arrangement be applied in the transportation of fish and meat. To that small extent, therefore, the National Research Council comes into the picture of the new refrigerator system for railway cars.
This letter was very polite. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), it seems to me that the experiments that have been carried on by the National Research Council since General McNaughfcon became president have been most crazy. I should like to give the house a picture of what has been done since he has been in charge. The most stupid experiments have been carried on, leading to nothing, and that was why I asked for the economic value in dollars and cents of each of those experiments. I have before me a return of the house in that connection, and I am sure hon. members will laugh when I read it. They will see the futility of the sort of work that has been carried on, at the cost of a million dollars, since McNaughton went there in June or July of 1935. It has been a complete waste of money. The experiments carried on by Doctor J. A. Anderson include:
Demonstrated that barley proteins form one complex, not two distinct fractions as formerly supposed. June, 1935, to March, 1936.
This is very good for the unemployed.
Developed new method for measuring diastatic activity of malt, more rapid and precise than older methods. March, 1936, to January, 1937.
This is to help the brewers and the drinkers of beer.
Developed new method for experimental malting with a precision equal to that of chemical analysis. April, 1936, to February, 1937.


Walter Edward Foster: I would direct the attention of the hon. member to the fact that we are discussing a bill the subject matter of which is not in my judgment relative to what he is now saying. The hon. gentleman is talking about the National Research Council, with which this bill is not very much concerned.
I think his remarks should be confined to the merits of the bill before the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I agree with you, sir, and I would not have mentioned this, had it not been for the suggestion of the leader of the opposition (Mi-. Bennett) that both boards be merged and that the work be done by the National Research Council. I have attempted to show the futility of the work of the National Research Council, and in doing so have praised the bill sponsored by the minister. The body he is creating will be much more valuable than the National Research Council has been. One of the men to be appointed to the board has found a very excellent way of transporting fish, something which had not been done previously by the council. To show the absurdity of the proposition of the right hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Bennett)
I should like to prove that at great cost to the country, since McNaughton has been there, the National Research Council has been doing nothing useful. Until the right hon. gentleman withdraws his argument, I am sure what I am about to say will be in order.
Doctor W. H. Cook, a famous scientist, has made some excellent discoveries. He has collaborated in the design of the first fully automatic carbon dioxide refrigeration plant to be built. That took place between June, 1935, and January, 1936. He designed and built the apparatus for maintaining humidity in cold storage rooms, and that took place between June and December of 1936. Between September and November, 1935, he determined the maximum storage life of chilled poultry. I shall refer to only one more of his undertakings, and then shall refrain from making further references.
Information discloses that he determined conditions for defrosting and dechilling cold storage poultry, without formation of condensate. He determined the cause and method of preventing freezer bum in cold storage poultry. That work was done between April and October, 1936. Then he designed the apparatus and method for collecting and
Fisheries Research Board

measuring tainting substances given off in minute amounts by food products in storage. That was accomplished between September,
1936.	and February, 1937.
What is the utility of that work? Here we have a gathering of sensible and practical men, with the probable exception of one-and I leave it to the committee to decide who he is. Probably it is the one who made the suggestion that the National Research Council was of some use. Hon. members have heard about the subjects on which these men are working. It is absurd, that is all.
Then we find something of great importance to the country, the work done in connection with soya beans. This is of the utmost importance-a work which since June or July, 1935, has been costing a million dollars. Doctor H. D. C-hataway has been working since September and October of 1936 on a scientific discovery concerning the relationship between the moisture content of soya beans and the relative humidity of the air. If you have not had enough of that, I have.


[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-Short title.
Grote Stirling: Will the minister give details on the explanatory note which states that the board shall be smaller, despite the fact that section 4 says it will be double the size?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: If the hon. member would read section 4 of the act and compare it with section 4 of this bill he will find that the present membership is seven, plus members from the universities. For some time the board had as many as twenty members. The present membership, I understand, is fifteen, because some of the university representatives, through death, resignation or other causes have not been acting. Under the new bill the membership will be limited to fifteen.


Grote Stirling: The supplementary members are limited to nine, whereas before there could be any number.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Board created.
Mr. BARBER:: Section 3 states that the appointment of the board shall be under the control of the minister. In the past the biological board has been under the control of the minister, has it not?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Harry James Barber: We were hoping that the board of scientists would be more directly under the department.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That has always been so.


Harry James Barber: It was our hope at the coast that not only would there be scientists, but that there should be some practical men acting under the minister. Apparently appointments will be limited to scientists with some representatives of the industry.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is difficult to agree on a definition of the term " practical man." I believe some discretionary power is given the minister to appoint so-called practical men as representatives of the industry. Those representatives might well be described as practical men. The object of the legislation is to enable the minister to exercise discretion in the appointment of practical men, men who have knowledge of the work and have been connected with it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Constitution of board.
Grote Stirling: Would the minister indicate how the four representatives of the fishing industry on the two coasts are to be appointed?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Under the act they would be appointed by the minister, selected from among those in the industry who give particular attention to research work. On both coasts there are parts of the industry which have their own research laboratories and officials who are willing to use their knowledge, experience and talents. That is why we would like to appoint them to the board and use them to full advantage.


Grote Stirling: Then the minister is referring to scientific men on each coast connected with the industry, and not to canners or fishermen. He has in mind men employed in scientific work, if I understand him correctly.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Scientific or semi-scientific. We would want men who are giving enough attention to the scientific side of the industry to be useful on such a board. This would not be a marketing or business board, but simply a board of men getting together and corresponding with each other during the year, and carrying on research work in connection with fish and other marine life.


John James Kinley: I think this board should be allied as closely as possible to the active end of the fishing industry. Most of the firms located on the Atlantic coast carry on research

Fisheries Research Board
work of their own. They have to in order to keep in touch with conditions and with progress. I think we should use these practical men and that preference should be given to their appointment on this board.


Harry James Barber: Mr. Chairman, this section
states that two of the members of this board are to be from the department, two are to represent the fishery industry on the Atlantic coast, and two are to represent the industry on the Pacific coast. I would imagine that such membership would consist of one man representing the canneries and one representing the fishermen. There are men in the department who have been carrying on practical work of this kind for the last fifteen or twenty years and I think some of them should be included in the membership of the board. Last year I protested against leaving fish culture entirely in the hands of scientists. It is all right to have scientists on this board, but they should be working along with practical men. I had hoped now that a reorganization is going to take place that some of these practical men would be made members of the board.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister would be well advised to consider the practical end of this matter. In the past few years there has been a tendency on the Pacific coast to exert pressure on behalf of the sport fishermen, and an effort has been made to make it appear that that type of fishing is just as important as commercial fishing. The biological board spent considerable time and effort in the development of sport fishing, and an effort may be made to exert pressure upon this new board to have more attention paid to sport fishing than to the commercial end. The minister would be well advised to consider the appointment of practical men to the board. There is a great deal to be said in favour of sport fishing, but I think we all agree that commercial fishing should be the first consideration of the department.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The department has not overlooked the advantage of using some of these so-called practical men. There is on the present board a man who is connected with the canneries, also one who is connected with the fishing industry on the Pacific coast. Both of them are what would be termed practical men.
In connection with, sport fishing I might say that part of the duties of the board will be to study the possibilities of developing sport fishing throughout the country with a view to attracting more tourists, and a special committee of the board is looking into this matter.
So far as geographical representation is concerned, I think all parts of Canada are represented. The present chairman is a professor from Manitoba university, and it is quite natural that considerable study be given to inland fisheries. Another member is on the faculty of the Saskatchewan university. While there are only two members from the department, the other officials are at the disposal of the board.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On section 9-No salaries.
Harry James Barber: Will the same policy be carried out in connection with this board of paying a per diem allowance and travelling
expenses?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Exactly.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Could the minister outline what the board is doing to encourage sport fishing?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The department is trying to encourage sport fishing as much as possible. As is known to hon. members representing the eastern provinces, for some time Doctor A. G. Huntsman has been endeavouring to revive some of the sport fishing areas which have been exhausted. In the central provinces we are cooperating with the railways and with the provincial authorities in an attempt to develop fishing areas. On the Pacific coast there is a commission, made up of members of the department and the provincial government, studying the possibilities of coordinating the work of the two governments with a view to bringing down the cost by the elimination of duplication. An effort is being made to develop fishing areas in British Columbia which up to the present time have not received much attention because of the dual responsibility. An interim report was forwarded to the department a few weeks ago. I have not read it in detail, but from what I have read I believe there is hope for an early agreement between the two governments which will bring about the further development of sport fishing areas on the Pacific coast.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Are any hatcheries being
used for the development of sport fish? Are restrictions placed upon certain areas in order to increase the supply of fish?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


John James Kinley: The conservation and also the development of sports fishing in the province of Nova Scotia is an important matter,

Fisheries Research Board
and the fish and game societies think that parliament is not doing very much. The problem especially in my riding, where there are two splendid salmon rivers, is one of water control. At times in the year the rivers get into such a condition that the fish cannot make their way up the stream because of water shortage, and by providing a water control at the head of the lakes this condition could be very much improved. In the days when the lumber companies were operating they controlled the water, but now that they are gone, although they do not operate on some of the rivers, they have left their dams there, and these dams could very well be repaired and kept in shape; it would not cost a great amount of money.
The south coast of Nova Scotia is only an overnight journey from the city of Boston, and it is a favourite place of reSort for sportsmen and tourists in May and June; in fact, the salmon are running in the Medway river now. This is a great source of revenue to the people along the shore. We believe that our tourist trade is merely in its infancy and that it can be developed to a considerable extent. The last government did start a rearing pond at Harmony, in the north section of my county, and this government finished it-a creditable act on their part. I understand that now it is to be put in operation, and I hope that we shall have another rearing pond on the Nine Mile lake, which is at the head of Lahave river. We might have a dam at Sherbrooke lake in order to control the flow of water into the Lahave river, which is rapidly becoming one of the best rivers in Nova Scotia for salmon fishing: it is a large river, the largest in the province. I am a little disappointed that action was not taken sooner for the development of this river. I recognize there are some difficulties about flowing rights on the lake, and that that is under provincial control, but I understand from the fish and game association that the lumber company, Hollingworth and Whitney Company of Boston and New York-who control the river, will give a transfer of their flowing rights, and if the dam is put in, the water will never be higher than it was at the time they were operating this river.
May I impress on the minister that the fish and game society of Nova Scotia are commendably active at the present time, in the interests of the province and of tourist traffic, that salmon fishing is a great asset to our countiy, and that the department should spend some money in order that the fish may be conserved, the industry further developed, and our tourist trade from the American cities largely increased.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am sure that the hon. member and others representing constituencies where there are fishing possibilities realize the difficulties which confront any body, especially a government, in reviving sport fishing, particularly in Nova Scotia. What is involved is practically the artificial reconstruction of sports fishing. On account of the deforestation of the country there is a great difference between the spring and the midsummer flow in the river, and by reason of the industrialization of that section of the country several water-powers are built on practically all the rivers of importance, and it is difficult for the fish to ascend the rivers to spawn when they cannot find enough water at midsummer. We practically have to rebuild artificially the water facilities for the fish to come up and spawn in order to maintain a sufficient quantity for those who wish to avail themselves of the possibilities. I assure the hon. member that the department is doing everything practicable and possible to develop sports fisheries in the province of Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble 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]
Administration of justice-Yukon Territory- Miscellaneous expenditure, including salaries and allowances of court officers, et cetera- further amount required, $2,300.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is this for?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just for what is set forth. The Minister of Justice intimated to me a moment ago that this small *additional amount was necessary to cover expenditures already incurred.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Transport-chargeable to income-marine service-life saving services, including rewards for saving life-further amount required, $3,500.
Thomas Langton Church: I should like to find out what is the policy of the department in this matter of life saving. For many years all [DOT]the money that parliament has voted in respect of this service has been for the sea;

Supply-Transport-Marine Service
we have forgotten, all about our magnificent inland waterways. Toronto city council, for instance, has had to provide about $100,000 of the ratepayers' money for what is properly a federal government service. There are about seventy-five men in the life saving service at Muskoka, Georgian bay, lake Huron, lake Ontario and all over the great lakes doing what is federal work.
I might call attention to the disaster of the Sand Merchant at Cleveland. The evid-dence showed that this vessel was altogether inadequately equipped in case of accident, and we know very well what happened. In the fall there is one disaster after another, but nothing is done to safeguard our sailors. When there is any danger, all they can do is blow their sirens and trust to luck; they have to depend on some American lifesaving station. Nationalism is the great toast in this country. Well, I say, let us do something to show that we are as a nation prepared to take care of our seamen. We cannot go on any longer like this. Eighteen fine Canadian citizens were drowned off Cleveland in that disaster on December 9 last year, but what does this department do? Have these people no rights?
We provide ample protection for all workers on land; there is legislation for the safety of men employed on the railways and in other forms of transportation. If they can be provided for in this way, surely the time has come when Canadian sailors on the great lakes should be given some measure of protection. Why should we leave them to the mercy of any American life-saving agency? There should be an advanced policy for the safety of those navigating the great lakes. Are we to wait until next fall when another boat goes down before talcing action? There was a disaster near Muskoka and another at Owen Sound and there was not a single life-saving station in the neighbourhood,. All the money this department is spending for the protection of our sailors is some $2,000. and the vote is mostly for the maritimes. I suppose the government will wait until another ship sinks before doing something, and in the meantime they will assure us that the matter is receiving consideration.
There are the heroes of peace as well as the heroes of war. These sailors on the great lakes are heroes, but when they are drowned their families find themselves on the street. Their wives get no pensions. Ontario contributes over 40 per cent of the revenues of the country. Why should not that province be given some consideration?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government maintains three life-saving stations on the groat lakes,
one at Pelee island, one at Southampton and one at Port Stanley. As regards the Sand Merchant, it was a Canadian boat operating in American waters at the time of the disaster, and it was a few miles off Cleveland. Obviously no Canadian life-saving station could possibly have been aware that she was in distress. An investigation was held and it was found that the boat had complied with all the regulations under the shipping act, but the question was raised whether the design was suitable, and thereupon a board was set up to look into the matter. That board includes the best marine architect we could find and we expect shortly a report on the Sand Merchant.


Thomas Langton Church: The investigation the
minister talks about was only a whitewash. Had it been carried on by a jury the verdict would have been different. What I want to know is what steps are being taken to prevent these terrible disasters on the great lakes. A number of ships might have been lost and some 2,500 passengers drowned in accidents, but the government does nothing. The only life-saving station we have is the little one off Pelee island, which was obtained in a by-election. You may hold any number of investigations you like, but what is the good of all that when these poor sailors have gone to the bottom and their families are on the street, all because of the failure of this department to provide adequate life-saving facilities such as they have on the American side?
Look at the life-saving stations they have at Detroit, Toledo, Buffalo and other places. But here we are talking about a few dollars when the lives of our seamen are at stake. This department has been passing the buck ever since I have been in parliament. The hon. member for Parkdale knows how necessary it is for the government to provide lifesaving stations on the great lakes. Toronto has spent over $25,000,000 in connection with the harbour and the city has to maintain the life-saving station. Why? Because the government got out of it when the harbour board was formed. When the board was formed in 1913 I came to see Mr. Hazen and all he gave us then was an old lifeboat with oars, which would take three or four hours to go about ten miles. This department seems to be catching the sleeping sickness that has afflicted some of the others; it is passing from department to department; and in the meantime the sailors are waiting for something to be done.
I know the minister is a busy man and his duties are onerous, and many of them he is discharging very ably. But in this particular branch of the activities of his department I

Supply-Transport-Marine Service
certainly do not think that he is doing anything. We are sure to have a few reports, however, and in due course they will be thrown into the waste paper basket. But we do not want reports; we want a really efficient life-saving system. At present we are depending almost entirely on the American lifesaving stations in case of disaster. There is provision in the act for the prosecution of those who fail to equip ships properly. Have you ever heard of any prosecution under that act? The statute says that the Minister of Marine shall prosecute, but no prosecution ever takes place. This paltry vote will not go very far, but it will provide a few medals to be handed around. That is all that we shall get out of it. So far as the passengers are concerned, they can go to the bottom of the lake and the Lord be with them.
I look around the chamber to-night and see hon. members on both sides representing lake ports, hon. members for the Hurons, the Greys, Muskoka, Parry Sound; why do we not hear from them? Owen Sound last fall had a disaster, and steamboat captains and others went to their last end. Shipping men were down here the other day, master and mates and engineers, and presented a memorandum to the government, asking for increased protection on the great lakes. These men want life saving stations, not medals; they want proper aids to navigation, as the American stations have. We have many members representing shipping centres on the lakes, but every time this item is up they are sitting silent. By next fall when there is bad weather the same conditions will recur on the great lakes from Hamilton to the head of the lakes, and all you are doing here is nothing. You are going to pass a vote to give a few medals, some of which will go to the department and to people who know nothing whatever about life saving.
There should be a large vote and survey made. The country should not depend on the taxpayers of the city of Toronto to spend $100,000 for life saving for which the dominion government is responsible. The Toronto life saving crew have been sent out all over the great lakes; almost every day calls come from municipalities all over Ontario as far north as Parry Sound and North Bay, and as far west as Windsor, and to the waters of Muskoka- and the Toronto taxpayer pays. And all we do here is pass an item for a few medals. If a man is at the bottom of the lake a medal will not do him much good. We are years behind the times.


Mr. SPENCE:: I wish to endorse what the last speaker has just said. We in Toronto think that the dominion government should contribute some part of the money we spend 
for the life saving service there, because it costs a lot. Last summer there was a wreck on lake Simcoe and our life saving crew were called up there to rescue some people out of the lake, and before they left there was another accident at Owen Sound. A boat went down and several lives were lost. The Toronto life saving crew and divens were taken there and did all the work.
It is costing Toronto a lot of money to do life saving all over the country. The life saving crew are called to Muskoka, Parry Sound, Owen Sound, lake Simcoe around Jackson's Point, and all through there. It is very unfair. This item is only $2,500 but I presume there is another somewhere. The vote should be increased. We should have proper protection on the great lakes, and some contribution should be made to Toronto for the work they have done in saving lives all over the lakes within a hundred miles of Toronto. Is any more money provided besides this $2,500?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The vote in the main estimates was $44,300; this is to make up the deficiency. I am bound to say that the money spent by the Toronto harbour commission is collected from the shipping on the great lakes and is spent for life saving in the same service. It is hardly a contribution from the city of Toronto.


James Houston Spence: The life saving crew there is paid by the harbour board and the city of Toronto.


Mr. FURNISS:: The hon. member for Broadview issued something of a challenge to the member for Muskoka in this matter. I happen to represent that riding. I do not think there are many lives lost on the Muskoka lakes or lake Simcoe that could be saved by life saving equipment. There was an accident on the Muskoka lakes last summer in which a speed boat cut a row boat in two, and a woman lost her life. A jury was called to hold an inquest, but they did not find the body and no inquest was held.


James Houston Spence: That is only one instance;
I could mention many.


Stephen Joseph Furniss: That is one case where lives could not have been saved by life saving equipment. It has been suggested to me that at these summer resorts where a lot of motor boats are used, some speed regulations should be put into effect so that the boats will not race around at thirty or forty miles an hour, endangering small craft. I pass the suggestion on to the minister for what it is worth. A small fee might be charged to every motor boat owner, a nominal sum per foot for

Supply-Transport-Marine Service
the running length of his boat, and that money used to pay a man for looking after the traffic on the lakes. It has been suggested that every operator of a motor boat should pass an examination, the same as the driver of a motor car. In view of this and other accidents on Muskoka lakes due to excessive speed of motor boats, I think that suggestion is worthy of consideration.


Thomas Langton Church: I can produce the log
book of the Toronto harbour life saving station. Sitting opposite me is the hon. member for Spadina. Only last summer he had to phone the life saving station on a Sunday. Several people were in the water, some of whom drowned, and he got the lifeboat sent to lake Simcoe. Let me tell the hon. member who represents Muskoka that there was an accident there last summer in which a woman had her head cut off, and the thing was whitewashed by the authorities. No investigation whatever was made, and the body has not been found to this day. The log book would show repeated calls during recent years from the Muskoka lakes from Toronto residents who have their summer cottages in the hon. member's constituency, and there is no life saving station there at all. I am not speaking as a party man. I want to see lives saved not only in Muskoka but elsewhere, Georgian bay and lake Simcoe are dangerous waters in the summer. All the Toronto members know that almost every week-end Captain Lang and his crew receive calls from all these localities. I have not the official list here but last year the calls for this station were the most numerous in the history of the city; the crew go all over the lakes doing life saving. What has the hon. gentleman to say about the sinking of the Sand Merchant and the disaster at Owen Sound? Were no lives lost there? Of course there were; eighteen in one of them. And we are going to pass an item for a few medals! I hope the hon. member for Muskoka will get one of them, because I am unaware of anything he has done since he has been in the house either in the interests of our national parks, life saving or anything else. I can tell him that his constituents want him to wake up and see that something is done, that some funds are provided by the government for the Magnetawan district, the Lake of Bays, and other places where the Toronto crew has had to go during the past three or four years. The taxpayers of Toronto are getting tired of paying the bills for Muskoka and these other districts where there are no life saving stations and no aids to navigation at all.


Stephen Joseph Furniss: I wish it understood that I am not crying down life saving apparatus, but I do not think many of the lives lost in these lakes, to which hon. gentlemen have referred, could have been saved by means of life saving apparatus. The accident to which the hon. gentleman referred in particular occurred in the Muskoka lakes. They dragged for the body for a week without being able to locate it, and it never came to the surface.
I understand that when a body is mutilated it does not rise to the surface as it would otherwise; the gases escape, and it remains below the surface. No inquest was held and no report was made about the accident, which I understand occurred away out in the lake.
I do not live near the Muskoka lakes; I live near lake Simcoe, and the only complaint I heard last summer was in connection with the harbour at Beaverton. That complaint had to do with the excessive rate at which speed boats entered the harbour, endangering small craft and also the lives of those in bathing. I am not disparaging the need for life saving equipment, but I do say that very few of the lives that have been lost on the lakes could have been saved even through the use of life saving equipment.


Thomas Langton Church: The hon. gentleman only has to look at his local newspapers to see the disasters that have occurred in his own district. I am surprised that a gentleman representing such a constituency does not know more about the need for these appliances and aids to navigation.


John James Kinley: Is it not a fact that the Sand Merchant was lost off the city of Cleveland, in United States waters?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; I said that.


John James Kinley: Then that is the answer. For half an hour the hon. gentleman has criticized the Canadian life saving system in regard to this boat which was lost while under the protection of the United States life saving system which he has been commending.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Houston Spence: I am rising just because hon. gentlemen opposite are calling carried. I want it understood that I am not saying the Toronto life saving crew could save lives in lake Muskoka or Georgian bay, but we have such splendid equipment that when authorities in other parts of the country cannot find the bodies of those who have drowned, our crew goes up with grappling irons, diving equipment, and so forth and does the work.


Mr. FACTOR:: I should like to say just one word in reference to this matter. The incident which has been referred to by the
Supply-Trade-Subsidies

hon. member for Broadview happened about a hundred and fifty yards in front of my cottage at lake Simcoe. Five people were drowned. Of course there was no adequate equipment available to locate the bodies, and I had to call the Toronto life saving crew to come up. They made that fifty mile trip, and inside of three-quarters of an hour found all five bodies in the lake.
I think hon. gentlemen who have spoken, though they mean well, are not placing the responsibility in the proper quarter. The provision of life saving apparatus should be a municipal responsibility, I suggest. For instance, in the lake Simcoe district I think ' the summer residents should get together and provide proper, modern life saving equipment, and I would say the same of the Muskoka district. I cannot see how the federal government could possibly provide sufficient equipment to take care of all the summer resorts on all the lakes throughout Canada.


Thomas Langton Church: Under the British North America Act all matters having to do with .nland waterways, lights, buoys, aids to navi-[DOT] gation and so on are a federal responsibility. No part of this vote is spent on the great lakes. Right in lake Muskoka, which is a navigable water, there are rocks and obstructions twice the height of this desk which are not lighted at night. I passed some of them last summer in a boat travelling forty to forty-five miles an hour. We might have been thrown right into the water if we had struck one of these huge rocks, which are found right through the lakes. They are unlighted and uncharted, and I say to the hon. gentleman that the taxpayers of Toronto are getting sick and tired of spending $100,000 for life saving service all over the great lakes. This item means nothing; not a dollar of it is applied to the great lakes. The only thing the government does is to strike off a few medals, while some municipal authority has to shoulder the burden to the extent of $100,000.
<X) already appropriated, to authorize and provide for the payment from time to time during the fiscal year 1936-37 to the Canadian National Railway Company of the difference (estimated by the auditors of the said company and certified by the said auditors to the Minister of Transport as and when required by the said minister) occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (upon the same basis as set out in section 9 of the said act with respect to 
companies therein referred to) on all traffic moved during the year 1936, under the tariffs approved, on the eastern lines (as referred to in section. 1 of the said act) of the Canadian National Railways, $76,014.46.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway Service-Maritime Freight Rates Act -Additional amount, in excess of the sum of $1,740.0
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suppose there is no explanation to be given in addition to what is contained in the footnote? That note is as full as it can be?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct. It is a statutory vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. .

[Stage Direction]
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions-
British Columbia and China and/or Australia -further amount required, $27,750.
Prince Edward Island and Boston-further amount required, $10,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like some information as to the total amount expended for the British Columbia-China service, for which this amount of $27,750 is a supplementary item, and I should like the same information with respect to the Prince Edward Island-Boston service, for which this further amount of $10,000 is required. What was the first amount in each case, and what is the reason for the additional amount required?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, this vote includes two items, one for the service between British Columbia and China and the other for the service between Prince Edward Island and Boston. My hon. friend has raised a question with respect to each of these items.
With regard to the service between British Columbia and China, the main estimates contained a vote of $118,800 for this service for the current year. This was sufficient to pay the contract subsidy of $4,950 per trip for twenty-four trips. It is estimated that by the end of March of this year twenty-nine trips will have been made; that is to say, there will be five additional trips, to the cost of which must be added $3,000 paid under the terms of the contract as additional subsidy for three calls made at Prince Rupert during the present fiscal year.
Doubtless my hon. friend wishes to know the reason for the additional trips. The reason lies in the fact that a strike of longshoremen in Canadian Pacific coast ports resulted in the diversion to British Columbia of a very considerable number of orders for lumber. The additional trips provided for here were arranged in order to permit those shipments arising from that exceptional demand to be made. That covers the additional amount as far as that service is concerned.

Supply-Mines and Resources
I come now to the service between Prince Edward Island and Boston. In the main estimates there was an amount of $10,000 for this service, and it was the hope of the department that it would be able to secure the service for this subsidy. When tenders were called it was not found possible to have the service done for the amount indicated, and accordingly provision had to be made to have the service performed. May I add that this is a service of considerable importance to Prince Edward Island, as there is quite a traffic in farm products between Prince Edward Island and the New' England states.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suppose the lowest tenderer got the contract.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My information is that no one tendered for the service at the amount made available in the original estimates. Subsequently the Farnorth Steamship Company offered to do it for $20,000, and the contract was made with them at that- rate. During the previous year the service was subsidized over a somewhat similar route. The subsidy was then $35,000 for twelve trips. The service carried passengers as well as freight.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many trips were made this year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Nine.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The minister attributed the extra subsidy to the strike on the United States Pacific coast. I should like to know if that strike did not put a great deal of business in the way of these lines. If so, W'ould it not be reasonable to expect that the extra trips were more profitable than they would have been under normal circumstances? In addition to getting the more profitable business brought about by the strike, they received the government subsidy. That does not seem reasonable to me.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not in a position to say whether or not the business was more profitable. I take it that the strike on the Pacific coast would not have materially affected the delivery price of lumber in China or Australia. As a matter of fact it did increase the demand for the British Columbia product, and in order to sell their lumber the exporters made application for an additional number of trips. Provision was made accordingly.


Angus MacInnis: Will the company furnish a balance sheet showing its business turnover, so that the department may know whether it has made a profit or a loss on the year's business.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is the department subsidizing a line of ships from the west coast of British Columbia to South Africa?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe one company is so subsidized. I hesitate to speak on the point without having the information before me. I believe the point will arise in connection with the main estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Angus MacInnis: Would the minister answer my question as to the statement to be made by companies with respect to business done by them.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have nothing before me which indicates precisely the procedure followed when a subsidy is made for a particular service. I take it that a company applying for a subsidy would have to make a case, in other words, establish the need for such subsidy to permit the service to be given. In the short time I have been acting Minister of Trade and Commerce I have had occasion to observe that these matters are gone into with considerable care. For example, in some cases where steamship companies have applied for increased subsidies, and it has been found that as a matter of fact they have been carrying on profitably, the proposed increase has not been granted. With the information before me I am not able to say whether in this particular instance the company furnished a statement of its profits or losses on the trips actually made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Department of Alines and Resources-Surveys and Engineering Branch-Hydrographic and tidal and current surveys, and to provide for the operation, maintenance and repair of hydrographic steamers-Further amount required, $12,000.
Mr. MITCHELL:: Will the minister please explain the item?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hydrographic survey has a boat operating in the gulf of the St. Lawrence and on the east coast. Unfortunately last summer it ran on a rock. As the hon. member is no doubt aware, the hydrographic survey charts the coast. In carrying out this work the boat was damaged and had to be sent to drydock for repairs and this amount represents the expenditure so incurred. As it could not be foreseen when the estimates were voted a year ago, provision has to be made now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2.160
Supply-Indians
[Stage Direction]
Indian Affairs Branch-To provide for expenses connected with the administration of Indian Affairs-Further amount required, $140,000.
Grote Stirling: A week or two ago I drew the minister's attention to the plea of the provincial secretary of British Columbia, who has administration of the health of the province. He made an effort to persuade the minister to give some assistance in connection with the fighting of tuberculosis among British Columbia Indians. I understood the minister to say that in these supplementaries he hoped to provide money sufficient to enable him to give the desired assistance. Has he obtained that money?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I believe the hon. member is under a misapprehension. These supplementaries represent additional amounts required for the fiscal year ending in a few days, on March 31, 1937. In other words, the estimates submitted to the house a year ago were short these amounts. I hope to have in other supplementary estimates an item covering tuberculosis among the Indians.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the minister explain the item? This seems a large amount for increases in administration only.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The amount is due almost entirely to the increased cost of medical care among the Indians in the past year. In several parts of Canada there were epidemics of influenza, measles and the like, and in our estimates submitted a year ago we pared to too fine a point the expenditures for medical services. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe $40,000 was required for feed and fodder for Indians in the southern part of Alberta. For the information of hon. members, in the dried-out areas there are several reserves with a substantial amount of stock for which it was necessary to provide feed.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have received a similar communication from the government of British Columbia with regard to the prevalence of tuberculosis among the Indians of the province. Do I understand the minister to say there will be another opportunity to discuss this matter?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Might I ask under this item a question with reference to the disaster among the Indians at lie a la Crosse, Saskatchewan, where recently about 46 to 50 have died of some disease. Last year approximately $120,000 was spent for the medical care of the Indians in Saskatchewan. That is a very high cost. I have made calculations in connection with the cost of medical care of

Indians on many of our reserves, and shall speak more fully on the matter later on. I was wondering what had been done in connection with the tremendous loss of life at lie a la Crosse. If these deaths had occurred in a white community, the whole country would have been aroused, but when 46 Indians die, there is not much fuss made about it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I believe my hon. friend secured his information from newspaper reports. The case he cites has not been brought to my attention. There has been what amounts almost to an epidemic of influenza and measles on certain reservations. This was not foreseen when we passed our estimates a year ago, and these supplementaries are to make up the deficiency in the expenditures made during the fiscal year which will end in a few days. I shall inquire into the circumstances of the case referred to by my hon. friend, and probably be in a position to give him some information when the estimates of the Indian department are before the committee.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Has the minister before him the number of temporary employees who have been made permanent during the year? Perhaps this would account for some of the increase in this item.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This item does not relate to that at all.


Harry James Barber: As has been intimated, we shall have an opportunity to discuss this question of tuberculosis at a later date. I am glad the minister has intimated that provision is being made in the supplementary estimates to take care of-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I hope to have provision made in the supplementary estimates.


Harry James Barber: At two residential schools
in British Columbia there have been established what are known as preventoria to combat tuberculosis. Both of these schools are carrying on excellent work, but I have been advised that the department has decided to discontinue the grant of forty cents per pupil which is made to each school. The one at Coqualeetza has been supported to the extent of ten, but fifteen patients have been taken care of. Those in charge are very anxious that this work should be continued because it is practically the only work being carried on by the department in connection with tuberculosis. These people are taking care of Indians under the age of twenty years, the dangerous age for tuberculosis. I should like the minister to bear this in mind when he is preparing his supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Mines and Resources
Miscellaneous-Expenses of litigated matters -Department of Justice-further amount required, $23,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) desired to discuss certain matters under this item, but perhaps an opportunity will be afforded when the main items are being considered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the Minister of Justice left the chamber a moment or two ago he said to me he anticipated that this question would be raised. He informed me that there is an item in the main estimates which would permit such a discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council and for the cost of administration thereof-further amount required, $300,000.
Mr. LAWSON:: What is the reason for the additional amount required under this item? There is not much information in the item itself.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The committee will recall that a year ago we provided 81,950,000 in the estimates for subventions for the movement of coal from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to Quebec and Ontario, and from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the western boundary of Ontario and even into the province. Because of the expansion in the movement of coal this amount has been found to be insufficient. The estimates of a year ago were kept down to the level of what was required in the previous fiscal year.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Is there any intention this year to change the rate of these subventions, either upward or downward?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The subvention principle will apply this year as in other years, but this does not mean that the rate may not vary slightly. If my hon. friend has looked into the matter, he will know that the basis upon which these subventions are paid is the cost of producing coal in the United States. If the cost of producing goes up in the United States and the Canadian cost remains stationary, then the subvention rate would be lower. If the Canadian cost increases to the same degree -as the American cost, then the subvention rate would remain practically the same.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: The basic rate is not being changed?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The principle upon which the rates are based remains the same.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not quite on that basis; there is another basis.


Mr. HARTIGAN:: All through this session of parliament we have been having a jamboree of aids to agriculture in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the other provinces. I am not speaking in -a declamatory manner about what other people may want, but I should like to refer to the statement of the minister to the effect that these subventions are based upon the cost of producing the coal. We from the east sympathize deeply with the afflicted portion of our population in the western provinces, and I want that understood before I start. As far as landing coal in Ontario is concerned, our greatest competitors are the English. I cannot quote his exact words, but the Minister of Agriculture stood up in this chamber the other evening and stated that not only must wheat be sold at the prices set by the wheat board, but all other agricultural products would be governed by the same rule. I do ^ not differ with the minister as far as that is concerned.


James Houston Spence: You are very agreeable.


David James Hartigan: I am agreeable.


James Houston Spence: I suppose you want something for yourself.


David James Hartigan: Is agriculture to be the predominating industry in the dominion of Canada? If it is to be the policy of the dominion government to market agricultural products, then what about our other primary producers? Why should special treatment be given to the agricultural industry and not to our mining, our forestry and our fisheries industries, which are all concerned with important basic products?
I have said, and I repeat, that I am agreeable to marketing arrangements for agriculture, but why exclude the products of our forests, our mines and our fisheries? If we are to have regard to one section of this dominion, and say that we will market their products for them, set a certain minimum price, and ensure that no imported agricultural products or florists' supplies or anything of the kind shall be admitted unless they conform to certain price standards, that is all right, perhaps; but to continue that sort of thing will drive the rest of us into some sort of combination in which the eastern provinces may join up with the industrial sections of the country. If that state of things should occur, the west will have another thought coming; for while the value of agricultural products may be estimated at some 8700,000,000 last year, our manufactured products amounted to SI .400.000, without counting the production of the eastern

Supply-M iscellaneous

provinces in mining and other industries. So what should they be entitled to? There must be a halt called somewhere. Some hon. members talk about a paltry two million dollars subvention for the coal movement of eastern Canada, while we sit here and vote two and a quarter million dollars for what? A superannuation allowance for civil servants of Canada. And where does nine-tenths of the proceeds of that superannuation allowance go to? The city of Ottawya. The exact amount, I think, was $2,080,000. But we do not discuss it.
The raft of stuff which goes on down here under the Minister of Agriculture, I tell you is something terrific. We must not imagine that Canada is producing supermen. How can we inculcate in the workers in our fisheries, in our agricultural districts of the eastern provinces, and in the lumbering industries a real love of country, struggling under the difficulties they now have to face when they realize that all this money is being voted out in other directions? We are not opposed to grants to the drought-stricken districts of the west; we want them to be treated in a fair manner; but if things continue the way they are going at present, our people will be driven into an alignment altogether different from what the eastern portion of Canada has ever had before.
There are many other points I wish to refer to which I shall bring up under different items at a later date. All through the session, it seems to me, the east has been practically ignored- I will name two instances now. Recently I gave an interview to a man who I thought was an honoured member of the press gallery-and I have always had a very high respect for the press gallery. He violated the best ethics of journalistic procedure, with the aid of an old and amnesic editor; and the kind of man who can write an article such as appeared the other day, discussing things that had never arisen in this house, typifies the sort of thing which is causing unrest to-day.
I have referred to only a few matters which need our attention. At another time, and perhaps in another place, I shall go further.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Battlefields	Memorials-further	amount
required, $10,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has the minister any explanation of where these expenditures were made?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: This is in connection with the unveiling of the Vimy memorial in July of last year. When the

main estimates were being considered in committee I gave the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) full information as to details. There is an actual deficit of $8,839.98, and some accounts yet to come in which will amount to $1,161.02. This provides for that amount.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Commission on Anthracite Coal

further amount required, $8,500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister tell us what is the total cost of this commission? I am bound to say that the report is rather disappointing, inasmuch as it did not deal with the importations of anthracite to Nova Scotia from Germany; and several cargoes of German anthracite, sometimes spoken of by vendors as Welsh anthracite,,, came in to Nova Scotia to which no adequate reference, in my judgment, was made. It seems to me that the commissioner was largely concerned with one firm and its dealings. I should like to know what the total cost was.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not before me the terms of reference of the royal commission which inquired into the importation of anthracite coal. I do have before me a statement of the expenses, which I take it will cover the particular question asked by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). The amount voted in the supplementary estimates, 1936-37, was $15,000. As the inquiry proceeded it was necessary to obtain two additional amounts from unforeseen expenses, one of $5,000, and another of $3,500. The present vote is for the replacing of those two amounts taken from unforeseen expenses, a total of $8,500, and the original $15,000, making $23,500 the cost of the commission.


David James Hartigan: The whole trouble is that coal is made an article of barter in Canada; that is about the size of it. You can bring it in from any country. It is about the easiest thing in the world to import in exchange for Canadian products. But if anybody suggests applying the same principle to wheat he is told: No, you cannot barter with wheat; it must get the highest price in the country. But coal: Sure, trade it and bring it in; we will trade in it with any country. That shows the state the coal trade of this country is in. Our actual and potential coal supplies in Alberta, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia are sufficient to provide all Canada with coal at any time. What would happen under conditions of national emergency, when our supplies of coal from foreign countries would be cut off? A few nights ago an hon. member-I admit he was

Supply-Trade-Anthracite Coal
on this side of the house-asked why did not Ontario put a duty on coal? Let them pay the duty, he said; at any rate that is what he meant. It is true of wheat and any other commodity that when it reaches a price beyond which it is not profitable to buy, people will purchase wherever they can get it cheaper, and that holds good of coal. But if the long looked for conflict of the nations should take place, if a general conflagation should occur-I do not believe it will-what then of our coal situation? We should have to depend on British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia coal: the shoe then would be on the other foot. Under present conditions it is all very well to bring in supplies from the very country which perhaps might be our enemy in another war-though I do not believe there will be another war. But the trouble is that our policy does not make provision for the absorption of the total Canadian coal production, leaving us free to get any further requirements from outside sources as we need them.


John James Kinley: Is there not provision in the tariff whereby manufacturers in the central provinces get a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty paid on coal which is used for manufacturing purposes?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If the hon. member is addressing the question to me, this is not my item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under certain conditions.


John James Kinley: Yes, under certain conditions-if the manufactured commodities are exported. In that case there is a 99 per cent drawback of the duty on American coal. I do not believe there is any comparable treatment so far as Nova Scotia coal is concerned.


David James Hartigan: That is the fly in the ointment. The hon. member knows that there is a qualification and that the coal must be used for metallurgical purposes. But why should that be? Why should we not try to be independent so far as coal is concerned? There is no doubt about it that in the event of war we occupy a strategic position, with the north pole on one side, the Atlantic on the east, the Pacific on the west, and a friendly nation to the south, and we should be foolish if we did not take advantage of our geographical position. Every hon. member will agree with that. Any nation that attempted to violate our neutrality would immediately involve the British Empire in the conflict; and if England did not defend our neutrality, so much the worse for England, not for Canada.


John James Kinley: I was simply trying to help my hon. friend. In my opinion the drawback on coal justifies subventions for the maritime provinces.


Harry James Barber: Could the minister break down the 823,500 to show salaries and other expenses?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not the detail of that expenditure, but if my hon. friend is anxious to have the information I am content to let the item stand.


Harry James Barber: No, the minister can give it to me some other time.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be glad to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not usual to replace money, taken from unforeseen expenditures, by a vote of this kind.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Possibly I was at fault in using that language. Actually the money was taken from unforeseen contingencies to meet the additional cost of the commission while the inquiry was proceeding.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This money is to reimburse unforeseen expenditures which have been accounted for by a return made at the opening of parliament.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. The notation I have is that the $8,500 is required to replace the amount obtained from the vote for unforeseen expenses.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is that the minister has no right to "replace" it. Unforeseen expenses mean just such expenses as were paid from that vote for this particular purpose; therefore the payment was regularly made, and the report submitted to the house so indicated. This cannot be to replace that money.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In view of the right hon. gentleman's observation perhaps it would be better to allow the item to stand. The information before me is that this $8,500 is for the purpose of replacing the amount taken from unforeseen expenses, and if that is not correct it ought to be rectified.
Mr, BENNETT: It would be only a matter of properly wording the item, because it is not proper to replace the money if it is validly and legally taken from unforeseen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We might pass the item on the understanding that the wording will be looked into.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply Post Office
[Stage Direction]
Post Office-Outside service

Salaries and allowances-further amount required, $185,000.
Frank Exton Lennard: What is meant by outside service?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Postmaster General):: This is part of vote 275 which amounted to something over $16,000,000. The payment for March for these various services includes city offices, railway mail service, and district offices; and the shortage occurs almost wholly in city offices where postal clerks and letter carriers are engaged on continuous service Saturday afternoons and holidays. This is the $185,000 to which I referred, when the coming year's estimates were before the house, as being necessary to pay the extra help for the Christmas rush and to make up overtime up to March 31.


Frank Exton Lennard: The member for Broadview this afternoon asked whether the letter carriers would be obliged to make deliveries on Good Friday. Can the minister answer that question now?
Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex); The statement I gave when we were considering the main estimates is the best I can do in that regard. It must depend on the requirements of the service. The order for providing service on holidays stands, and that service will be given on Good Friday unless, in the opinion of the postmaster, the mail can be cleared without the full service. But the mail must be cleared. There is and has been for years discretion in the postmaster as to just how much service shall be required.


Frank Exton Lennard: I understand that the purpose of this innovation was to create positions for additional employees in order to relieve the unemployment situation.
Mr. MacNICOL; Only the Liberal unemployed.


Frank Exton Lennard: I do not know about that, but if the department wishes to carry on and employ more men I suggest that it can do so in a far better way by improving the service in the outlying districts. I know of certain outlying districts in Hamilton, Ontario, where they get one delivery a day, and then the mail is two or three days old before they get it. It is very unsatisfactory. Then take Mount Hamilton in Hamilton. They have no parcel delivery, merely because, I believe, the regulation provides that if there is no delivery within a quarter mile of the last house on the outskirts of the city proper, that service is not allowed. It is ridiculous.
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
There is a great section of the city of Hamilton on the mountain deprived of parcel delivery service. I think the minister would do well to take this matter up and see if something can be done.


John Campbell Elliott: That occurs in practically every city, and must occur until the houses are numbered and the population becomes more thickly settled. But it is receiving attention.


Frank Exton Lennard: But they have no parcel delivery service there. The houses are numbered. This is something the government of the day should remedy. It is a hardship. These people are paying taxes and they should have this service.


John Campbell Elliott: What is being done here is a step in the direction of improving the postal service throughout the whole of Canada. We are every day receiving requests, many more than it is possible to grant, but we are endeavouring as far as can be done within a reasonable increase of expenditure to give to the cities and towns, and the rural parts as well, the best service that can be given.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: What proportion of this $185,000 is being expended in the city of Toronto in temporary employment of Christmas rush men?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think I can give those figures accurately. I can get it for my hon. friend if he wishes it. The total amount expended on the Christmas rush depends upon the amount of extra work to be taken care of in the different cities. In Toronto for the December delivery the amount of mail to be handled was $153,289 more for that one month than it was for the same month two years ago. Perhaps that 'will give my hon. friend an idea of how it is divided.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Very good, but a short time ago I inquired for the names and addresses of the temporary employees in Toronto for the Christmas rush. I again appealed for those names about a week ago, and the minister promised them within a few days. Probably some of this money is for the cost of compiling this data for me; is it?


John Campbell Elliott: No, that has to be done by us.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Well, I hope the minister will have the names and addresses for me soon.

Supply-Transport


John Campbell Elliott: I am sorry, but I sent the full list to my hon. friend this afternoon. If he did not get it I regret it.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Thank you very much.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the present status of the results of the examinations held on November 21 for additional employees for the postal service? I recollect that when the minister's estimates were up before, he told us he had put on a considerable number of temporary employees at Christmas, and that they would probably remain on until I think about the end, of March.


John Campbell Elliott: Until the new eligible list is prepared. That was expected about the first of April.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Transport-Chargeable to capital-River St. Lawrence ship channel dredging-(a) to provide for contract dredging in the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour-further amount required, $117,563.21.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could the minister explain this item, how it arises and whether there has been any change in the matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the final estimate on two old contracts. The larger is a contract dated May 30, 1930, for dredging between the upper end of Longueuil shoals, Montreal harbour, and Ste. Croix, $112,343.21. The work was completed just at the close of navigation in 1935. As my hon. friend knows, on a large contract of this kind before the final estimate is passed it is necessary to make a complete survey of the area and check up all the progress work. That work was completed last season, and this item is put in to cover it.
The other is a similar situation having to do with Barre a Boulard at the lower end of lake St. Peter. That amount is $5,220. It is the final estimate on a contract that was placed in 1934.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What is the depth to which the St. Lawrence is dredged?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We now have a 35 foot channel from the harbour bridge in Montreal to the sea at the 1934 datum, which is practically the lowest water we have had in the river for some years. That channel is completed except for certain work in Montreal harbour which is still continuing.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: How high up is it affected by tides?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My impression is that it is nearly to Montreal harbour.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: About Three Rivers.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has this work or similar work to be done every year at the same sections of the river and harbour?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, this is work which was completed in 1935. This is just measuring it up.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The reason I ask is that we passed an item earlier in the session for approximately $2,000,000, I believe, which had I think the same title.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The item for S2,000,000 was for the current season's dredging. Practically all that dredging is in Montreal harbour, and the purpose is to bring Montreal harbour to the 35 foot depth which is maintained in the channel below Montreal.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As an engineer, is the minister satisfied that the proper way to keep the depth of the channel in the St. Lawrence below Montreal to what it should be is continually to dredge the channel? A number of engineers are beginning to think that some other system should be adopted. It is the opinion of some that the deeper the channel is made, the faster the water runs away, and that it will require constant effort to keep the channel open.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The work being done both under this and the $2,000,000 item is a program started some years ago, and it is practically being finished. An interdepartmental report has been prepared and will be available very shortly giving a program for the future, and I am sure my hon. friend will find some information there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Naval Service-To provide for the maintenance, of the ships and establishments of the naval service, including the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve andi the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve: -further amount required, $2,201,000
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This item was held over to meet the convenience of the right hon. leader of the opposition. Would it be convenient for him to proceed with it now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I remember that the minister said it would be quite satisfactory if ib stood until to-morrow, and in view of the time of night perhaps that would be better.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well.
Item stands.	,
2166	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Grants in Aid


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
[Stage Direction]
Labour-Grants in Aid-Amount required to provide for monthly grants in aid to the provinces-further amount required, §2,929,773.97.
Joseph Henry Harris: 
Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, the matter to which reference has been made by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions. Scarborough is not the only municipality which is interested in obtaining assistance which would enable it to take advantage of funds which might be made available under the railway grade crossing regulations. As the hon. member was proceeding I thought that if he could speak with the same conviction and persuasiveness before the railway board, we might have to provide much less by way of grant in aid for the purpose he has in view.


Joseph Henry Harris: But he is not a lawyer.
2168	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Grants in Aid


James Earl Lawson: You do not have to be a lawyer to appear before the railway board.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The question of what could be contributed from a grant in aid does raise some difficulty. At present I am not in a position to say it can be done. I will say, however, that it is the subject of discussion between the federal Department of Labour and the Department of Labour in Ontario. I agree entirely with the view that if a particular portion of the grant in aid is paid out in a particular municipality, it is desirable that so far as possible the money should be used for the payment of wages on worth-while work.


Joseph Henry Harris: Hear, hear!


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am entirely in agreement with the hon. member on that point. Perhaps he will understand that I cannot go further at the present time.


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: What portion of the grant goes to Saskatchewan, and is any portion for the farm placement scheme? It would be interesting if the minister could give us figures in connection with the operation of the scheme in Saskatchewan.


Norman McLeod Rogers: First of all, this particular amount is in excess of the vote approved at the last session for grants in aid to the provinces. I have not the precise allocation, provincially, of the excess amount. However, I can give the hon. member the distribution by provinces of grants in aid in the past year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that include this amount?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. The distribution will be as follows:
Prince Edward Island....	$	35,086	47Nova Scotia	
660,450	00New Brunswick	
412,781	25Quebec	
8,255,625	00Ontario	
9,906,750	00Manitoba	
2,229,018	75Saskatchewan	
3,302,250	00Alberta	
1,651,125	00British Columbia	
2,476,687	50Total	
$28,929,773 97
That includes the additional amount. May I say, further, that this does not include what is to be paid out under the farm employment plan. There was a special item of $1,000,000 in the estimates of last year for that purpose. The latest figures I have show that 23,058 were placed in the month of February in Saskatchewan. This does not necessarily mean that this number of unemployed single persons are now upon farms; that is the number of placements made in the province to date.


Ernest Edward Perley: This amount is in addition to what was passed last year in the supplementary estimates?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct.


Ernest Edward Perley: The total figure was something over $28,000,000?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct.
Mr. PERLEY	(Qu'Appelle):	By any
chance would that be the amount referred to in an announcement made last year just after the session closed? I think the house prorogued on June 23, and the Regina Leader-Post of July 2 contained the following headline:
$30,000,000 Works Plan Announced.
Agreements with Provinces made, Rogers Declares
The article goes on to state that this amount is in addition to the $40,000,000 voted in the supplementary estimates.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That amount was not included. The hon. member is referring to the amount of the dominion-provincial joint works program.


Ernest Edward Perley: When I read in the Leader-Post that an agreement had been made with the provinces just six or seven days after the house prorogued, I took the liberty of writing to the private secretary of the minister in the following terms:
Would it be possible for you to furnish me with a copy of the contract entered into between the dominion and the provincial government of Saskatchewan covering this year's road work under the relief measure or any other arrangement that has been made between the two governments?
I received a reply from the minister acknowledging receipt of my letter and stating:
The agreement you refer to has not yet been ratified by council and therefore I am not in a position to give you the details you ask for, but in any event the provincial authorities will be able to give you the exact details of the work they intend to do with the assistance of the contribution which the dominion government is to make under the terms of the agreement to be entered into, and I would, therefore, suggest that you communicate with the provincial minister of highways, the Honourable Charles M. Dunn, who, I am sure, will be pleased to forward you the information you require.
I then wrote to the provincial minister of highways stating that I had noticed this announcement of a further program of $30,000,000. I told him I would like to know what portion of the $30,000,000 the province of

Supply-Labour-Grants in Aid
Saskatchewan was likely to receive and upon what projects that money would be spent. I received the following reply:
In reply to your letter of July 27, I may say I noticed the article to which you refer in the Leader-Post. We only have the one agreement with the federal government and there was no additional work planned, which was announced to us, other than what we saw in the newspaper.
When this item came up I thought possibly it covered the amount mentioned in the newspaper article. Having seen that announcement so soon after the house prorogued I was quite interested. The information I received is covered by what I have given to the committee. The minister now states that no portion of this will be used for the farm placement scheme.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct.


Ernest Edward Perley: We will have an opportunity to discuss this matter when the special supplementaries are before the committee.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There will be an item under which full discussion may occur.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the amount mentioned by the minister as having been granted to Saskatchewan, over and above the two items appearing on page 5 under governor general's warrants and totalling a little over twelve million dollars?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. I think my hon. friend is referring to the amounts made available in the drought area.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is for direct relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Direct relief in the drought area.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This amount of almost three million dollars is the amount which the department estimated would be required for unemployment purposes during the last fiscal year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not think that is an unfair way of expressing it. When the estimate was made I do not think I gave the house to understand that it was possible to forecast with exactitude the amount that would be required during the coming year. When relief grants are adjusted quarterly it requires a measure of foresight in the prediction of economic recovery. For example, the drought conditions affected not only the drought areas but created a situation in the cities of the western provinces which we did not anticipate at the time. The estimate was made of the amount which would be required for grants in aid under conditions then existing.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How does this amount compare with the estimate for the previous year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not the actual figures here, but it is considerably in excess. If my hon. friend will put that question to me when the special supplementaries are before the committee, I shall be glad to answer it.


Mr. MASSEY:: Further to the remarks that were made so ably by the hon. member for Danforto (Mr. Harris), and the reply thereto by the minister, I should like to say a word or two. The minister stated that the purpose of this vote is to provide work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: For relief purposes.


Denton Massey: I should like to direct
attention, not only to the Victoria Park avenue level crossing, but to the level crossings at Jones avenue, Greenwood avenue, and Woodbine avenue in the city of Toronto. If these level crossings are to be eliminated it will be necessary to do a considerable amount of work before the actual construction is commenced. In other words, there are physical difficulties in the way of constructing the separations at these three -points. Would it not be possible to earmark a .portion of this vote for these .purposes? A certain amount of preparatory work requiring unskilled labour could be done now under these grants. The same procedure could be followed in connection with certain harbour improvements and the -much discussed Toronto airport, but I am particularly interested in the three grade crossings mentioned. Perhaps I may be somewhat out of order in bringing up this matter a.t -this time, but considerable valuable and profitable relief work could be done in this connection, and I ask the minister to consider the matter when dealing with these grants in aid.


Malcolm McLean: Is not much of the increase in this amount to which the minister has referred due to the increase in grants brought about by climatic and other conditions?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, I do not think that would be a correct statement of the situation. The grants are made in lump sum payments to the provinces, those grants being the same for each quarter unless there has been some adjustment for the ensuing quarter. They are not affected actually by changes in relief scales. If my hon. friend asks whether the grants to the provinces this year have been in excess of what they were last year, the answer is that they are in excess. This does not mean that there has been an increase in the number of unemployed people;
Supply-C.NJl.

it means that we have taken a larger share of the total cost of relief at a time when the municipalities and some of the provinces are in a position of very grave financial difficulty.


Malcolm McLean: But in addition to that, have not the individual grants to individual people been increased considerably in the past year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In some provinces that has been the case, but the dominion Department of Labour has never, to my knowledge, interfered directly in relief scales: that is a matter that is left entirely to the provinces and the municipalities concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Deficit of Canadian National Railway company-
Additional amount, in excess of the sum of $39,900,900 already appropriated to be paid from time to time under such conditions as the Minister of Finance may prescribe, to the Canadian National Railway company (hereinafter called " the National Company ") and to be applied by the National company in payment of the net income deficits arising in the calendar year 1936, including such supplementary contribution to The Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways employees' provident fund as may be necessary to provide for payment in full of monthly allowances under the provisions of The Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways employees' provident fund act, notwithstanding the limitation contained in section four of the said act, and including such supplementary contribution to the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada superannuation and provident fund as may be necessary to enable payment to be made of monthly allowances under the rules and regulations of the fund, notwithstanding the limitation contained in section thirteen of chapter sixty-five of the statutes of Canada, 1874, and including profit and loss but not including non-cash items and interest on Dominion government advances, of the National Company or of any other or others of the companies comprised in the Canadian National Railways (as defined in chap. 10 of the statutes of Canada, 1929) or any company controlled by stock ownership or otherwise by any company comprised in the Canadian National Railways or by the National Company in respect of any of the Canadian Government Railways entrusted to the National Company, $3,403,393.82.
Mr. GREEN:: May I ask the minister what his intentions are with regard to the Canadian National hotel in Vancouver? This hotel has been standing uncompleted for many years, and there is a great demand in the city that it should be opened. I should like to know what the government intend to do about the hotel. I believe it is the only one of the Canadian National system that has not been opened; it cost many millions of dollars, and is just standing there as a monument.


An hon. MEMBER:: Of what?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure my hon. friend that the directors of the railway are giving this matter their earnest attention. I assume the fact that work has not been restarted is an indication that they do not believe the position justifies immediate action, although a little work is being done on it this year. But if general conditions improve and revenues rise we will hope that the directors of the railway will see their way to complete the building in due course.


Howard Charles Green: The directors have been considering the matter for a year, and they should soon come to some decision about it. Approximately how much money has been spent on the hotel, and what will be the cost of completing it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The directors have been considering the matter for six years, and they are just about as far ahead this year as they were in the preceding five.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The amount of money spent to date is about $8,000,000. The amount required to complete it is about $2,500,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This, I take it, is in addition to the amount that was voted last year to cover the deficit.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What does that make the total? I see it is mentioned in the item.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is that amount added to $39,900,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suppose this money has been advanced to the railway in the meantime?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe it is being financed temporarily out of the working capital. It requires to be financed as against last year's operations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Write down of assets-
To authorize-as the dominion's contribution to a program of adjusting the indebtedness of farmers living in the drought area of the province of Manitoba which program has been sponsored by the government of the province and involves appropriate adjustments in debt or tax claims on the part of the provincial government, the municipalities and certain mortgage lending institutions-the writing off and cancellation of certain treasury bills of the province held by the dominion, provided (1) that said treasury bills be transferred in the books of the Department of Finance from "active assets" to "non-active assets" as at March 31, 1937; (2) that final writing off and

Supply-Governor General's Warrants
cancellations of said treasury bills be subject to the approval of the governor in council and in accordance with such terms and conditions as he may approve, including the nature of the evidence to be submitted as to the adjustments made by the provincial government, the municipalities and the mortgage lending institutions aforesaid; and (3) that the amount of treasury bills to be written off and cancelled shall not exceed the amount advanced by the dominion government to the provincial government by way of loan to assist in financing expenditures incurred for relief, seed grain and seeding purposes in the said drought area during the period from Hay 1, 1931, to January 1, 1935, and shall not in any case exceed in the aggregate the sum of $804,897.02.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think, Mr. Chairman, we are entitled to a very complete explanation of this item. This involves the Dominion of Canada writing off S804,000. The next item is nearly SIS,000,000. It represents promises to pay given, in this case, by the province of Manitoba to the dominion for money loaned to it and for which it gave its treasury bills. The item contemplates the removal of that amount from our active asset column to our non-active assets, but in reality it means that we are writing it off altogether. I think some very reasonable explanation should be given why the dominion which, on the promise to pay with interest, advance in good faith sums of money for which it has a claim to reimbursement certainly in respect of certain moneys paid to the provinces outside of the initial subsidy altogether, should treat two provinces in this way when a third province is getting nothing. So far as this resolution is concerned, the province of which I happen to be the only representative on my side of the house is the only province of the three that is getting nothing at all in the form of an allowance being made on account of its debt to the dominion. There certainly should be some explanation given, first as to the circumstances which warrant such action being taken, the releasing, that is,, of our debtor from the payment of his debts; and second, why two provinces are selected for such treatment and the third is left out altogether.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We might let these two items stand until to-morrow. Perhaps my right hon. friend would be willing to allow us to finish the governor general's warrants.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it will probably involve some little discussion. Perhaps I might outline what I desire to have an explanation of in connection with the governor-general's warrants.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us take an item that we can pass.
Item stands.
Governor general's warrants 1936-37-To provide additional amount for Stewart and Yukon Rivers-Improvements (governor general's warrant of July 23, 1936), $4,500.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Here is an instance where it is reasonable for me to refer to the statute:
25. (1) If, when parliament is not in session, any accident happens to any public work or building which requires an immediate outlay for the repair or renewal thereof, or any other occasion arises when any expenditure, not foreseen or provided for by parliament, is urgently and immediately required for the public good, then upon the report of the minister that there is no parliamentary provision, and of the minister having charge of the service in question that the necessity is urgent, the governor in council may order a special warrant to be prepared, to be signed by the Governor General for the issue of the amount estimated to be required, which shall be placed by the minister to a special account, against which cheques may issue from time to time, in the usual form, as they are required.
(2) The authority to make expenditure under such warrant shall lapse and any unexpended balance be written off at the end of the fiscal year in which the warrant is given: Provided that during a period not exceeding thirty days subsequent to the end of the said fiscal year, issues out of the consolidated revenue fund may be made for an amount or amounts not exceeding the amount of the expenditure authorized by the said warrant, for the purpose only of discharging any debt properly incurred and payable prior to the end of the said fiscal year, which may be outstanding and chargeable thereto and which for good reason was not paid within the said fiscal year, and such expenditure may be charged in the accounts of the said fiscal year.
That is section 5 of chapter 27 of the Statutes of Canada, 1931, the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.
The first of the governor general's warrants is the one to provide for improvements on the Stewart and Yukon rivers. That can hardly be said not to be foreseen. It is certainly not provided for by parliament, but parliament did provide a sum of money for that particular service.
The statute further says that only such sums can be paid during the fiscal year as parliament has provided for-I will, perhaps, read that later. What 'I should think we are entitled to is an explanation why this form of blank cheque should be thrust upon us. Here we have a complete reversal of policy; here we have blank cheques issued for every form of activity that was contemplated by the relief act to the extent of twelve millions of dollars, covering improvements to a river in the Yukon, payments to enable the annuities act to be administered-running the whole gamut from the Yukon to annuities-relief expenditures and assistance with freight
2172	COMMONS
Supply-Governor General's Warrants
charges on cattle and feed-all the very payments that used to be made under the provisions of the statute that authorized the executive to do it, and now steps are being taken to do it under section 25.
The Prime Minister used to say that he suggested these might be dans by governor general's warrants. It is true we might have done it by governor general's warrants, but in that case there was no authority except the general authority, and it was necessary to satisfy the governor general that it was (a) unforeseen or (b) it was not provided for by parliament. Now parliament does provide for these things; the only thing is that it did not provide enough, though it cannot be said that in some of these cases the expenditures were unforeseen. The result is that we have, by the operation of this section, a complete disregard of treasury control, about which my right hon. friend used to talk so severely to his predecessors in office. I am not for a moment saying that he was not warranted in lecturing them; I am merely endeavouring in this instance to point out that the course pursued is one which is wholly at variance with what was expressed in days long since forgotten by my right hon. friend who is now leading the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With all due respect to my right hon. friend, there is a great difference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I expected that the right hon. gentleman would say there was a difference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When my right hon. friend was in office we asked that he give to the house at least some idea of the expenditure he proposed-how monies would be used, in what specific way-and we indicated our willingness to vote what was necessary to meet specific expenditures. We never expected him to be able to anticipate things that were wholly unforeseen. It was with respect to anything wholly unforeseen but which nevertheless would be urgent and immediate that we stated that governor general's warrants could be used. Por example, if my right hon. friend had asked for several millions for unemployment relief, which amount had been appropriated for the purpose, and had then encountered, as the present administration has encountered this year a drought situation in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, we should have felt that he was justified in using governor general's warrants to meet expenditures in connection with such a totally unforeseen condition.

What we complained of was that he sought to avoid all specific appropriations and to make all expenditures out of a blank cheque.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All relief expenditures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, all relief expenditures. We thought that he should have asked the house for at least some specific amount for relief; an amount voted on an estimate which in his opinion would represent what was necessary, and that he should have supported his estimate by reasons for the particular sum being placed at the figure it was. I recall quite well mentioning to my right hon. friend as a case in point the practice followed by Sir Robert Borden during the great war. Sir Robert could not say how many millions would be required for certain purposes, but he formed an estimate which he submitted to the house, and the house voted the required amounts for specific purposes based on the estimate given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He could make such an estimate, knowing how many men there were and how much per head it was likely to be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He did so to the best of his ability and I am sure that my right hon. friend, with his ability, could have formed an estimate that would have been fairly exact; and if after doing his best he had encountered some unforeseen disaster we should have been glad to help him out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is pleasant to hear the right hon. gentleman say that after the event. I realize that experience has taught him what we learned during five years. What we learned in those five years he is now learning. But there could not be a better answer than is provided in this very document. We have $12,500,000 provided by governor general's warrants for expenditures which it is said could not have been foreseen nor provided for by parliament. Certainly that statement does not apply to all of them. The second one is a legitimate and proper use of the power-the necessity for dealing with a fire. But when it comes to providing by governor general's warrants for the expenses of the royal grain inquiry, in the light of a report from a special committee and the fact that it was known that an inquiry was to be held, obviously indicating what was involved, we find S103,000 provided on November 18, 1936, for that very purpose, and I do propose to ask with respect to this what sums have been spent, seeing that we are now at the end of the fiscal year. There is no doubt about it that item 400 would be difficult to justify under the statute-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can explain that.

Supply-Governor General's Warrants


Richard Bedford Bennett: -in this sense, that it was known that this is coronation year and that an extraordinary strain would be put upon the high commissioner's office. The one with respect to the textile industry can hardly be justified for the simple reason that the commission was even then making copious extracts from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, while the learning of John Stuart Mill was also being invoked. Under these circumstances it is a little difficult to understand why we should have a governor general's warrant for these particular expenditures. That,
I suggest, will be found to be at variance with the practice to which the right hon. gentleman has properly referred. With respect to the provision of an additional amount for the administration of the Annuities Act, it would be stretching a point to bring that within the provisions of the section. That is a clear case in which parliament is supposed to have provided for the public service. Indeed, I have known the service stopped because there was no money, on the ground that you could not possibly secure money for such purposes by means of governor general's warrants.
I have discussed this at length because it constitutes an appropriation of public moneys by the executive without reference to parliament, and the expenditures can be made within the fiscal year. It is true that this day week no more money can be spent out of these grants, and the amount that has been legitimately expended up to that time has to be accounted for inasmuch as it must be kept in a special account, and the comptroller and the auditor general will take care of that.
The fact is that a substantial number of these cannot on principle be justified as a proper exercise of the executive power in connection with money grants without the consent of parliament, except retroactively given. Not as unforeseen or unprovided-for expenditures, we are voting at least $12,500,000. Even the large items, which alone amount to $12,000,000, it would be difficult to say were not to some extent foreseen, for when this house rose in June, or shortly after, when I crossed the prairies it was apparent that more money would have to be provided for relief purposes, though no one could have foreseen when this house rose that any such large sum as $12,000,000 would be required for that purpose. I think that is clear, and I agree that to that extent it is a valid exercise of the power. But having looked at the orders in council, I doubt whether it can be said that they constitute the proper procedure for the valid exercise of the power, because the estimates are of such a character as to involve an
appropriation which is vastly greater than one would contemplate from the details given, especially having regard to the fact that these are to be kept in a special account and that ultimately the auditor general and the comptroller of the treasury must account for them. The statute itself, of course, provides that nothing in it shall release either the minister or the deputy minister of responsibility with respect to any negligence or otherwise in the discharge of their duties.
I have gone into the question at this length because it involves a principle which, as I remember, the right hon. gentleman used to say it was highly important that we should keep in mind.
When you come to the question of the appropriation of moneys, it was never intended that the executive should make an appropriation unless there was clear authority granted by parliament for the purpose. When the power was conferred upon the executive with respect to relief matters, I pointed out then, as I do now, that I could not indicate within millions of dollars what would be required. And it is clear that we were right in that view, for here we find $12,000,000 odd required because of the drought between the time parliament rose in June and a few weeks later. Here is S12,-000,000 applied by executive action for a particular purpose. If I, standing in my place, had suggested that this sum would be required, I fancy I should have been laughed at, and so would anyone last year who might have ventured in the month of May to suggest that $12,000,000 would be required for relief in consequence of a crop failure. At that time people believed that a crop was certain.
I mention this because it involves a principle which I should not like to see adopted any more than is necessary, while I am the first to admit that if the necessity is urgent, and it comes within the provisions of the statute the power must be exercised. The limitations upon the exercise of the power I think sometimes have not been carefully studied, for I recall that the first time a governor general's warrant was issued by the late administration I sent for the auditor general and had some difficulty in inducing him to believe that this had to be kept in a special account. He said it had not been done. I replied: All I can say is, there is the statute that requires it to be kept in a special account against which cheques will issue only under certain circumstances and conditions. It is that particularity that parliament has placed in the

Supply-Governor General's Warrants
statute that necessitates very strict observance, because it departs from the parliamentary principle of which the right hon. gentleman always used to remind us, namely, that the executive does not make the appropriations-parliament makes them. And a retroactive validation of an executive appropriation is not consonant with the rules that govern the appropriation of the money of this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to take any exception to my right hon. friend's statement of the importance of surrounding the resort to governor general's warrants with the greatest caution possible. I agree entirely with all that he says about the great care that should be exercised in the use of governor general's warrants. But may I point out that while my right hon. friend has drawn the attention of the committee to the fact that the total amount spent under governor general's warrant as here set forth is $12,540,300, of that amount $12,240,000 is for two items only, and each of those items is concerned with the drought in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, which could not possibly have been foreseen. We could not have asked parliament at the last session to vote anything for a drought likely to occur in the summer, and which did occur in the summer months. When the drought actually occurred we estimated the amounts here set forth as about what would be required. The estimate was made in September and October of last year; the actual expenditures I am told have just about equalled the estimate. We figured as closely as possible to meet the situation. I do not think my right hon. friend will take exception to our using governor general's warrants for the purpose of meeting the drought situation. There was no other way to meet it short of calling parliament. I am prepared to support very strongly the use of governor general's warrants in such circumstances as coming exactly within the provisions of the statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I admit that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says he admits that. That leaves in all only some $300,000 additional, for which governor general's warrants may issue. Of that amount my right hon. friend says that what was used for fighting forest fires, $40,000, was quite proper. I think he is right in that. Equally proper was the amount of $4,500 additional for the Stewart and Yukon river improvements, to which he took exception, because that amount was for floods, which could not be foreseen. We would not have 
been justified in asking for that appropriation at the time of securing the original appropriation any more than our neighbours on the other side of the line would have been justified in anticipating the volume of the recent floods on the Ohio and the Mississippi.
My right hon. friend referred to the expenses on account of the high commissioner's office, and said we might have foreseen the coronation expenses. The expenditure had nothing to do with the coronation. The expenses there were in part incidental to the Yimy pilgrimage. The pilgrims visited London, were there some days, and there were expenses in tiha.t connection which the high commissioner's office' had to meet. Then my right bon. friend's friend who had been high commissioner in London had returned to Canada. We would not anticipate his moving expenses; no one knew what they were until the bills were in, and unfortunately those bills fell on the present administration and we had to pay them. We did not wish to keep the former high commissioner waiting for another year for his moving expenses, so an amount to cover that outlay was included in that sum. Then I believe it was found necessary to appoint one additional member to the staff in London. The total is made up of the amounts for these three purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say that the explanation in respect to the other items is a good deal better than the last, because we did know that he was bound to return to Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly the former high commissioner thought it was urgent that he should get his luggage from the old country immediately. I think it was; I think the account should have been paid.
My right hon. friend also took exception to the sum required in the administration of the Annuities Act also.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I said that could have been foreseen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government thought it was estimating pretty liberally when it asked for the amount it did to pay commissions on annuities sold; but as a matter of fact the sales exceeded anything that had been anticipated even in the imagination of the minister. An hon. member says: Good times, prosperity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is perhaps fear of the future, if you ask me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But there it was; the persons who sold the annuities had performed a service for the country; they had

Questions
sold the annuities, and were entitled to commission on the sales. They turned in the moneys for the annuities; at least the applications with initial payment had gone to the department, and they were entitled to their commissions. We might have withheld payment until parliament met, but obviously there was an obligation there which required to be met immediately. It is apparent, Mr. Chairman, that my right hon. friend is still a little concerned about the attacks made upon him for the use of the blank cheque.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no, we have long since passed that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But what has been used in a form of blank cheque in these cases has been authorized by a statute enacted to meet just such cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So was ours.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was put through, as I remember, by closure in this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no, we did not have to go that far.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the item carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I want to speak
again about some of these items. The first one carries, yes.
Item 394 agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May we carry No. 395?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.
Governor general's warrants 1936-37-To provide for the cost of fighting forest fires in the national parks of Canada (Governor General's warrant of September 17, 1936), $40,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
It being twenty minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 25, 1937