1937-03-19

Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) moved:: That the petition of Rosalie Annie Arathoon Webster presented on the 11th instant, praying for a bill of divorce from Harold Leslie Webster, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing orders 92 and 93(3) (a), (b) and (c) in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 23, respecting foreign enlistment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the second reading of the bill does not call for any discussion because the principle of the measure is already the law of Canada. The terms of the British Foreign Enlistment Act have always applied to Canada, therefore the principle is already accepted in this country. The purpose of the bill is to have a Canadian act, because under the Statute of Westminster any dominion, including the Dominion of Canada, may reenact, repeal or amend any statute already applying to it. It has been thought advisable and proper to have a Canadian act, known as the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1937, and to make the very few changes adapting it to Canadian conditions, especially changes which will make it applicable to modem air and land conveyances, as well as to sea conveyances, to which the original measure was limited. I suggest that the bill be read a second time and that any suggestions with reference to its provisions be made in committee.
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has said that the principle of this 'bill has been accepted by Canada. I think that principle was imposed upon Canada by imperial statute without any reference whatever to the will or opinion of Canada.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: But it applies to Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, it applies to Canada, but it was imposed rather than accepted. Although the British North America Act of 1867 purported to declare that the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within certain classes of subjects mentioned in section 91 of that act, it was nevertheless soon ascertained that the Colonial Laws Validity Act, enacted two years previously by the parliament of the United Kingdom without any reference to the legislatures of Canada or of the maritime provinces, effectively restricted the field of Canadian legislation. Section 2 of that act of 1865-leaving out the unimportant words-* reads:
Any colonial law which is or shall be in any respect repugnant to the provisions of any act of parliament extending to the colony to which such law may relate . . . shall be read subject to such act . . . and shall to the extent of such repugnancy but not otherwise be and remain absolutely void and inoperative.
1940	COMMONS
Foreign Enlistment-Mr. Cahan
A few years ago I asked for a return from the Department of External Affairs showing the existing statutes of the parliament of the United Kingdom which extend to this dominion. This return was only partly prepared and for that reason was not laid upon the table of the house. From personal research I tabulated scores of such statutes which then and still apply to Canada, although under the act of 1867 they are now within the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. The Statute of Westminster, 1931, provides as follows in section 2:
(1)	The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this act by the parliament of a dominion.
That is after 1931.
(2)	No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this act by the parliament of a dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it i9 repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future act of parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule or regulation made under any such act, and the powers of the parliament of a dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the dominion.
After the enactment in 1931 of the Statute of Westminster this parliament proceeded to revise the Canada Shipping Act. This monumental work was the first step by way of amending or revising imperial statutes which had hitherto restricted the operation of statutes passed by this parliament, and which had also restricted the effective expression in legislation of the will of this parliament. There are certain of these imperial acts which are and always have been assumed to be within the sphere of the parliament of the United Kingdom and with respect to which the parliament of the United Kingdom has assumed exclusive jurisdiction up to the present year. The parliament of the United Kingdom has assumed exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the succession to the throne, the titles of the crown, the royal declarations on accession and the regency in certain cases, as shown by the Demise of the Crown Act, 1901, the Regency Act of 1910 and the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927, which concern the whole empire.
I do not intend to refer particularly to these statutes at the present time. I wish only to express for myself and on behalf of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who is unavoidably absent, approval of the action of the government in revising the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870. That English act extends to all the dominions and hitherto
CMr. Cahan. 1
has regulated the conduct of all of His Majesty's subjects during the existence of hostilities between foreign states with which His Majesty has been at peace. Therefore we commend this action, not with particular reference to the special clauses of this bill, but with reference to the purpose and intent of the bill to take additional measures to exercise the rights of nationality and sovereignty which we believe are now inherent in the parliament of Canada. Times have changed and are changing and I think it is necessary	that	this parliament should
endeavour to express itself with regard to all these matters as an assertion of its sovereignty in all matters which are normally within its jurisdiction.
There are other acts of a like character. There is the Army Act and the Naval Discipline Act of the United Kingdom, both of which extend to the whole empire. All dominion forces serving outside of the dominion are subject to the provisions of the Army Act and the regulations issued thereunder. The parliament of the United Kingdom has also provided for the extradition of accused persons from one part of the empire to another for trial. There is, for instance, the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, which provides for the arrest in any dominion of any person who is accused of the commission of an offence in any other of the dominions. We have dealt partially with this matter in the Canadian act, which is chapter 81 of the revised statutes of Canada. I suggest that that act should be extended still further by the assertion by this parliament of its legislative competence to deal with these matters.
Then there is the Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act, 1849, which conferred on dominion or colonial courts the power to deal with crimes committed in the territorial waters of the dominion or colony. The Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878 makes provision with respect to offences committed by foreigners on foreign ships within the territorial waters of any dominion. The Naval Prize Act, 1864, and the Prize Court Act, 1894, provide for the constitution of prize courts in British dominions, colonies and possessions. The Slave Trade Act, 1873, for the suppression of the slave trade, extends to the whole empire and confers jurisdiction upon the vice-admiralty courts of the dominion.
There are other classes of cases which have the same special application to Canada and which restrict to a certain extent the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. Such are the International Copyright Act, 1886, and the Geneva Convention Act,

Foreign Enlistment-Mr. Cahan
1911. A large number of these acts, which were passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom and with respect to which Canada has had up to the present no legislative jurisdiction by way of repeal or amendment, are not generally known. In the course of my professional practice I have had on one or two occasions to quote one or more of these acts of the parliament of the United Kingdom which are in force in this country, and I was astonished to find that the judges presiding in the courts had no idea that any such acts were in existence extending to and applicable to Canada.
Now that parliament has commenced the consideration of acts of the parliament of the United Kingdom which extend to and are applicable to Canada, I suggest that the Department of External Affairs or the Department of Justice or both should proceed at once to make a complete survey of all such acts and determine which should be retained either in their present or in an amended form. If they are not amended and thereby included in the statutes of Canada they should be repealed by act of the parliament of Canada. Those not repealed should then be compiled and published in a special volume for ready reference, so that all concerned with the administration of the law may be fully informed as to what the law is. I suggest with deference that in a number of our courts, both in Quebec and other provinces, the judges are not fully aware of the extent to which the laws of the parliament of the United Kingdom apply to Canada and are to be enforced by our courts, both in civil and in criminal matters. I suggest also that if this work is too onerous and too extensive for the Department of External Affairs- which has one or two officials whom I know to be thoroughly competent for work of this kind-and if the Department of Justice has so much work in hand that its officials cannot devote the time necessary to a compilation of these enactments and to the preparation of amending statutes, it would be proper for the Department of Justice to employ some competent lawyer-I would not object if he were of the Liberal faith and persuasion so long as he is capable-to make a compilation of these laws and place them before parliament in a way in which they can be effectively dealt with. In an address I made to this house some time about 1928, dealing with this matter, I stated, if I remember correctly, that I had found over a hundred statutes of the United Kingdom which dealt with matters of this kind.


Ernest Lapointe: I have a list of about one hundred and fifty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, I remember that in the former discussion I said one hundred and fifteen, and my leader at the time remarked that on the previous occasion I had referred to the number as being about one hundred and fifty; but on this occasion, not having had the opportunity of reviewing the list, I referred to the smaller figure. I have no doubt that the number is over a hundred.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course many of them are the same measures, revised. For instance, there are many laws on the slave trade.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so. The original act as amended is still in force. I suggest, therefore, very earnestly, that this matter be taken up. In expressing this opinion I think I may say that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett)-


Ernest Lapointe: It is a good suggestion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -is entirely in favour of the suggestion which I have made. In my opinion this parliament should again and again, at every opportunity, assert its sovereignty in regard to matters affecting the peace, order and good government of Canada which are within its legislative jurisdiction. We have emerged from the colonial status, whether the judicial committee of the privy council recognize the fact or not; and, when they decline to recognize it, it is absolutely necessary in the present temper of this country that they be brought to a condition of mind in which they cannot avoid cognizance of certain fundamental facts. One way of doing that is to proceed as I have suggested, although there are cumulative remedies which on an appropriate occasion I shall take pleasure in expounding in this house from my point of view. I have simply to say that I approve the principle of this bill.
There is one matter which I might mention now, and which I think will require further consideration. This bill is a criminal statute. It provides penalties for certain crimes. It also proceeds to deal with nationals of Canada who commit these breaches of the law. To mention that fact is to revert to a consideration which I have very much at heart, and that is the necessity and the advisability of an amendment and consolidation of the laws of Canada relating to Canadian nationality. In the consideration of the provisions of the treaty of peace at Versailles dealing with reparations and other matters I was brought face to face, week after week and month after month, with the fact that this parliament has never clearly expressed tne meaning of Canadian nationality nor decided
1942	COMMONS
Foreign Enlistment

Mr. Cahan
the qualities which apply to a Canadian national. Following up some work which had been done under the present prime minister before I came into office in 1930-he procured a professor of the law department of the university of Toronto to prepare a report in connection therewith-I attempted the preparation of a bill on Canadian nationality and submitted it to this house. But I was unable to proceed with the matter, for the reason that, while the permanent officials of the various departments of government are intelligent and of ripe experience in the administration of their departments, their minds are very obtuse indeed to the reception of new ideas which concern general public policy in matters only incidentally affecting their departments. I ran up against barriers which I could not overcome, and I was unable to accomplish what I had sought, the enactment of a comprehensive measure setting forth the qualifications of a Canadian national and the definition in express terms of Canadian nationality. I repeat that sometimes I fear we have more of the colonial spirit of inferiority than even our fathers and grandfathers had, and certainly the time has come in the history of this dominion when, if we seek to ascertain who are Canadians and who are Canadian nationals, we should be able to find it in some substantive enactment outside of the immigration act, the real purpose and intent of which is to exclude certain classes of people from obtaining domicile in Canada. Why we should be compelled to look to that act for a definition of who are Canadians, who are Canadian nationals, I cannot understand. I think it is a discreditable condition in which we find ourselves to-day. Canada has taken an important part in international affairs. Under -the imperial conference resolutions of 1923 and 1926, and again at the imperial conference of 1930, we assumed a large part in the administration of external affairs relating to Canada. But we are now met by that same old imperial spirit, as expressed by certain members of His Majesty's Privy Council of England, who cannot understand that men of English descent and men of French descent whose forbears have been living in Canada for a century and more, and who are Canadians to the backbone, are not of the same inferior mental complex as all colonials were deemed to be a century and a half ago. The sooner we assert the sovereignty of Canada in all matters with which this parliament is competent to deal, the better I think it will be for this country -far better for the development of that national sentiment in Canada, which is absolutely necessary if we are to maintain cohesion 
among the various races and creeds and all sections of the dominion.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: With respect to a bill of this importance there seems to be no good reason why there should not be a full discussion on second reading. I regret that the government has introduced the measure at this time. At least in its present form, it may easily involve us in those European entanglements which ostensibly it seeks to avoid. Personally I am in favour of neutrality, but that neutrality must be thoroughgoing.
It seems to me that this bill has not been drawn with any great care. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is responsible for it: I am not reflecting upon him.


Ernest Lapointe: We cannot please the hon. gentleman.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We are told that the Foreign Enlistment Act passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom in 1870 extends to Canada. I submit that the government might have done one of three things. They might simply have repealed that act as far as it extends to Canada; or they might have reenacted it just as it stood, as applying to Canada; or they might have improved upon it. In my opinion the bill as drawn is no improvement upon the British act; rather in addition to the principle underlying the British act it introduces one or two other principles that make it quite involved.
We are in favour of what I think is the principle of the bill, at least the principle of the British act, that is, to prohibit military assistance to the enemies of a friendly state. The explanatory note to section 3, which I take it indicates the principle of the bill, reads:
This section makes it unlawful for a Canadian national to enlist anywhere, or for any person within Canada to induce any other person to enlist in the case of a foreign war, for service against a friendly state.
This undoubtedly involves control over our own nationals, and though we have not had many occasions on which to assert that control, I suggest that on the whole we must concede that at any rate, when the actions of Canadian nationals may involve us in international complications, the state must take control, or assume some power over their actions. The bill provides-I am inclined to think this is the original bill

for certain permits. Let me read section 3:
If any person, without a permit, being a Canadian national, within or without Canada, accepts or agrees to accept any commission or

Foreign Enlistment-Mr. Woodsworth
engagement in the armed forces of any foreign state at war with any friendly foreign state, or, whether a Canadian national or not, within Canada, induces any other person to accept or agree to accept any commission or engagement in any such armed forces, such persons shall be guilty of an offence under this act.
This idea of permits is carried into the other sections as well. By this provision for permits I suggest that the government is given power virtually to nullify the purpose of the bill by allowing the very things which it is intended to prohibit. It must be noted that the bill itself makes no reference whatever to the conditions under which such permits may be issued.


Ernest Lapointe: Does not my hon. friend think that that question should be discussed in committee? To show him how much better it would be to leave to the committee stage the discussion of such points I may tell him that certain things will be omitted from the bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I want to discuss
the principle of the bill as briefly as possible.


Ernest Lapointe: That is
not the principle.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It has to do with
the principle of the bill because certain important matters are left to the discretion of the government-a procedure to which we are opposed. Further, there is a similar objection to section 19. This is important and should not be passed over at this stage. Section 19 reads:
(1) The governor in council may, from time to time, make orders and regulations relating to any or all of the following matters:
(a)	the extension and application of the provisions of this act, with necessary modifications, to any case in which there is a state of armed conflict, civil or otherwise, either within a foreign country or between foreign countries.
(b)	the issue of permits, the prescribing of conditions upon which permits may be issued, and the designation of the authority or authorities who may issue permits.
And so on. It strikes me that this government should be the last to advocate government by order in council. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said a few weeks ago, as reported at page 249 of Hansard:
Over and over again we have laid down the principle that so far as participation in war is concerned, it will be for the parliament of Canada to decide. Having taken that attitude with respect to participation, I think we might well take the same attitude with respect to neutrality.
I suggest to the government that this bill be brought into conformity with the principles laid down by the Prime Minister. The powers given to the government by section
19 to extend the provisions of the act are too wide, and certainly undefined. This is a delegation not to regulate but to legislate. Power should be given to apply the provisions of the act, not to extend them.
Further, in the event of civil war in a foreign country the act should be made to apply only when there has been prior recognition by his majesty's government in Canada of the insurgents as belligerents.
There is another point-and while it might be appropriately dealt with when we reach the relevant section, I think it is important to refer to it while discussing the purpose of the bill and the situations for which provision should be made. If enlistment, recruiting, and outfitting and use of ships are not permitted in aid of the armed forces at war with any friendly state, why should not the ban be extended to the sale of arms, munitions and implements of war or material essential to the manufacture thereof? In this connection I should like to quote a summary of the United States neutrality bill as approved by the senate. This summary is from the Montreal Gazette of March 4, 1937:
As soon as he should find that a state of war existed or that a civil war of such dimensions as to threaten the peace or neutrality of the United States was in progress, the following steps would automatically result:
1.	An embargo would be placed on all shipments of arms, ammunition and implements of war, and all loans to all belligerents and to all factions in civil strife.
2.	It would be unlawful for United States citizens to travel on ships of belligerent registry, except under such regulations as the president might prescribe.
3.	All trade with belligerents would go upon a "cash-and-carry" basis. No goods of any kind could be shipped to them from this country except after all right and title therein had been transferred from American nationals to foreigners.
4.	American ships could not legally transport to belligerents commodities designated by the president, presumably in accordance with belligerents' own proclamation of contraband of war.
We have before us a bill which no doubt is intended to keep us out of European difficulties. But we are simply prohibiting foreign enlistments; there is no thoroughgoing prohibition of arms and munitions. There is a mention in one case of ships, but prohibitory action is not extended to munitions of war.
A second principle emerges, which is quite different from the principle of the British act. It is contained in section 11, which makes it illegal to recruit or accept any commission or engagement in the armed forces of any foreign state, thus going much farther than the British act. Section 3 prohibits any-
1944	COMMONS
Foreign Enlistment-Mr. Woodsworth
one from enlisting against a friendly state, but this goes farther and makes it illegal to recruit or accept any commission or engagement in the armed forces of any foreign state. Why should not prohibitions which -are directed against assistance to states at war with friendly states also apply against assistance to rebels against a friendly state? An anomalous situation results. If I may quote the words of a friend who wrote to me with regard to this matter, he said:
All recruitment or inducement to enlist in favour of a friendly foreign power immediately becomes unlawful under this section. There is not even the qualification "without a permit" which applies to the unlawful action under section 3 dealing with aid to an enemy of a friendly state. The effect of section 11 is that while recruitment in aid of the armed forces of a friendly state is unlawful, recruitment in aid of the rebellious forces within the state is lawful.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Who is the author?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am stating it as my own. The memorandum is from a friend who wrote me in regard to this matter. This is a technical matter; I am not a lawyer, and for that reason I am using the words as given.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It might have more force if we knew who wrote it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I am letting the statement stand on its own merits.
Such an act is not forbidden by section 3, because it is not recruitment for a foreign state at war with a friendly power.


Ernest Lapointe: Again if my hon. friend would wait we might change this section to satisfy him.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am very glad to hear it.


Ernest Lapointe: I thought I told the hon. member I would.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, there is still another section.


Ernest Lapointe: Ai speech having been prepared, it has to be delivered.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, it is not because it was prepared and has to 'be delivered. That remark is hardly fair. On account of the importance of the subject I did give some study to it, and asked, one or two of my legal friends to advise me in regard to certain sections, and I think it is only fair that I should present the case at this stage, because the bill has to be considered as a whole; unless we give consideration to sections 11 and 19 we can hardly deal with the important section 3.


Ernest Lapointe: Why not wait until we reach those sections?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, as I have already said, there are two or three principles involved.. I wonder if I might be permitted to proceed for a few minutes more. I continue this statement:
Such an act is not forbidden by section 3, because it is not recruitment for a foreign state at war with a friendly power. It is not forbidden by section 11, because the enlistment is not "in the armed forces of the foreign state." Recruitment in aid of the armed forces of a friendly power is at all times unlawful, while recruitment in aid of the armed rebels within such a friendly power is lawful, and remains lawful unless power to declare otherwise is secured under section 19(1) (a). It is dubious whether such power is secured under 19(1)(a).
There is one other section which I think is very important. Section 14 takes away trial by jury. The explanatory note states that it is designed to enable the prosecuting authority to proceed1 summarily in the manner provided by part XV of the criminal code, in cases of minor importance. I suggest that this is not a matter of minor importance.


Ernest Lapointe: This I will not change.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I regret that we should here be deprived of the right of trial by jury in a very important matter. I hope the government will see its way clear to accept such amendments as will clarify the situation and provide for thoroughgoing neutrality, and that parliament, not the governor in council, shall decide whether our nationals shall engage in. war.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Ernest Lapointe: I wish to thank the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) for the illuminating address he gave this afternoon on the various enactments and statutes which apply to Canada. I thoroughly agree with him that the present anomalous situation should be remedied, and I believe his suggestion that this should be made a special undertaking is a good one. I do not know whether the advisers in the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Justice can do it properly in the limited time at their disposal, but someone will have to do it. I agree entirely with everything my hon. friend has said in that respect.
As far as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is con-

Foreign Enlistment
cernedi, he says he is in favour of the principle of the bill, and I am pleased that he is. But I cannot agree with his statement that the bill permits things which should be prohibited, that it will make it easier to do things which should not be done. I understood my hon. friend to say that instead of restricting, the bill would permit certain things to be done.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If I may say so, I was dealing with section 3 and the following sections which contain the words "without a permit."


Ernest Lapointe: If my
hon. friend could see the hundreds of telegrams I have received from people who are opposed to this bill he would see that they are not objecting because it gives them more freedom to enlist for service in European wars.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the minister explain the meaning of the words "without a permit"?


Ernest Lapointe: We used those words because they are in the British act. They used the word "licence," but now the League of Nations has changed it to "permit," and that is the word we are using. The act would be made more rigid by removing those words "without a permit" in the various sections. So far as I am concerned I have no objection to that change. It will take away some flexibility, some elasticity in given cases which we cannot foresee, perhaps, but it may be better for the government not to be asked to issue permits; if they have not that power it will make it easier for them. So when the sections in question are reached I will move that those words be deleted. Meanwhile we will have to change section 2 accordingly, by striking out subsection (a), and another change may be required following the discussion of the other sections of the bill. I will ask that section 2 stand in the meantime.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Johnston, Lake Centre):: Shall section 1 carry?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Has the minister decided
that the government should not be able to license an enlistment under section 3, for instance? Certainly under the act in force throughout the British Empire since 1870 licences could be granted, and I can conceive of circumstances and conditions under which a licence or permit might hereafter be issued.


Ernest Lapointe: I think so, too.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can conceive that. The government of the day must be responsible; it has to assume responsibility in such matters. I did not follow the reasoning of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in that respect. I think in a statute of this kind a certain amount of elasticity is necessary if justice is to be done under all circumstances and conditions.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Ernest Lapointe: I will ask that this section stand and that the question raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George be discussed on the other sections. I may say that my mind is open on the question, and I should like to hear the reasons that may be given in support of the request of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Section stands.
On section 3-Offence to enlist with a foreign state at war with a friendly state.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know that I can do more than repeat what I have said already. If it is to be made illegal, as I think it should be, to enlist in the armed forces of any foreign state at war with a friendly state, I do not see why there should be any provision for a permit to do otherwise. It seems to me if that is to be illegal provision should not be made for the government to go against its own act. There should be no exemption at all. I can see no reason for a permit to enlist in the armed forces of a state at war with a friendly state.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Let me give an example. In the republic of Brazil we have had a large number of Canadian engineers professionally engaged in carrying out great undertakings. Yet by its own military law, unless that law has recently been changed, Brazil assumes the right forcibly to conscript the nationals of other countries temporarily domiciled in that state, and to compel such foreign subjects to take part in the wars of that state, either domestic or with another state. I am putting an extreme case, but should we visit upon such Canadian nationals the penalties imposed under this act? Should we say that they are committing a crime when they are forcibly enlisted by another country?


James Shaver Woodsworth: If it is done under duress it would hardly come under the provisions of this section, which says " accepts or agrees to accept."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, he accepts; he has to. This section says " Every person without a permit who accepts or agrees to accept any commission or engagement-."
Foreign Enlistment


James Shaver Woodsworth: Surely that means a voluntary action.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend takes that as meaning a purely voluntary action. Well, I doubt that, but let me go further. Under the English act licences were seldom granted, but throughout the years they have reserved the right to license British subjects to take part in foreign wars.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Against a friendly state?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is hardly a war to which they do not send representatives of their own staff to participate. Russia and Japan were friendly states, yet the British government sent members of its own staff to participate not only in the naval conflicts but in the land conflicts as well in that war. They do that in every great war. There must be some latitude allowed; you must not make it so rigid that there is no possibility of allowing exemptions in individual cases.


Mr. MacNEIL:: Did the members of the general staff participate as combatants in the wars to which the hon. gentleman has referred?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They certainly did; on
occasion they had to in order to preserve their own lives.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: With regard to the argument of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, staff observers accompanying some army are not there because they have enlisted in the forces of that foreign state. A staff officer acting in the capacity of an observer is something very different from a man who has enlisted or accepted enlistment in the services of that state. It seems to me that if we leave a loophole through which permits may be given which will nullify the very intent of the act, we will set a dangerous precedent. As I understand it, the clause in the British act with reference to licences was inserted at the time of the Franco-Prussian war, at a time of imperialistic expansion, when perhaps there was more interference in the wars of other countries than there is to-day. The whole situation has changed now, particularly with reference to Canada, whose desire to keep out of international entanglements is even stronger than the desire that existed in Great Britain in 1870. It seems to me we are setting a very dangerous precedent if we leave any loophole through which by the issuance of permits or licences, individuals or groups of individuals may be permitted to enlist in the service of a foreign state.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Medical officers from Montreal are at present enlisted with and engaged

as part of the royalist service in Madrid. They are rendering surgical and medical aid and assistance, and form part of the forces and of the medical service of an army. Should that be prohibited?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That would depend entirely on the definition of "armed forces." Paragraph (c) of section 2 says:
(c)	"Armed forces" includes military, naval and air forces or services, combatant or noncombatant.
We are waiting to see what the minister has to say with reference to the definition of armed forces. I do not think the term "armed forces" has ever applied to the Red Cross or to medical services rendered in some other country for purely humanitarian reasons.


Mr. DUNNING:: To medical services, yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the last war the Swiss forces helped both sides. The Red Cross is recognized as a non-combatant.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, the Red Cross, but not the medical staffs of armies.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I believe people rendering humanitarian or medical services on either side-


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it is strictly limited to the Red Cross.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That depends entirely on the definition of "armed forces." If we want to preserve the right to any country to send medical units to render humanitarian services, we can do so by dealing with paragraph (c) of section 2, rather than leaving in the words "without permit," which would cover military units.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: With reference to the suggestion of the hon. member to the effect that medical men looking after the wounded are not treated as combatants, may I refer to a clear example in the late war, about which I happened to know. I refer to Doctor Beland, who was a member of the Laurier government and of the House of Commons. When war was declared he was in Belgium, and he remained there. First he looked after Belgian wounded, and then, when the Germans came to Belgium, he went on with his work in the hospitals, helping the German wounded. Eventually, however, he was taken to Berlin and put into prison. Why? Because he had been a minister of the crown in Canada-at least, that was the reason given. Although he was not a combatant, and under international rules of war should not have been taken prisoner, he was imprisoned in Berlin and kept there for several

Foreign Enlistment
years, during which time he was badly treated. So the hon. member is entirely wrong when he suggests that a medical man looking after the wounded may not be treated as a combatant.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it not true that the gentleman in question was a national of a country at war with Germany?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, that is right.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I might as well deal with the matter immediately, because it is an important one. At the proper time we are going to move that paragraph (c) of section 2 be amended to read:
(c) "Armed forces" includes military, naval and air forces or services, combatant or noncombatant, but shall not include medical, nursing and other services engaged solely in humanitarian work, and which are under the control or supervision of the Canadian Red Cross Society or other recognized Canadian humanitarian society.
Canada is a party to the international convention for the amelioration of the condition of the: sick and wounded in armies in the field. The Canadian ratification of this convention was deposited on February 20, 1933. Article 11 reads as follows:
A recognized society of a neutral country can only afford the assistance of its medical personnel and formations to a belligerent with the previous consent of its own government and the authorization of the belligerent concerned.
The belligerent who accepts such assistance is bound to notify the enemy thereof before making any use of it.
I think it is important that such medical units be under the control of the Red Cross, that relief of the suffering be impartial and that it apply not only to one side. The wounded in both sides of a conflict suffer. All who want to take part in the work of the Red Cross in a country where there is a war, civil or otherwise, should certainly be under the supervision and control of the Red Cross, to which there could be no objection. We want to remain outside these conflicts, and in any humanitarian work we want to deal equally with both sides.
Then there is a further reason for taking this stand. When collections of money are sought for only one side of the conflict, the requests are always accompanied by information showing only one side of the difficulty, a condition which I do not think is in accord with the spirit of neutrality. We must encourage anything humanitarian in scope, anything which will alleviate suffering, but I believe the work of Canadians who may want to devote themselves to the noble work of the Red Cross should be done impartially.	Instead of having the word
"Canada" on the cars and trucks, pictures of which I have seen in the papers, I believe the words "Red Cross" should appear. For these reasons, when we reach paragraph (c) I am going to move the amendment I have suggested.


Mr. MacLENNAN:: Is the bill wide enough to cover enlistment in the Spanish civil war? I can see that it would prevent persons from enlisting on the side of the so-called rebels, but I cannot see that it would prevent enlistment to serve the government of Spain, if there is such a thing.


Ernest Lapointe: Section 19 of the bill will give to the governor in council power to extend and to apply provisions of the act, with the necessary modifications, to any case in which there is a state of armed conflict, civil or otherwise, either within a foreign country or between foreign countries. An order of the governor in council, by virtue of the provisions of the bill would apply to both sides of the conflict.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand section 2 is
to stand.


Ernest Lapointe: It was to stand until we decided about the permit.
Mr. 'CAHAN:	There is one other phase
which might be considered. The exception made by the new definition suggested by the minister does not apply in the case of Canadian nationals who may enter the medical or surgical service of one of the countries at war.


Ernest Lapointe: He would come under the definition of armed forces.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There are many countries
to which the Red Cross does not effectively intervene and I am suggesting that there are cases where it should be within the power of the government of Canada, through official channels, to give a permit or a licence to a thoroughly qualified Canadian to enter the surgical or medical service of one of the combatants for strictly humanitarian purposes. I still urge that the word "permit" be retained in section 3.


Mr. STEWART:: I think we were all helped considerably by the address of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). He pointed out the absence in our laws of a definition of a Canadian national. I appreciate the difficulty in arriving at such a definition and I should like to ask the Minister of Justice to let us have the wording of the corresponding section in the British Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870.
Foreign Enlistment


Ernest Lapointe: It refers
to British subjects.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Of course that is a fairly well defined term. With the section standing, would it not be possible for the minister to draft a definition of a Canadian national, either complete in itself or by reference to some other act? This would clear up the matter and make prosecutions more successful.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is given in chapter 21 of the revised statutes of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: We have already a definition in our statutes. Perhaps that might be improved, but until it is improved it stands as the law of Canada. Section 2 of the 'Canadian Nationals Act reads:
The following persons are Canadian nationals, viz:
(a)	Any British subject who is a Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Immigration Act;
(b)	The wife of any such citizen;
(c)	Any person born out of Canada, whose father was a Canadian national at the time of that person's birth, or with regard to persons born before the third day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one, any person whose father at the time of such birth, possessed all the qualifications of a Canadian national, as defined in this act.
Under the Immigration Act, 1910, a Canadian citizen is defined as follows:
(b) "Canadian citizen" means
(i)	a person born in Canada who has not become an alien;
(ii)	a British subject who has Canadian domicile; or
(iii)	a person naturalized under the laws of Canada rvho has not subsequently become an alien or lost Canadian domicile:
Provided that for the purpose of this act a woman who has not been landed in Canada shall not be held to have acquired Canadian citizenship by virtue of her husband being a Canadian citizen; either shall a child who has not been landed in Canada be held to have acquired Canadian citizenship through its father or mother being a Canadian citizen;
That would be the definition of a Canadian national as referred to in this bill.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would it not 'be well to state in this bill that a Canadian national shall be determined in that way?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Chapter 21 of the revised statutes leaves no doubt about that.
Mr. STEW'ART: I thought the hon. member was raising some question as to the meaning of a Canadian national.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It could be defined only by redrafting the statute.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Immigration Act contains a definition of the term.


Ernest Lapointe: I must come back to the matter of the permit. There is something to be said for both sides. I suggest that the reason why the British act has been copied in that regard was to give more elasticity and flexibility to the legislation. On the other hand, it has been represented to the government, not only by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) but by others, that in certain circumstances too much discretion might be given to the government in the issuing of such permits. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would seem to be afraid some government might not be entirely impartial in that matter.
Mr. WOOD&WO'RTH:	But this is
permanent legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: I thank my hon. friend; I assume he means that he is not afraid at this time. This matter has been discussed extensively by the government and when my hon. friend intimates that the bill has not been carefully drafted, I must say that there has not been a bill presented this session which involved more preparation than the one now before us. The best officers in both departments have been working on it for a part of this session. We have now come to the conclusion that perhaps it is better to exclude the words "without a permit" and not leave it within the power of a government to issue licences to take part in these conflicts. I will ask my colleague to move an amendment accordingly.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I move that section 3 of the bill be amended' by striking out the words "without a permit" in line seven.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act of the United Kingdom reads:
4. If any person, without the license of Her Majesty, being a British subject, within or without Her Majesty's dominions, accepts or agrees to accept any commission or engagement in the military or naval service of any foreign state at war with any foreign state at peace with Her Majesty, and in this act referred to as a friendly state, or whether a British subject or not within Her Majesty's dominions, induces any other person to accept or agree to accept any commission or engagement in the military or naval services of any such foreign state as aforesaid,-He shall be guilty of an offence against this act,
That statute has been in force since 1870, and so far as I can remember there has been no difficulty with regard to its administration. My own opinion is that it would be well to retain the form as we have it at present.


Charles Grant MacNeil: This section, I understand, deals with enlistment in the armed forces of

Foreign Enlistment
a foreign state at war with any friendly state. It is specific in that regard. I should like to ask the minister whether or not this section should also apply to the armed forces of insurgents within a friendly foreign state.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, that will be dealt with under subsequent sections.


Charles Grant MacNeil: As I understand it, this is the section which covers enlistment.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I know of no other section under which any such provision could be made effective.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course it will have to be extended-or applied, because the word " extended " is objected to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth)-under section 19. There will have to be an order and regulation under section 19 to apply to an insurrection.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I suggest to the minister that, as we have been specific with regard to " the armed forces of any foreign state at war with any friendly foreign state," and as this section deals with enlistment, there should be some specific provision dealing with insurgents rebelling against any friendly foreign state.


Ernest Lapointe: That will come as a result of the application of the act to civil war.


Mr. RYAN:: The insurgents are members of the foreign state.


Charles Grant MacNeil: This section prevents
enlistment in the armed forces of enemies of a friendly foreign state. Should it not also apply to insurgent forces in any friendly foreign state?


Ernest Lapointe: It will have to be under section 19.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Subsection (g) of section 2 provides:
"Foreign state" includes any foreign prince, colony, province or part of any province or people, -or any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in or over any foreign country, colony, province or part of any province or people.
"Foreign state" under that definition would not extend to cover an insurgent group, particularly prior to its having assumed any powers of government. That is, a power within a state preparing to rebel could, it seems to me, recruit Canadian nationals without their coming directly under this clause. It would clarify the situation to add at line 10, after the words " friendly foreign
state," the words " or the armed forces of insurgents rebelling against a friendly foreign state." As it stands, it seems to fail to touch Canadian nationals joining insurrectionary forces within the confines of a friendly state.
I wonder whether the minister would consider an amendment along that line.


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid that that will only confuse the meaning of the act. It is clear as it is drafted, and in its application to a conflict such as there is in a country at the present time, it will clearly apply to both sides. I do not think this section should be amended as the hon. member suggests. It does not appear in the British act, and, as the hon. member knows, the British act is applied at the present time to both sides.


Charles Grant MacNeil: We may not be making ourselves clear to the minister, but, as I interpret the section, it would be quite unlawful for me to enlist in the armed forces of a foreign state at war with a friendly state. That is clearly stated. In that event I would become an offender under this act.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, when there is a state of war between the two.


Charles Grant MacNeil: But under the section it remains unlawful for me to enlist in the armed forces of insurgents against a friendly foreign state. It seems to me that that is highly inconsistent; it is not good law. I cannot see why the minister should not be willing to include in the section a provision making it unlawful for a Canadian national to enlist in the armed forces of insurgents against a friendly foreign state, thus placing such enlistment in the same category as enlistment for service against a friendly foreign state as defined in the bill.


William Michael Ryan: I cannot agree with the contention put forward by hon. members on the other side. If you attempt to define insurgency arising in any particular state you are apt to get into very serious difficulties. There might be an uprising which would not amount to war; later the movement might develop into civil war and conditions might arise requiring the minister of justice to take action; under such circumstances he could act under the powers conferred by section 19. I think the section covers the situation sufficiently and that it would not be wise to include references to some state which may have trouble within its own borders. The section is well worded, and I have no doubt the Minister of Justice has given it serious consideration. He has had the advice of his law officers, and it is hardly competent for us, without any serious
Foreign Enlistment

consideration of the matter, to suggest forthwith some amendment of this section of the bill.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I assure my hon. friend that I am not speaking without careful consideration, and I have such advice from men of experience in the legal profession; it is their opinion that an addition such as the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) has suggested, should be made. This is a permanent statute, and it places too much responsibility on the government to assume discretionary powers with regard to civil conflict within another nation. As to the definition of civil conflict, one in the form proposed by my colleague would, I suggest, meet the situation. I think that the inconsistency of the section as it stands is clear. This is one of the governing sections of the statute. It is unlawful for me to enlist in the armed forces of a foreign state at war with another foreign state, yet it continues to be lawful for me to enlist in the armed forces of insurgents within a friendly foreign state. Surely the inconsistency must be apparent. It is not so much a question of legal technicalities as a matter of common sense. The minister apparently pins his hope to a definition under section 19 of the jurisdiction of the government in such matters, but I refer him to the terms of section 19, which gives discretionary powers. It is extremely dangerous to attempt to exercise discretionary power, or to define without bias what is civil conflict, when the government is actually confronted with a state of civil conflict. Inasmuch as we are dealing with a permanent statute it is essential to give a proper definition, and " rebellion " or " insurgency " or " insurrection "-any of those terms could be used. They are clearly understood; they are defined, I understand in international law, and the inconsistency can easily be removed.


Ernest Lapointe: That shows that there should be some elasticity and some flexibility in this matter. If we agree to what my hon. friend suggests, at what time will a trouble become an "insurrection" or a "civil war" to meet the conditions mentioned in . the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Weyburn? The Foreign Enlistment Act has always been for the purpose of preventing British subjects from enlisting and fighting in the army of a foreign state which is at war with a state friendly to his majesty. This will go further than that; although the British government, not by order in council but by a statement issued a few weeks ago, declared that the Foreign Enlistment Act applies to the present conflict in Spain. There had been discussions about this matter in the British
(Mr. Ryan.]
press and some legal gentlemen claimed that the Foreign Enlistment Act did not apply to a case of civil war. But the British authorities at this time have given warning to all British subjects that it does apply to both sides of the conflict. The question arises, however: at what time does the trouble assume the proportions of a conflict so serious as to justify other countries in considering it a case of civil war or a rebellion in the sense suggested by my hon. friend. In international law it is not as clear as he suggests. I could quote precedents on both sides. It is extremely difficult to ascertain when the trouble has become an insurrection that is recognized by other countries.
Then there are conditions under which war practically exists without having been declared. We saw that situation in China and Japan a few years ago in connection with Manchukuo, and then we saw it in Ethiopia. Italy did not declare war on Ethiopia; she described it as a territorial adventure, or expansion. That is one of the main reasons why it is important that the government should be given the power which we seek in section 19, to be able at a given point to declare that a conflict, such as the trouble in Manchukuo, in Ethiopia or elsewhere, has developed to such an extent as to be a threat to the peace of other nations. At such a time it will be for the governor in council to apply the provisions in this act to a conflict of that sort and prohibit Canadians from taking part in it.
In my opinion the bill as drafted covers everything, and my hon. friend's suggestion instead of helping would make it more difficult because it would not then be for the governor in council, in the light of the conditions that might exist at the time, to apply the act to a particular armed conflict. It would be difficult to determine at what stage this amendment could apply.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I presume it is the minister's intention to restrain Canadian nationals from enlisting in armed forces of any insurgents in order that this country may not be involved in any entanglements in a -foreign conflict.


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does the minister envision any particular instance of armed rebellion within any friendly state wrhere an exception might be made or where no restraint would be placed on Canadian nationals enlisting in the armed forces of insurgents?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The question whether armed forces are insurgent or are government

Foreign Enlistment
forces depends upon the recognition by Canada of a state as the government or of the forces as insurgent. That may change in the twinkle of an eye; it is a matter within the discretion of the government of the United Kingdom in any case. We might have a long discussion as to how far recognition would be within the discretion of the government of Canada under a recent decision, but circumstances change from day to day, from week to week, and the government must always be at liberty to determine whether a sit-down strike in any foreign country is an insurgency or whether it has reached that stage when rioters have become an insurgent force.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am speaking of armed insurgency.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The sit-down strikers seem to be armed in most cases. At any rate some of their deeds result in conflict, and whether they carry bludgeons or pistols does not decide the issue. The insurgents may become the loyalist forces by the recognition by the government of the United Kingdom of the insurgent party as the controlling government force, or vice versa. There must be a discretion vested in the government.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Would not that then become a friendly foreign state if the insurgent force conquered?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think that without knowledge of the actual conditions and the facts you can draw a line. If you have a government in this country you must give it authority to exercise a certain discretion in complicated cases. You cannot tie down by a rigid statute the government's decision in every complicated case that may arise in international affairs. You must have a government that takes responsibility. You cannot call this parliament together simply because a question arises as to whether a certain band of insurgents, although armed, should be regarded thereafter as the loyalist forces. Parliament cannot be convened on every such occasion, and you must give the government of the country discretion. If you have a government which you are confident will not exercise proper discretion the sooner you vote against it the better; but there is human frailty everywhere, even in governments. In drafting a statute such as this you must assume that the government of your country will exercise a reasonable discretion in dealing with such matters in accordance with the exigencies of special occasions as they arise.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not want to labour the matter, but it is not a question of not 31111-123
having confidence in the government. Legislation is of no value in this regard unless you indicate the lines along which you desire the government to act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You cannot now do that by statute.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of Justice touched on the very point when he talked about the powers of discretion and the question of determining when there exists an insurgency or a civil war. It seems to us in this group that it places too great a responsibility on the government and too much discretionary power in their hands to have them make that decision. What is suggested is that the participation at any time by Canadian nationals in the forces of any group who are insurgents or even preparing to be insurgents shall be unlawful. As it stands now we are saying that it is permissible for a Canadian national to participate in an armed rebellion up to a certain point until such time as the Canadian government declares that this act operates against such participation. If it were placed in the statute, at any time it would be illegal for a Canadian national to participate in any armed revolt against a friendly state. As to the difficulty the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) brings out in reference to deciding which is the government and which the insurgents, as they may vary from time to time, the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) pointed out that the government that is recognized by his majesty's government is the friendly state; those at war with that government are armed insurgents, and any Canadian national enlisting in the forces of such a body is breaking the laws of the Dominion of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: We want to prevent that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But we shall not prevent it if we say that the Canadian government must exercise its discretion at some time in the future rather than have the provision included in the act.


Ernest Lapointe: What is the practical purpose of my hon. friend's objection? Does he think it would be permissible to enlist on one side and not on the other?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is as it stands.


Ernest Lapointe: Not at
all. It would not apply there. If the conflict is not of such a kind that the provisions of the act apply to it, there would be no

Foreign Enlistment

intervention on one side or the other. When it is of that kind, and one side, the government side if you like, comes under this provision, the other side comes under it as well.
This legislation is to prevent enlistment in the armed forces of a country at war with another country. If it applies to a war within one country because of an order under section 19, surely my hon. friends have never had it in mind that the government would apply it only to one side. It is discussing an absurdity; it could not be.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, no.


Ernest Lapointe: Then what is the object of this discussion?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The point is not that we are afraid it would be applied to one side and not the other, but that it should not be left to the government to apply it at all.


Ernest Lapointe: It has
to be.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It should be applied from the beginning, not at the discretion of the government.


Ernest Lapointe: Let me
quote from a very able article in Foreign Affairs of January, 1937, by Philip C. Jessup, on The Spanish Rebellion and International Law, discussing the present conflict over there. I quote only two or three sentences, to show that the matter is not so clear as my hon. friends seem to think it is.
The importance and difficulty of distinguishing between a mere internal disturbance and an actual case of civil war is indicated by the Brazilian case of 1930.
This act is not to apply to any little disturbance in other countries. He quotes many instances where governments have decided that both sides were belligerents and where they decided that they were not. Then he continues:
_ If the insurgents have reached a very considerable degTee of organization and stability, and if they are contending on more or less equal terms with the forces of the established government, they may attain the status of belligerency. If their belligerency is recognized, they thereupon acquire the same rights which are granted to a sovereign state when it is at war. In other words, recognized belligerents may establish blockades, may visit and search ships of third powers on -the high seas, may seize -and confiscate contraband goods, and the like.
Here is something that is interesting to Canada:
As an example of a formal recognition of a state of civil war bringing into play the obligations of neutrality, reference may be made to President Van Buren's proclamation of January 5, 1838, during the course of an insuir-

rection in Canada:	"Whereas information
having been received of a dangerous excitement on the northern frontier of the United States in consequence of the civil war begun in Canada . . . any person who shall compiromit the neutrality of this government by interfering in an unlawful manner with the affairs of the neighbouring British provinces, will render themselves liable to arrest and punishment under the laws of the United States. . . President McKinley's proclamation of June 12, 1895 was similar; he recited that Cuba was "the seat of civil disturbances, accompanied by armed resistance to the authority of the established government of Spain" and admonished all persons in the United States to respect our neutrality laws.
It is more or less a question of fact-the conditions as they exist in the conflict which distinguish between a state of war and belligerency or a dangerous insurrection. It is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the government. We cannot foresee and by an amendment of this kind deal with all cases that may arise. Particularly is this so when there is no advantage one way or the other; it applies to both sides. When it is provided that Canadian nationals cannot enlist in a war, civil or otherwise, which is raging somewhere, obviously it applies to both sides. Then why this discussion?


Charles Grant MacNeil: As the section reads it is not stated that it is unlawful for me, for instance, to participate in armed insurgency within a friendly state.


Ernest Lapointe: As the section reads it applies as between two foreign countries.


Charles Grant MacNeil: It has no reference to civil conflict?


Ernest Lapointe: Not that section.


William Michael Ryan: Hon. members overlook the fact that violation of this act is made an indictable offence. I suggest that if this amendment is carried, any lawyer would have difficulty in drafting a charge with these words, and it would not be susceptible of proof.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why not use the same terms as in section 4, in determining what is a friendly state? Section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, says:
. . . service of any foreign state at war with any foreign state at peace with Her Majesty, and in this act referred to as a friendly state, . . .
We have -not defined "friendly state''; why should we not define it in the terms of the British Foreign Enlistment Act-"a friendly state is any foreign state at peace with his majesty"?

Foreign Enlistment


Ernest Lapointe: It could be done, but I do not believe it would change the meaning of the section.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It would clearly define a friendly state as a foreign state at peace with his majesty.


Ernest Lapointe: I will consider that when we come to section 2 again.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Offence to quit or intend' to quit Canada to enlist.
Ernest Lapointe: There is a similar amendment to be moved to this section.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Michaud moves that section 4 be amended by striking out the words " without a permit " in line 15.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Owner of conveyance may be guilty of an offence.
Ernest Lapointe: There is a similar amendment to be moved to this section.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Michaud moves that section 6 be amended by striking out the words " without a permit " in line 33.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You could not ship some criminals out of the country; it would be an offence if the criminal you sent out of the country went on and enlisted.


Ernest Lapointe: We want to keep them and deal with them here.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suppose so, but you may not be able to carry out your immigration act to the full extent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 7-Offences.
Ernest Lapointe: There is an amendment to this section, striking out the same words and adding other words which are in the British act.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Michaud moves that section 7 be amended by striking out the words " without a permit '' in line 44, and by adding thereto immediately after the word " act " in line 20 on page 3 the following proviso: ami-mi
Provided that a person building, causing to be built, or equipping a ship in any of the cases aforesaid, in pursuance of a contract made before the commencement of such war as aforesaid, shall not be deemed to have committed an offence under this act, if, forthwith, upon a proclamation of neutrality or any other proclamation notifying or bringing into operation the provisions of this act, he gives notice to the clerk of the privy council that he is so building, causing to be built, or equipping, such ship, and furnishes such particulars of the contract and of any matters relating to or done, or to be done under the contract, as may be required by the clerk of the privy council, and, if he gives such security and takes and permits to be taken such other measures if any as the President of the Privy Council may prescribe for insuring that such ship shall not be despatched, delivered or removed, or otherwise dealt with, without the permission in writing of the President of the Privy Council, until the termination of such war as aforesaid.


Ernest Lapointe: This is exactly the proviso that is in the British act, except that the words " Secretary of State " are replaced in this amendment by "President of the Privy Council."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why should we not leave it to the Secretary of State? The duties of the clerk of the privy council are restricted, and he is not the proper person to receive representations of that kind. With respect to the department of state you have the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but as this is an internal matter notice to the Secretary of State of Canada should be quite sufficient. In scores of cases we have reports made to the Secretary of State which he immediately brings to the attention of the governor in council. I do not think the clerk of the privy council is the proper person to attend to this.


Ernest Lapointe: I will tell my hon. friend why it has been placed under the control of the President of the Privy Council. Anything that relates to war is a very important matter, and it was thought better to leave it under the Prime Minister, or the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then make it the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but certainly not the clerk of the privy council. I protest against that.


Ernest Lapointe: I will
accept the suggestion of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And then it should not be dealt with by the President of the Privy Council but by the governor in council.


Ernest Lapointe: Instead of the clerk of the privy council I suppose it ought to be the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Foreign Enlistment


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It should be the Secretary of State for External Affairs. That is the term. Sometimes when he is absent it goes as a matter of course through the undersecretary, but there may be an acting secretary of state for external affairs.


Ernest Lapointe: I think that is an improvement.


Charles Edward Johnston: The amendment now reads:
Provided that a person building, causing to be built, or equipping a ship in any of the cases aforesaid, in pursuance of a contract made before the commencement of such war as aforesaid, shall not be deemed to have committed an offence under this act, if, forthwith, upon a proclamation of neutrality or any other proclamation notifying or bringing into operation the provisions of this act. he gives notice to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he is so building, causing to be built, or equipping, such ship, and furnishes such particulars of the contract and of any matters relating to or done, or to be done under the contract, as may be required by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and, if he gives such security and takes and permits to be taken such other measures if any as the Secretary of State for External Affairs may prescribe for insuring that such ship shall not be despatched, delivered or removed, or otherwise dealt with, without the permission in writing of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, until the termination of such war as aforesaid.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me this section might go much further, in view of the fact that the object of the bill is to prevent our getting into any foreign complications by reason of the participation of our nationals in any foreign war or by reason of our ships being used for war purposes. I believe it ought to extend to the shipping of munitions and war material. After all, the number of Canadians likely to participate in any conflict in any part of the world is relatively small, but Canada is recognized as an important source of raw material, particularly war material. In any future war it is very likely that a blockade will be one of the principal weapons used to subdue an adversary, and that the object of one opponent will be to cut off the supplies of the other, or if possible destroy his base of supplies. In view of the fact that Canada is a foremost source of supply for raw materials I think the Minister of Justice might consider something along that line.


Ernest Lapointe: I realize the importance of the suggestion made by my hon. friend, but that does not properly come within the question of enlistment. That is the situation under the British Act as well. The whole question of the export of munitions will be dealt with in amendments to the

Customs Act. It does not properly come under this legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I point out that although the act deals with enlistments, under subsection (c) of section 19 we deal with the seizure, detention and disposition of conveyances, goods and merchandise.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, relating to this act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since this bill deals with goods, merchandise and ships, could it not apply also to war materials, particularly to munitions?


Ernest Lapointe: I may assure my hon. friend that for the effective legal working of these matters it is better to deal with that in separate legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will something of that nature be done?


Ernest Lapointe: It is being considered.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is hardly good enough. In this case, as in so many others, we are taking the power to determine what certain individuals may do but at the same time continuing to permit other people to make money out of the distress of those in warring countries. I do think we ought to have some assurance from the minister that, under circumstances in which enlistment would be prohibited, copper, nickel and material of that sort will not be allowed to reach those who are at war with a friendly foreign state. To me that is a reasonable proposal. We are prohibiting the sending of men, but we are not prohibiting the sending of copper or nickel, and the making of all the money that can be madie out of it. The sending of materials of war is likely to involve us in international complications.


Ernest Lapointe: It cannot be done under this legislation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As my hon. friend (Mr. Douglas) suggests, it is possible, because there is mention of it in paragraph (c) of section 19. All I would like to have is the assurance from the minister that provision will be made in another act.


Ernest Lapointe: I am in charge of this measure having to do with the Foreign Enlistment Act. The other matter will be one of government policy, and the decision in connection therewith will have to be made by the government. I have no authority to tell the hon. member anything else.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Would the minister explain in what respect the authority of this act will

Foreign Enlistment
be invoked to deal with the goods and merchandise, as suggested in paragraph (c) of subsection 1, section 19? As I read it, the government proposes to assume the power to make orders and regulations with respect to the seizure,- detention and disposition of conveyances, goods and merchandise. That might be construed to apply to goods and merchandise intended for use in armed conflict abroad.


Ernest Lapointe: We will deal with that when we reach section 19.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Arming or equipping ships for foreign state at war.
Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move the following amendment:
That section 9 of the said bill be amended by striking out the words "without a permit" in line thirty-three.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-Outfitting expedition against friendly state. Offence.
Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move the following amendment:
That- section 10 of the said bill be amended by striking out the words "without a permit" in line forty-two.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not want the minister to think I am labouring the point unnecessarily; possibly I am unusually dense to-day. I must point out however that in section 9 we dealt with ships. I should like the minister to explain why he would prohibit the use of Canadian ships by some enemy national or a foreign state at war with a friendly state, and yet permit the shipping of nitrates used in high explosives. If the Foreign Enlistment Act applied only to the enlistment of men, I could understand it; but section 9, and possibly section 10, apply to the use of ships. If the sections apply to ships, why not to high explosives?


Ernest Lapointe: That
would be different altogether. The section specially provides for the prevention of an expedition, and makes it unlawful to prepare or to fit out an expedition of ships or otherwise. The intention is to prevent citizens from leaving Canada to fight in a foreign country at war. Ships may be belligerents as well as men.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The bill would apply only to ships carrying soldiers, or potential armed troops?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Mr. HAYHURST:: Why not include aeroplanes?


Ernest Lapointe: It applies to air expeditions as well.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Recruiting.
Charles Grant MacNeil: May I point out -that the section deals exclusively with recruiting.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall present an amendment which may meet any objection.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move in amendment
the following:
That section 11 of the said bill be amended by adding thereto immediately after the word "state" in line four, the following words: "or other armed forces operating in such state."


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is it the minister's understanding that the amendment deals with armed insurgency within any state?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest that we consider
the provision:
Provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the action of foreign consular or diplomatic officers or agents in enlisting persons who are nationals of the countries which they represent, and who are not Canadian nationals in conformity with the regulations of the governor in council.
That does restrict it to the operation of consuls or agents within certain limits defined by the governor in council. But certainly I am not in favour of giving legal effect to certain operations which have taken place in Canada in very recent years with regard to the enlistment for service in foreign states of persons domiciled in Canada. The difficulty has arisen chiefly in view of the fact that certain foreign states do not recognize certificates of nationalization granted in Canada. The result was that, as Secretary of State, for four or five years I declined to grant certificates of naturalization to aliens resident in Canada and otherwise qualified, unless they obtained from the foreign government to which they formerly paid allegiance a certificate' of the renunciation of their allegiance. I do not wish to name certain governments, but it must be known to every hon. member that in recent times certain foreign governments have undertaken widespread propaganda and preparation for the enlistment of their former subjects, resident in Canada, for service in foreign armies. I believe any regulations made should be very severe indeed. Propaganda such as has been carried on in the last few years is most injurious and prejudicial
Foreign Enlistment

to the development of a Canadian national spirit among those immigrants from foreign countries who are domiciled in Canada, many of whom in times past have applied for and obtained certificates of naturalization in Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad the hon. member has raised the question. In the last few years I have had a good many complaints sent to me from various sections in Canada that we describe as foreign communities-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Foreign language communities.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. The complaints have been to the effect that a great deal of pressure has been put upon them by their consuls. A great many of those people came to Canada to become Canadian citizens. Their naturalization has not been granted or has not been recognized by their own countries, and the result in the event of an international dispute would be that in these large communities there would be much trouble. In some sections of Canada there are considerable numbers of Italians, and in other sections we find Germans, Ukrainians, and persons of other nationalities. While I firmly believe most of them want to be loyal to Canada, yet they would be placed in an awkward position if a clause of this kind were put on the statute books.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, hon. members will see that this applies only to the nationals of the countries represented by consuls or diplomatic officers. These foreign diplomats, consuls or ministers may recruit only their own nationals for the armies of the lands they represent.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If they would just confine it to that.


Ernest Lapointe: The words are " who are nationals of the countries which they represent, and who are not Canadian nationals." This privilege, if you want to call it that, is recognized1 in other countries, but I think it should be made as difficult as possible to exercise these activities. However, I do not think we should go to the extent of making a criminal of the consul general of a friendly country who asks his fellow-nationals to complete their military service. Those nationals might be under an obligation of military service so long as they are nationals of that particular country. If they do not complete their service they may not be permitted to return and might be subjected to penalties, and all that sort of thing. I do not think my hon. friend should ask that we make 
criminals of these representatives, but I think their activities should be circumscribed within certain limits by regulations of the governor in council.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It means that many people are placed in an awkward situation I had a man come up to my room the other day who is from my own constituency. He came to Canada in 1923 from a country in Europe. He has moved around from one part of the country to another, working in lumber camps and so forth, and has never taken out naturalization papers. He was in the east for the purpose of getting married and had intended going back to Saskatchewan. He told me that several inducements had been held out to him by a consular agent to go back to his own country. My advice to him was to take out Canadian naturalization papers, but he had not gained a domicile in any particular locality because of his movements. It does not seem right to me that a man who has lived in Canada and who intends to make his future home in this country should be bothered in this way. In some cases it amounts almost to bullying by foreign consuls.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
On section 14-Penalties.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This is one of the sections to which I called attention when I spoke on the second reading. It practically takes away the right of trial by jury. It permits the prosecuting attorney to proceed summarily in the manner provided by Part XV of the criminal code. The crime which we are creating here is not a minor crime, and a man faced with a serious crime should have the fullest possible protection.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member would make the treatment more lenient?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The difficulty is that on occasions such as this there is bound to be a division of opinion as to the issue involved. Undier our system, where the jury must be unanimous, it would be almost impossible to obtain a conviction. If it is left to a judge, the judfee will decide the case strictly in accordance with the law. For instance, there is a definite cleavage in opinion right across the continent with regard to the civil strife in Spain. I am old enough to remember our boys in western Nova Scotia coming back from the civil war in the United States in a condition much worse than those who came

Foreign Enlistment
back from the war in Europe. Anaesthetics were not known or used at that time. In western Nova Scotia, where I was born and bred, the young men went out and enlisted in the northern army, while the sailors along the shore served in ships which were running and evading the blockade against southern ports. These ships were carrying cotton to England, where it was sold in the textile markets at enhanced prices. In a war of that kind, there is bound to be a decided division of domestic sentiment. I can remember how as a lad I used to go to the post office every night and wait until nine, ten, or eleven o'clock to get the latest daily paper which came in by coach, in order to see the progress of the Franco-Prussian war. We were watching the progress at Gravelotte, and Sedan and were interested in what the communists were doing in Paris. The whole community was divided in sentiment. There were staid and sober citizens who would gladly have fought on one side, while other equally staid andl sober and religious citizens would have gladly fought on the other. I think it would! be just as well to have these cases withdrawn from the jury and decided by a judge in strict accordance with the law.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would not that argument apply against all trials by jury?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No. I have had considerable experience in years past in a professional capacity, and I think I can say that with very few exceptions the great body of our people are in favour of proper and impartial administration of our criminal law.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What is meant by summary prosecutions? Does that mean that the case will be dealt with by a judge sitting in a criminal assize, or will it be considered by a magistrate in police court or by two justices of the peace?


Ernest Lapointe: Under part XV of the criminal codie it could be dealt with by a magistrate or by two justices of the peace.


Charles Grant MacNeil: This is a very serious offence, the offender being liable to two years' imprisonment. I think we should make sure that the man will be brought before a judge as we understand! the term.


Ernest Lapointe: The
accused would always have the right of appeal to a judge of a superior tribunal. There are many sections of the code which provide for trial in this manner, and offences under the customs act are treated in the same way.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 15 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On section 19-Orders in council.
Ernest Lapointe: There is an amendment which I shall ask my colleague to move.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move:
That section 19 of the said bill be amended by striking out the first eleven lines of the said section and substituting therefor the following:
"19. (1) The governor in council may, from time to time, by order or regulation provide for any or ail of the following matters:-
(a) the application of the provisions of this act, with necessary modifications, to any case in which there is a state of armed conflict, civil or otherwise, either within a foreign country or between foreign countries."
By striking out the letter (c) in line one on page six and substituting therefor the letter (b) ;
By striking out the letter (d) in line three on page six and substituting therefor the letter (c);
By striking out the letter (e) in line six and substituting therefor the letter (d);
By striking out the letter (f) in line eight and substituting therefor the letter (e).


Charles Grant MacNeil: Subsection (b) is being
deleted?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, and because of that we have to change the lettering of the other subsections.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Would it not be wise to introduce a proviso to the effect that this should be given application only when there has been a prior recognition of the insurgents as belligerents by his majesty's government in Canada? It seems to me that we should attempt there to define belligerency so that the regulations may be more clearly framed.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think so. In my opinion the section gives all the powers necessary to make it applicable to the conflict. I do not think we should intervene in the way suggested by the hon. member; that is, by declaring that parties in a conflict are belligerents. We simply declare that we do not want our nationals to take part in these troubles. To recognize their status, what they are or what they are not, would seem to me to be arrogating to ourselves a little too much importance, and, more particularly, to be intervening in things which do not concern us to that degree. We do not want our country to be involved or our nationals to create a situation which might endanger the peace of Canada. Why should we declare that rebels in the country of the government which they attack are belligerents? I think the League of Nations might attend to that question before Canada does by her own action.
Foreign Enlistment.


Charles Grant MacNeil: May I inquire of the minister how this subclause may be interpreted?
(f) The issue, restriction, cancellation and impounding of passports, whether within Canada or elsewhere, to the extent to which such action is deemed by him to be necessary or expedient for carrying out the general purposes of this act.
It seems to me that here the government is assuming extraordinary powers. I do not know of any precedent for such interference with civil liberties. It strikes me that under this section the government might even impound a passport on suspicion, if they deemed it expedient. The other provisions of the act are clearly defined, and if a man commits an offence under them he is liable to the penalties provided. I cannot see any necessity for this particular clause, enabling the government to proceed as may be deemed expedient, merely on suspicion, without any concrete evidence, and especially in view of the fact that regulations dealing with the matter of passports are elsewhere provided.


Ernest Lapointe: If this
were only a legislative gesture I might agree with the hon. member. But it is a serious matter. We do not want our people to go abroad and fight in these conflicts, and one of the best ways to prevent them is through the control of passports. Of course, a young Canadian may slip across the border in order to enlist in one of these armed conflicts, and if he cannot be caught before he leaves Canada, there is a reasonable expectancy, if we are empowered to interfere with the passport, that he will be stopped somewhere en route. As a matter of fact, within a couple of months we have in two instances cancelled passports which were granted through false representations. One case was that of a young man in my own constituency who succeeded in getting a passport upon a member of the clergy agreeing to be responsible for him, but who afterwards stated that his assistance had been obtained by false representations. We cancelled the passport. Another man, named I believe Leclair, obtained a passport under somewhat similar circumstances and got as far as France; he was there arrested, and can proceed no further with that passport.
If we do not have the power contained in this provision there will be many who will certainly evade this legislation. The hon. member says it is an invasion of liberty. Certainly to some extent the bill, from the first line to the last, is an invasion of liberty; but it is for the good of the country. Salus populi suprema lex: the state does not desire to be involved in difficulties. I believe the JMr. E. Lapointe.]
hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor) will be pleased with this allusion in a language he speaks so well!
As far as the issuing of passports is concerned, consider our position in the present conflict. If the provisions of this bill apply to this conflict, and if we have the right under this subsection to grant passports to people for travel in any country in the world except Spain, this particular provision will be a great help in the enforcement of this act. Without it, I fear much of the effect of the legislation will be lost.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Perhaps the minister has
missed my point. I agree that anyone who makes false representations to the department should have his passport cancelled, and I think the minister said that that power has already been exercised, that it exists under another statute.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. *


Charles Grant MacNeil: But I should like some
assurances from the minister that the well-known principles of British justice will not be contravened under cover of this section, and that a man's guilt will not be assumed until it has been established. We are anxious to avoid interference with the movements of people who are innocent of any intent to contravene the act, and who may be travelling for proper purposes to European countries where no conflict exists, and who have given no just cause for suspicion.
The phrasing of this particular section is important. Either because of suspicion or because some departmental officer might deem it expedient, a man might be held up and subjected to a great deal of inconvenience. That would be quite unjust, and it Should be made clear that no action can be taken until some evidence is produced to show that there is an intent to break the provisions of the act.


Ernest Lapointe: I can give my hon. friend that assurance. I may tell him that every precaution will be taken to make sure that the legitimate liberties of Canadian nationals will not be interfered with. On the other hand, the government must certainly have this power in connection with the issuing of passports.


Charles Grant MacNeil: If a man's passport is cancelled, or if his application is refused, will he be given an opportunity to appear before the department before his application is finally rejected, so that all the evidence may be properly reviewed?

Foreign Enlistment


Ernest Lapointe: That is a discretion that rests with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I do not think we should make that any easier in legislation which purports to foe stricter, in view of the circumstances for which it is enacted.


Charles Grant MacNeil: There are some cases in which it has been alleged that applications for passports have been refused and the reason has not been revealed. I submit that the reason should be communicated to the applicant so that if any injustice is done he can produce evidence in refutation of any improper charge that may be brought against him.


Ernest Lapointe: I will direct my hon. friend's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They are definitely refused in certain cases. I do not think that the passport, office knowingly grants a passport to a naturalized citizen of Canada who is going to his former country if that country does not recognize his certificate of naturalization. In such cases the passport office is bound to refuse a passport, because a passport when issued and held by a British subject domiciled in Canada is a clear evidence that all the power than can be brought to bear by Canada will be exercised to enforce respect for his person and to ensure his security when he is abroad.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I suggest that in subsection 2, line 15, there be substituted for the word "the" the words "a subsequent" so that the subsection would read:
Such orders and regulations shall be published in the Canada Gazette, and shall take effect from the date of such publication or from a subsequent date specified for such purpose . . .
I think it is generally agreed that it is poor law to make the provisions of an act retroactive. This is a minor matter but it will ensure that the provisions of the act will not be given retroactive effect.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think the hon. member need have any fear on that score. Certainly retroactivity is not intended, and none is indicated.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In a previous section the minister introduced an amendment to provide that the section should not be retroactive. That was with regard to the construction of ships. Is it not equally just that with regard to the movements of persons we should remove any fear of the act being regarded as retroactive?


Ernest Lapointe: It cannot be retroactive unless that is specifically authorized by the statute; and, in fact, it is not retroactive.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is it not true that this section is so phrased that the governor in council may fix any date from the date specified in the order or regulation?


Ernest Lapointe: It may be a later but not an earlier date.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Perhaps there is some ground for the hon. gentleman's criticism. I do not see why under this section the date from which the order in council shall take effect may not be a date prior to its publication.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not what is intended.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I know that is not what is intended, but is it not possible? Would there by any objection to making it clear that it shall take effect from the date of publication? But on the other hand it might not be desired to have it take effect on that date; the government might wish to have it take effect at a later date. My hon. friend from Vancouver North suggests " from a subsequent date specified for such purpose "-that is a date subsequent to the publication.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not a lawyer, but would it be possible at all to put me as an individual in the position of having committed a crime which was not a crime at the time I did the act? Surely our statutes would not permit that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Are you discussing morals or law?


Charles Avery Dunning: Law.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On moral grounds there may be an objection to it, but the parliament of Canada is not like the congress of the United States. It may make its legislation retroactive, or if it sees fit may establish penalties with respect to such retroactive legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: This
wording has been taken from other acts.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am sure that the governor in council would not undertake to make it retroactive.


Ernest Lapointe: It cannot be done. This is the usual wording, and the main reason why it would be difficult to accept my hon. friend's suggestion is that it would throw a doubt on other legislation which is phrased in exactly the same way. It can be found in many statutes. If we adopted my
Foreign Enlistment

hon. friend's suggestion it might be construed as implying a doubt with regard to other statutes. Moreover, the courts have decided that retroactivity cannot be declared unless it is specifically mentioned in the statute. I really think we ought to keep the wording as it is.


Charles Avery Dunning: If I were charged with an offence such as is being created by an order of the kind mentioned in this section, would it not be a good defence for me to say to the judge trying me, " Well, Your Honour, this was not an offence at the time I committed the act." And if it was not an offence at that time, how could any government make me guilty of it? Surely justice would not permit such a thing.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend ought to study the customs laws and regulations for the enforcement of which he is partly responsible. He will find many such examples. I have not clause (a), which has been rewritten, but we are dealing with the seizure, detention and disposition of conveyances, goods and merchandise, and the designation of officers or authorities who may execute any of the provisions of this act, and with the issue, restriction, cancellation and impounding of passports. These are not criminal offences.


Charles Avery Dunning: But look at (a).


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know what (a) is because it has been changed.


Charles Avery Dunning: (a) in the amendment is exactly the same as here with the omission of the word "extension."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then (a) is simply the application of the provisions of this act to any case in which there is a state of armed conflict. In ordinary course that would date from the passing of the order in council-that is, when the order in council comes into force -if no other provision is made.
Then we make another disposition here, that it only comes into force and takes effect from the date of its publication. It would, I think, be very proper to say "or from a subsequent date which is specified for such purpose in such order." I think that would be clear. Of course, I think the Minister of Justice is still influenced by certain misapprehensions he had with regard to the statute under which the government asked for the inclusion of Canada in the Abdication Act recently passed by the imperial parliament, when he referred to another clause of the statute as giving a special meaning to the particular clause of the statute which related

to Canada. But I cannot imagine that any other statute from which this form of words has been taken, could be invalidated by the insertion of the word "subsequent."


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is there not some fear of retroactive action in this matter because of the fact that the act of 1870 is now in force and applicable to conditions in Canada? That is why I made my suggestion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What would be the position under this clause of medical units which I understand are assisting on both sides of the conflict now going on in Spain?


Ernest Lapointe: Of course we could deal with them in the order or regulation which will apply the act to the civil conflict.
As I said, I want to make an amendment to section 2, which has been allowed, to stand, in order to deal with this matter. As soon as this clause is carried we shall revert to section 2.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 20 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.


Ernest Lapointe: It is proposed to amend this by striking out paragraph (a) dealing with permits; also by striking out the letter (b) in line 10 and substituting therefor the letter (a); striking out the letter (c) in line 12 and substituting therefor the letter (b), and by adding after the word "non-combatant" in line 13 the following:
"But shall not include medical, nursing and other services engaged solely in humanitarian work and which are under the control or supervision of the Canadian Bed Cross or other recognized Canadian humanitarian society."


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In what position will this place Canadian mediical units now operating on both sides of the civil conflict in Spain?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They will go to the penitentiary as soon as they arrive home.


Ernest Lapointe: As I stated, there will be no retroactivity in regard to this legislation. Anything in the future will have to be supervised or controlled by the Red Cross or some other recognized humanitarian association,, which will make it clear that we are not intervening on either side.

Foreign Enlistment


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I dio not know what a recognized humanitarian association is. The Lord only knows. It would take a Philadelphia lawyer to define that. Why not leave out altogether the word "non-combatant"? If they are not there as a fighting force and engagedi in fighting they should not come within the definition of armed forces.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend says "the Lord only knows" what it is. We were not governed) by the Lord in 1933 when my hon. friend was a member of a government. This is the very language of the international convention for the amelioration of the condition of wounded and sick in armies in the field. Article 11, which was ratified by Canada in 1933, reads:
A recognized society of a neutral country can only afford the assistance of its medical personnel and formations to a belligerent with the previous consent of its own government and the authorization of the belligerent concerned.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Clearly so. That is why
we did not have to have the Lord's intervention in order to ascertain the exact application of that phrase. The doubt is simply because my hon. friend without the Lord's advice is making some new interpositions of his own which will require clarification. But of course this act comes into force the moment it receives the assent of his excellency in the name of his majesty. Therefor it would apply to all medical students who were then with either combatant force in Spain.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Therefore, strictly speaking,
on their return to Canada, if they were so engaged in the medical service of either the so-called royalist army or the insurgent army, they would be liable to prosecution. But I wonder why we should not leave out the word "non-combatant." Could not the clause read: "'Armed forces' includes military, naval and air forces or services"? That is, those who are engaged in combat, and leave out "noncombatant"?


Ernest Lapointe: There are many individuals who take part in wars without being combatants. In the various armies there are advisers, liaison officers and many other classes who are not really in the fighting line. I am afraid it would be too wide if we accepted the suggestion. It is not in the British act either. This is modelled on the British act altogether.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is "non-combatant" in the
British act?


Ernest Lapointe: No, I
beg pardon, I thought it was. But it is to apply to people who are really not combatants and have never been considered as such, but still are with the army or assisting in the operations of war. This will make it clear that those units of the Canadian Red Cross are excepted from the act altogether, and in the regulations under section 19 others may be excepted as well.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Under what subsection of
section 19?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The new subsection.


Ernest Lapointe: Subsection (a) of section 19 says, "The extension and application of the provisions of this act, with necessary modifications-"


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is dealing with civil strife and the application of those provisions concerning war between state and state to the particular circumstances arising in civil strife.


Ernest Lapointe: The intention was that it would give the governor in council certain powers when deciding as to that application. This amendment is merely to make it sure that those humanitarian workers will not go there anyway.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the minister find it difficult to leave this bill in committee until we could have it reprinted with the amendments, or is the minister anxious to pass it to-day? These amendments are rather important, and one would like to read them again.


Ernest Lapointe: I am anxious to proceed with the bill. I have been ready to proceed for a long time, and had to wait because at different times someone interested could not be here.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Very well; I do not raise the objection.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The amendment was read so quickly that it was difficult to follow. I wonder if the minister would consider the advisability of taking out the words "solely under the Red Cross." As I understood it, only medical units operating on either side in Spain that are endorsed by the Canadian Red Cross come within this exemption. Anyone serving with other medical units is liable to indictment under this act. Those words simply eliminate any group that does not receive the endorsation of the Red Cross organization. Would the minister mind reading that part of the amendment again, so that we may follow it?
Foreign Enlistment


Ernest Lapointe: It reads:
But shall not include medical, nursing and other services engaged solely in humanitarian work and which are under the control or supervision of the Canadian Red Cross or other recognized Canadian humanitarian society.
The word "solely" applies to "humanitarian work."


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There would still be provision for a medical unit which had not been endorsed by the Canadian Red Cross but which was engaged solely in humanitarian work?


Ernest Lapointe: No, it would have to be under the control and supervision of the Red Cross.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does that mean that all medical units now operating in Spain, unless within the next few days they receive the endorsation of the Canadian Red Cross, would not qualify under this clause, and that Canadians so engaged would be indictable under this act?


Ernest Lapointe: They are excepted now. This is not retroactive; it deals with those who may go from now on.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But must those already there discontinue their work the moment this bill is passed?


Ernest Lapointe: No, that is not the intention.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But is that what the bill Says?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I think the remarks of the minister, coupled with those of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), make it necessary that we should have a clear understanding of the situation. These people left Canada on their own initiative, without the slightest thought that they would become offenders under a measure of this kind. Evidently they secured passports and thus left with the sanction of the government. At that time the Canadian Red Cross society had not organized any units to carry on humanitarian work in Spain, and these people associated themselves with similar groups in the United Kingdom. So at the present time, serving perhaps on both sides, we have eminent Canadian surgeons whose reputation for humanitarian endeavour is beyond question. As the bill now reads, and according to the opinion of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, if they continue in this humanitarian endeavour without securing the endorsation of the Canadian Red Cross, as soon as they return to Canada they are liable to indictment and imprisonment.
[Mr. Douglas.)


Ernest Lapointe: I assure my hon. friend that that is not the case. Certainly no man engaged in humanitarian work in Spain at the present time will be indicted under this act because he is there now.


Charles Grant MacNeil: But in the circumstances under which they went abroad they had to attach themselves to the armed forces of one side or the other, though of course not as combatants. Those in command will not allow any persons except members of their armed forces to penetrate their lines even to alleviate the sufferings of the wounded.


Ernest Lapointe: What is the objection to having them work under the Red Cross? The Red Cross is in Spain at the present time, carrying on its humanitarian activities on both sides. Why should there be any objection to coming under the Red Cross? I have in mind a resolution of the League of Nations, at its last assembly, dealing with this matter. Part of that resolution reads:
Notes that there are problems of a humanitarian character in connection with the present situation, in regard to which coordinated action of an international and humanitarian character is desirable as soon as possible-
The article from the convention, which I read a few moments ago, is also to the effect that such work should be impartial and international, and that it should apply to both sides. We have a splendid organization in the Canadian Red Cross society, which is affiliated with the International Red Cross committee, which is subject to certain rules and regulations, and surely Canadians who sympathize with the wounded and who want to give their money for that purpose might do it through this noble channel. I do not see the objection to it.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Do I understand that if they are not under the Canadian Red Cross, by reason of relationship entered into before the Canadian Red Cross became active, they will not be indictable under this act?


Ernest Lapointe: No, not those already there, but I would say that surely from now on those carrying on this work should do so under the Red Cross.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would ask the minister to insert the word "surgical" before the word "medical"; I think there is a clear distinction between surgical and medical services.


Ernest Lapointe: Very well;
I agree to that.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman..


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

Dionne Quintuplets

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1937, was presented by Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Deputy Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 19, for the protection of the Dionne quintuplets.- Mr. Gray-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like to ask the sponsor of this bill (Mr. Gray) for some information. I think the bill has a worthy purpose and is exceptional in character. I believe hon. members are in the main sympathetic with the principle of the bill and are ready to give it their approval. As I understand it, the object of the bill is to prevent individuals, firms, corporations or associations from exploiting for financial profit the names of these famous children. I should like to know if the statutory guardians have granted to any firms, corporations or individuals the right to make use of the names mentioned in this bill.


Mr. GRAY:: As the hon. member states, this bill is quite exceptional in character. I can only say that prior to the application by the Blossom corporation of Pennsylvania certain patents had been granted, and these are excepted from the operations of this bill by section 6.
As far as the words quins, quints, and quintuplets are concerned, the guardians themselves have applied for the right to use these names in looking after the welfare of the quintuplets. Last year some 500,000 tourists came to Canada to see the quintuplets, and the guardians felt that it was their duty to protect them as far as possible. The guardians are. limited by the Unfair Competition Act of 1932 to a period of fifteen years. The Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) and the commissioner of patents found that this was the only way in which the quintuplets could be protected. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. member for Leeds
(Mr. Stewart) have both said, this is unusual legislation but it will not exist forever. The guardians are brought under the provisions of the Unfair Competition Act, but for fifteen years they are given the power to grant franchises and award contracts to protect the Dionne quintuplets in a way that I feel sure my hon. friend wishes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Guardians may license use of words.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Have any licences been granted by the guardians for the use of these words?


Ross Wilfred Gray: Not by the guardians. I am told that permission has been granted in two or three cases, and perhaps the Secretary of State couldl give us the particulars.


Mr. RINFRET:: I regret I am not in a
position to make a definite statement, but there have not been many cases. Perhaps my hon. friend will be satisfied with that information, which can. be supplemented later if he is interested in the matter.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like to have the information. I should like to know who have the right to make use of these names.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not want to appear to be evading the question. My officers are in the gallery and they can come down if necessary. Perhaps my hon. friend will be satisfied if I give him the information later.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
On the preamble.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I should like to draw attention to a mistake which has been made in the French version of the bill. Instead of repeating in the French version the exact words used in the English version, the translator has made an error. The effect is that in the English bill we reserve certain names, while in the French bill we appear to be reserving other names. I drew the attention of the clerk to this matter and have given instructions to my department to see that the French translation is corrected in order that the same names may be reserved in both versions. I make this statement so that there will be no misunderstanding.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have the English version here and it contains the addition of the French terms as the minister has suggested.
Central Finance Corporation


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The French copy should contain all the English names.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Eva Schiller Lightstone-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Grace Ellen Doris Newman-Mr. Lennard.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 53, to incorporate Toronto General Insurance Company-Mr. Plaxton.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Duffus for the second reading of Bill No. 58, respecting Central Finance Corporation and to change its name to Household Finance Corporation.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Is the house ready for the question?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance):	I think that before the question is put, a statement is necessary similar to the one I made in the banking and commerce committee when Bill No. 57 was before it, in connection with which there was a discussion upon what had taken place in the house previously with regard to this class of bill.
I intimated to the banking and commerce committee that the government had received within the last few months a very largely signed petition, which I believe originated with some of the companies concerned with this class of business, asking for the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the whole matter. I was able to indicate to the banking and commerce committee that the government had given consideration to the petition and that, in the light of the discussion of its subject matter in the house, the government did not deem it a suitable subject for reference to a royal commission but rather that it should be investigated by a special committee of this house assigned- to that particular task. I indicated last session the government's desires in this regard from the standpoint of gathering information in an effort to enable the house to reach a decision on policy. I also stated earlier in the session the reasons why in the judgment of the [Mr. Chairman.}
government the information was not as yet sufficiently complete to enable progress to be made.
During this year the superintendent of insurance will be asked still further to gather all available material in connection with the problem of small loans, and at the next session of parliament the government will ask the house to consent to the appointment of a special committee which will be charged with the investigation of the whole problem of small loans.
In the meantime the company concerned in the present bill has apparently taken cognizance of the proceedings in the banking and commerce committee and in the house and of the criticisms which have been levelled against it, and also of the action of the banking and commerce committee with, respect to the other bill, No. 57. I say that because I found on my desk this evening a letter from the Central Finance Corporation, reading as follows:
We hereby undertake and consent to amend our private Bill No. 58 (Letter C of the Senate) by reducing the rate to two per cent per month and altering the wording of the bill so as to make it conform to private Bill No. 57 (Letter H of the Senate) of Industrial Loan and Finance Corporation, except that section 1, changing the name, and section 2, increasing the capital stock, will be retained in our bill as at present.
Under the circumstances I am personally prepared to let this bill go to the banking and commerce committee. I am quite satisfied that in its previous form it could not have passed the banking and commerce committee, but having regard to the decision made on Bill 57 I think there is justification for sending this bill to the committee in the expectation that it will be amended in the same manner as the former bill, and bring about to that extent at any rate, a reduction in the maximum rate of interest and in the total charges which may be made by the company.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not desire to discuss this bill at any length to-night. The general subject which it covers has been debated on a former occasion in connection with a similar bill.
This company has a charter issued by the parliament of Canada and has operated for a considerable time under its provisions. It now comes to parliament and asks for some amendments. I know that parliament is seized of the importance of this question, and I am sure that if the bill is referred to the banking and commerce committee, with the information which that committee has and with its

Central Finance Corporation
disposition thoroughly to study and investigate the matter, the bill will be given that consideration which it deserves and which all bills receive when they go to a committee of this house charged with the duty of studying their provisions.
The subject is one upon which a great deal may be said on both sides, and I agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that under the circumstances, and in view of what has taken place, the proper course for the house to adopt now is to refer the bill to the committee. In that committee both those who support the bill and those opposing it will have an opportunity to express their views. Moreover, I am sure the superintendent of insurance will be consulted as to the provisions of the bill. There, I have no doubt, full justice can be done to all parties concerned. I concur therefore in the suggestion that the bill be referred to the banking and commerce committee.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): I am quite sure that the bill will be referred to the banking and commerce committee, but I do not think we should lose this opportunity of protesting not only against the bill itself but against the small loan companies that charge excessive interest rates. Two per cent sounds small, but actually it is two per cent per month, and it has been said that this comes to about 27 per cent a year. That is not interest, and for the life of me I cannot understand how people who cannot pay their debts can pay them plus 27 per cent per annum. I am therefore opposed to the bill on every count.
The government and parliament of Canada are no doubt aware that there are a great many people in this country who need loans; but those who need them most are the ones who can least afford to pay such exorbitant interest rates. I suggest that we ought to encourage credit unions which would help out people with small, steady salaries. They would help these people in this very way by making small loans at reasonable rates.
Frankly another reason why I am opposed to the bill is the lobbying that has been done for it. I do not mind anyone asking me to dinner, but not for the purpose of lobbying me in connection with a bill, and there are now in the gallery people who are paid substantial salaries and who have been spending money, which I judge is not their own, asking people to lunch. If there is anything I hate worse than another it is just that. If their bill is as good as we are led to believe they could have saved their money and the common sense of the house-because
there is a good deal of common sense scattered throughout the house-would have seen its virtue. Intensive lobbying is suspicious, and is a good reason why we should investigate very carefully any bill that is supported in that way.
There is only one reason why I should like to support the bill, and that is on account of its sponsor (Mr. Duffus). But one cannot allow friendship to carry one so far. I shall therefore vote against the bill on the general principle that such bills are wrong. The people who need loans most are being charged the highest rates of interest, and some provision must be made for them. It is true, information may be brought out in the committee; but if we allow this bill to go to the banking and commerce committee without protest and a division we consent to its principle, and I do not consent to the principle of the bill. I simply wish to register my objection and my reasons for it.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: If gives me a good deal of pain to express an opinion in opposition to the hon. member who has just spoken (Miss Macphail). At first I was very much in doubt what I should do about this bill, and I have examined it with considerable care during the last few days- let me add, not as the result of lobbying. No one has invited me to lunch in connection with this bill.
In the first place I am very much opposed to high rates of interest; no one in the house is more opposed to such rates than I am. That fact would naturally prejudice me against the bill but for certain other considerations which in my judgment ought to be borne in mind. We must not forget that there are' people who simply must borrow; there is no doubt about that. Many times they need to borrow in case of death or an operation or because of some other unforeseen circumstance. For all these reasons people are forced into a position where they absolutely must borrow.
At present we have no provision for such people. Personally I favour the development of credit unions, but they are not yet developed. And what are we going to do for people who need to borrow between now and the time when the credit unions are in a position to help them? This government has made no arrangement whereby such people may obtain loans from $50 to, say, $150; and as far as I know, no province or municipality has any such provision; and as I say, the credit unions are not yet sufficiently developed. Where can these people go? There is only one bank that is in a position to offer personal

Central Finance Corporation
loans, and 'after looking into the situation with respect to that bank I find that the conditions under which it will make loans are prohibitive to a great many people who might need loans very badly. These are considerations that have greatly influenced me.
There is another matter that we must not forget. We became much in favour of prohibition at one time. We thought that by passing a law against liquor we should stop people drinking it. But they only went to bootleggers. That was entirely an unforeseen and unexpected result. Similarly, we know that people will borrow, and if we do not provide an orderly way in which they may obtain loans, they will go to bootleggers; and I am not at all convinced, after looking into the matter, that they will fare any better at the hands of bootleggers.
Some facts have been drawn to my attention with respect to this particular company, the Central Finance Corporation. I have not had time to investigate and find out whether all these things are true, but the following facts have been brought to my attention regarding the company and I submit them to the house for what they are worth. I must say, that when they tell us earnestly that these things are true, these things ought at least to be taken into consideration.
I understand that this company is at present carrying 30,000 borrowers. Manifestly there are 30,000 Canadians who have been in such a position that they have had< to turn to this company for assistance. If we prevent this company from carrying on, what will happen to these borrowers and those who would follow after them? I understand further that this company during the past four years has issued 86,204 loans, totalling $15,213,781, and that during that time this remarkable record has been established by that company: They have never seized any furniture or household goods, they have never garnisheed anyone's wages nor had recourse to court action. I do not know whether that is true, but if it is I consider it a very fine record.. I submit that in all justice this house should allow this company's doings to be investigated' by an impartial body with more time at its disposal than we have.
Here is another thing which impressed me greatly. It was brought to my attention that the average net profit of the three chartered personal loan companies in Canada for the years 1933, 1934 and 1935 was only 5-73 per cent. On the face of it, it looks like 27 per cent per annum, but when the company is making only 5-73 per cent net, it does not seem so exorbitant as at first I thought it was. I understand, further, that it has been calculated that if the reduced rate of 2 per cent

per month proposed in the present bill and Bill No. 57 is made effective, on the basis of the business of 1936 the net earnings of the company would be 4-97 per cent, which is not exorbitant.
Another feature is that passing this bill does not commit parliament to anything new; the principle has already been established. It only reduces the rate which is already permitted by parliament. And' when in addition to all these things I consider that we have already sent Bill No. 57 to the committee, the only fair thing to do is to send this one along the same road. I am in favour of sending this bill to the committee.


Mr. H. G. CLARKE (Rosedale):: The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has just said that this company earns only a little over 5 per cent. That may be so as far as the shareholders are concerned, but it does not take into consideration the salaries of the executives and those behind the concern.
Referring to the rate of 2 per cent odd per month which figures up to approximately 27 per cent per annum, I understand that those who have to borrow money from these companies are people in great need of money and with very little security. I have understood from people who have gone to them that some companies have said: "We will charge you 3 per cent per month for your short term, but there is something more for which we must charge. We have our general overhead and office expense, for which we must add a percentage. Then we have our investigation costs to be taken care of, so we must add a percentage for that. Then we have losses with those unable to pay, which we have to write off; so we have to make another little charge for that." When it is all totalled up, it is not merely 2 or 2J per cent per month which has been charged, because the addition of all these costs runs it up to a very great amount.
There is another thing. When people find themselves unable to pay the company will say to them: Well, could you pay at some future time if we extend your note? Borrowers will try. If the loan was for say $50 the company will make it $75, and extend it for three months. That is something that this house should look into very carefully. I am entirely in favour of having this matter go to a commission and have them investigate fully the companies which are applying for these charters.


Mr. A. M. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: We
had a bill similar to this before the house a short time ago, and I voted against its being sent to the banking and commerce committee. I do not wish to appear to be sanctioning in

Central Finance Corporation
the remotest way the interest rates provided for in that bill or in this one; I am decidedly opposed to that. But inasmuch as the house has already permitted the other bill to go to the committee I am going to vote in favour of this bill going there. It may be that there it will be so radically changed in respect to interest rates that I might see my way to vote for it when it comes back to this house. But I shall never vote for any bill which permits the rate of interest provided for in the present bill. It may seem a paradox but I want it clearly on record that I am not sanctioning the interest rates provided for in this bill by voting that it go to the committee.
Mrs. MARTHA L. BLACK (Yukon): I intend to vote for this bill's going to the committee. We all know that even a criminal has the right to be heard before a judge and jury. I do not know that I approve of the interest rate, but I do approve of the bill being examined by the proper committee. I should also like to state that while I have had luncheon with one of the so-called lobbyists in the gallery, I do not feel that that luncheon purchased me. It is ten or twelve years since I had my first luncheon with that so-called lobbyist, and neither did that lobbyist intend to purchase me then nor did I intend to purchase her by the meals I have given her at different times. I shall vote for the bill's going to the committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to say a word-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Tell us about the meal.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The only meals I have had so far are those I have had to pay for myself, unfortunately. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) has offered to take me out for dinner-


Mr. MacNICOL:: That is bribery.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Very delightful bribery. I was glad to hear the Minister of Finance make the statement that he proposes to appoint a committee of this house to go into the whole question of small loan companies. Perhaps one of the most detrimental things in Canada to-day, from the standpoint of the small wage earner, is the small loan company.
In reply to the suggestion that we should let this bill go to the committee, I want to remind the house that Bill No. 57 also went to the committee, and it is now back for third reading. It seems to me that if we are to make any protest, this is the time to do so.
The arguments and statements presented by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-31111-124
more), I have heard presented before, but I do not know just how much value they have. The hon. member stated that a large number of people must borrow. That is quite true, but those who must borrow are the very people who are not in a position to mortgage their future by paying interest at the rate of 27 per cent per annum. The argument, of course, is that we already have other loan companies charging exorbitant rates, and because this is so, we must legalize certain companies which will perhaps charge more moderate rates.
Someone used prohibition as an illustration. When we tried to prevent people from drinking intoxicating liquor they turned to bootleggers, and now the suggestion is that because we have loan companies which charge exorbitant rates of interest we should legalize other companies which perhaps will not rob the public to such an extent. In other words, because we have pirates we must now legalize some gentler form of piracy. It does not seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that by perpetrating a wrong we can hope to remove a great evil, and I should like to see this house take the stand that no action whatever will be taken with regard to this bill or Bill No. 57 until such time as a committee of this house has gone into the whole question of loan companies right across Canada.
The fact that there are thirty thousand borrowers from this company is something that hon. members should think about very seriously. When it is stated that this company is carrying thirty thousand borrowers, I think it is probably true that the thirty thousand borrowers are carrying the company. It is being carried by people all over the country who, from their small weekly earnings, are compelled to pay more than they can afford in order to meet interest charges.
One of the regrettable features of this whole question is that when a member of this house, for instance, or any one receiving an average income needs money in a hurry, usually he can go to the bank and borrow it at six or seven per cent. But a person who cannot afford to pay high rates of interest when he borrows money cannot get a loan for six or seven per cent but is compelled to pay this exorbitant rate of twenty-seven per cent. There is an old biblical saying that to him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. That is very true of borrowing. The man who can afford to pay a high rate of interest can borrow at a low rate, while the man who cannot pay a high rate is the very person who is compelled to do so.

Central Finance Corporation

While in the city of Chicago I spent some time studying in the court of domestic relations, and since that time I have had the privilege of sitting on the bench beside various judges in juvenile and domestic relations courts in order to make a study of juvenile delinquency and marital disputes. It is a safe prediction that a large percentage of the cases coming before the average domestic relations court is concerned with couples whose marital incompatibility is due largely to the fact that they are in straitened financial circumstances, due in large measure to their having borrowed money from some small loan company. Then, as the months went by, they got deeper and deeper into the toils of the company, with the result that there were disputes and bickerings that often led eventually to the divorce court.
I think it is criminal for us to condone in any form any bill that will legalize financial piracy in the Dominion of Canada, In my opinion, sending this bill to a committee, will simply result as in the case of Bill No. 57, in its being sent back here for third reading. If we have any thought at all for the small wage-earners of Canada, who have been and will become entangled in the toils of loan sharks, we ought to turn down this bill now rather than merely go through the motions of sweetening the poison and salving our conscience by putting the bill through a series of committees and then letting it slide through the house. I am opposed to this bill. I am opposed to its going to any committee until an investigation has been held into the whole question of small loan companies.


Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the position of one who is forced to sing for his supper; I paid for my own. I think I know something about the principles involved in these bills. I have been somewhat entertained by the suggestion that the majority of people who are willing to pay high rates of interest for a short term loan are people in unfortunate circumstances. What little knowledge I have leads me to the conclusion that a much greater percentage of the money that is made in this kind of transaction is made at the expense of shorts in the market than at the expense of unfortunate people who need money for some emergency and who have to pay these interest rates. In most communities in Canada we have educated the people to the point where those who have to go into debt because of sickness or some similar reason know that funds will be made available to them. So I say that in my experience the major part of this money is loaned to people who have been caught in the market.



WAYS AND MEANS

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

[Stage Direction]
Customs tariff-277. Palm and palm kernel oil, unbleached or bleached, not edible; shea butter: rate of duty, free.
Mr. SENN:: Mr. Chairman, a number of items in the schedule deal with importations of vegetable oils. Last night the minister was asked the amount of these oils imported. I believe he gave the committee to understand that as each of the items came up, the information would be provided. I ask him therefore if he would give the committee the importations of oils under the item, not only for this year but as complete as he can possibly give. It is very important that we should know just what the increases have been in the past few years.
Would the minister also be good enough to inform the house as to the uses to which these oils are put when imported? I understand this is the item under which the great bulk of the importations come in. Can the minister tell the committee the amount of oil coming in under the item processed and made available for edible purposes? With that information I think there will be little further discussion of these items.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I shall gladly go as far as I can in giving information. I regret I have not the import figures with me for the years prior to 1936, but before taking my seat I shall give the figure for the year 1935-36.
With regard to the other angles of the question raised by the hon. member, I must say I am in some difficulty in view of the fact that the matter is being investigated by the tariff board. I am not in possession of a record of the evidence. A great many points to which the hon. member very properly draws attention are points which are naturally under investigation by the board. As was mentioned the other evening, the question as to edibility or non-edibility is very important. However, judging from the figures I have with respect to the item dealing with palm and palm kernel oils, not edible, and shea butter, it would seem that the importations of palm and palm kernel oils are for the manufacture of soap. That is the designation of the item. I am not a specialist on every item in the tariff, but my advice is that this type of oil cannot be made edible in a commercial sense. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) knows more about these matters than I do, and if he says it can be made commercially
edible, I would be inclined to accept his word. My information is that this particular article is imported for soap-making purposes. The imports last year were valued at $2,011,000, and they came from the Straits Settlements, Nigeria, the United Kingdom and the United States.


Mark Cecil Senn: Could the minister give the importations by quantity?


Charles Avery Dunning: Here again we are up against the difference between the bureau of statistics' classification and the actual tariff item. The nearest figure to be obtained from importation figures of the bureau of statistics is 4,007,000 gallons.


Mr. HARRIS:: Mr. Chairman, the minister was kind enough to mention my name in connection with this item. First of all, I shall deal with the question of edibility or nonedibility. Originally palm oil and palm kernel oil came from west Africa, but some twenty-five years ago the Lever group in England conceived the idea of starting plantations in the British East Indies, the Malay peninsula, and in Nigeria. It was thought that these plantations would come into production sooner or later to supplement the supplies of these particular oils. Twenty-five years ago the normal world's production ranged from
10,000	to 15,000 long tons per year. The original method of production was for the man of the house to go into the woods and gather these fruits, the outside layer of which yielded sixty per cent of what is commonly known as palm oil. The inside kernel yielded about forty-three per cent of palm kernel oil, which to-day is being used for edible purposes. The meaty, fleshy, outside substance was used for non-edible purposes.
Up to ten years ago the process of manufacture was to bring the nuts home and throw them into a pit in the barnyard, where the moisture and drainage from the yard fermented and broke down the hard outside structure. The whole mass was permitted to ferment for a period of two or three months in the very hot weather. It was then dug up, put in a jute bag or some other container, and the womenfolk pressed out the grease or oil. This was taken into the village and traded for groceries and other articles, and in due course it reached the seaboard and was shipped abroad. This substance ran very high in what is known as free fatty acid, at times the content reaching forty per cent. The combination of glycerin and fatty acid was broken up by fermentation and the resultant oil was non-edible. The nuts were kept separate and they finally found their way to England where
1970	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
they were subsequently pressed, the oil obtained being edible. What I want to say at this time is that whereas the world's production of these oils at one time was only 10,000 to 12,000 long tons per year, through the development of plantations this production has increased, until in 1931 they had a total production of 32,000 tons ; in 1935, it was 135,000 tons, and it is estimated the production for 1936 will be 150,000 tons. There has been an increase of 1,500 per cent in twelve years.
I make again the same point I raised in connection with the other item. The United States and Canada have a similar economy. Some 59,000,000 pounds of palm oil entered this country last year, at an average price of 3-4 cents per pound. It will thus be seen that those in Canada who are endeavouring to gather the Canadian produced fats, inedible if you will, are handicapped. The producers in the United States also found it difficult. Ever since confederation there has been no excise duty imposed by the United States against our fat products. Within the last couple of years the United States saw fit to pass a reciprocity agreement, if you want to call it that. There was a clause in that agreement which stated that any item not specifically mentioned in the agreement could be dealt with by either country. They just waited a few short months and then in June of last year they put an excise tax of 3 cents per pound against the normal production of animal fats which compete with these vegetable fats coming in from the countries which I have mentioned. By that action the Canadian market immediately collapsed to the extent of 3 cents per pound. In other words, the Chicago market has been riding from 3 to 4 cents per pound higher than ours.
I come now to the next point. This Bailey amendment placed an excise duty of 3 cents per pound on these products, and also provided for a processing tax. Section 703 states that nothing in the section shall be construed as imposing a tax against the importation of any article-in this case any fat-bearing article -or any component of any such article derived directly or indirectly from a Canadian waste product or any other waste product. The result is that many fat-bearing products enter the United States free of this tax. The manufacturer of oils or fats which compete with the United States is up against an impost of 3 cents per pound. I know one company in Montreal which makes 100,000 pounds of these fats a week. That manufacturer in Montreal finds that his market is 3 cents per pound lower than the market of his competitor in New York. The man in New York can buy our materials as waste materials,

and take them into the United States without the payment of this duty. He has an advantage of S3,000 per week over his competitor in Montreal. The result is that thousands of tons of Canadian materials are entering the United States as waste material, and the Canadian manufacturer is deprived of these products. He is forced to fill his needs from the importations into this country.
The minister will agree that I have raised a second question or a second: possibility with regard to this matter of inedibles. First, he might deal with the tremendous imports of vegetable oils and see what can be done about it. Second, he might go to Uncle Sam and say, "Why not let the natural products of Canada be excepted from the provisions of the Bailey amendment? We have an economy the same as yours, and we find ourselves terribly handicapped." If they would, consent to that, it would not affect very seriously the United States consumption of oils and fats, because that country consumes two billions pounds per year and Canada's surplus is only about twenty or thirty million pounds, her total production being less than three hundred million pounds. At the most it would not affect the United States economy more than about three per cent, and they would be keeping good, faith with Canada if they would ad-mit our natural products to that extent. But that may be a vain hope. Therefore we get back to the question: What are we going to do about the tremendous imports which are taking the place of a natural product of Canada? What is the natural inedible fats production of Canada,, and why is it necessary to bring in 150,000,000 pounds of inedible oils and fats to supply our requirements?
The soap maker is the big consumer. They manufactured last year 164,000,000 pounds of soap and soap products. Breaking that down, we find that they manufactured 251,000 pounds of textile soaps, 22,850,000 pounds of toilet soaps, 34,250,000 pounds of flake soap, and 72,902.000 pounds of household soaps. That makes a total of 130,000.000 pounds used in Canada by the Canadian people. The difference between that and the 164,000,000 pounds that are manufactured is accounted for by exports; we sell some $875,000 worth of soap to the old country. Now, how much animal oil or fat or any kind of oil or fat is required to make 130,000,000 pounds of soap? In round figures, from forty to fifty pounds of fat makes a hundred pounds of soap; therefore it requires only 65,000,000 pounds of oils and fat to meet the requirements of the Canadian people. Each one of us requires ten pounds of soap per year to

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
keep himself clean, and as there are 11.000,000 people, multiplying that number by ten pounds you will see that we need 110,000,000 pounds, and we are actually using 130,000,000 pounds, so we must be an exceptionally clean race of people.
To pursue the matter a little further, where are we going to get the material for manufacturing these soaps? Why are we not getting it at home? I should like to put on record, to wake up Canadians to this idea, that there is a tremendous waste going on at our very doors, a condition which does not obtain in England, nor in Europe, nor to the same extent in the United States. The Canadian supply of fat comes from large centres of population, where they take 2,000,000 sides of beef which are used each year, and the butcher breaks them down on the block, and the waste from this, that and the other part of the animal is gathered together. In an area of which I have knowledge, the city of Montreal, with an estimated population of a million people, out of that one item of waste alone can be manufactured five million pounds of animal oils and fat per year, and with our total population of over ten millions we should be able to approach an output of 50,000,000 pounds per year from that one product alone. But allowing only half efficiency, you have 25,000,000 pounds available for this soap requirement.
I mentioned last evening that each year we slaughter about 890,000 cattle in our inspected abattoirs, and the product goes for edible purposes. In the beef rings and slaughter houses here and there throughout the country there is slaughtered another million cattle, and the by-products of cattle slaughtered outside of the inspected abattoirs sometimes go into inedible channels, but more often are wasted. Why? That same steamship of which I spoke comes in with palm oil and dumps off 7,000,000 pounds at 2-7 cents per pound. It does not pay to go from Montreal to Kingston with a motor truck to gather up our Canadian waste, paying the wages that have to be paid to the driver, taxes, and other expenses, including buying coal at six dollars a ton to melt the resultant fat-bearing product and turn it into the channels into which it should be turned. So it is wasted, and the waste represents a charge upon the Canadian people, and they are asking this government to give some help in that regard.
The average life of our dairy cattle, of which there are 3,600,000, is six years. Each year
600,000	of them pass into some other existence. Say that 400,000 are slaughtered; that leaves 200,000 which die a natural death.
What happens? Are they rendered? Is the fat taken away from them? It is wasted; most of them are buried.
There are in Canada 2,918,000 horses-for easy figuring, say 3,000,000. They live fifteen years and then they die or pass on; in each and every year 200,000 die. What happens to the carcasses? About half of them are used up; the other half are wasted. Add those
200,000	to the 200,000 cattle that die a natural death; take the minister's estimate of fifty pounds which he mentioned last night; from that 400,000 head you have a potential
20.000.	000 pounds of inedible fats to supply the requirements of soapers, who in their turn supply the requirements of the Canadian people. Therefore I say we are a wasteful people. Perhaps we cannot be economic because of a factor against which we cannot make headway; I refer to the tremendous imports of inedible products which come to our shores at a very low price. I am not one who asks for duties or high tariffs, but I do maintain that this country, spread over 4,000 miles, must compensate producers who are a long way from their markets and handicapped by railway rates and by the high standard of living which this country is trying to maintain in comparison with the living standards in other lands I have mentioned.
More than that, it is bad business to waste this material. If the Canadian government would do only 75 per cent of what the United States did in June last to protect and promote production in that country, it would net to the coffers of this dominion, on the basis of last year's figures, a revenue of $9,490,000, provided the same quantity came in. Of course, there would be a slowing down; it would not be prohibited but would still come in. On the basis of those figures the revenue would be S9,000,000 odd. Take that $9,000,000 and give it to the dairy industry if you will; give it to agriculture generally or to any phase of Canadian economy; let the people realize that in this regard we are a more or less wasteful nation; do anything you can to help the natural production of these commodities in Canada, and in the long run those that come after us will say, I am sure, that you have done a good job on their behalf.
This vegetable oil comes not only from Nigeria but from the Straits Settlements, from the Dutch East Indies and the British Malays, directly without breaking bulk: From Nigeria
21.000.	000 pounds; from the Straits Settlements 23,000,000 pounds; from the United Kingdom 11,000,000 pounds. The United Kingdom product is that which has been pressed from the kernel and probably goes into the edible channel.
1972	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
We do not owe these countries from which this material comes anything in the matter of trade. Here again we see the same situation that was disclosed last night in connection with the figures given with regard to cotton seed oil. From the Straits Settlements we imported $9,976,328, whereas we sold to them only $1,392,000; in other words, we bought from them almost six times as much as we sold them.


Charles Avery Dunning: Which country is that?


Joseph Henry Harris: The Straits Settlements. If the minister does not want me to make a second speech to-night he will permit me at *this stage to deal with the cocoanut oil item. Our imports are largely from Ceylon. We sold to Ceylon last year $122,719 worth, and bought from that country $3,701,465 worth. We sold to British East Africa $704,297 worth, and bought from them $2,630,896 worth- almost five to one. In nearly all cases the balance of trade is against us.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Are these figures in the British trade figures too?


Joseph Henry Harris: The palm oils total is 59,000,000 pounds: 11,000,000 from the United Kingdom, the points of origin being Nigeria and the Straits Settlements; 21,000,000 pounds from Nigeria; 23.000,000 pounds from the Straits Settlements. In order to speed up the debate I interjected the Ceylon figures of trade.
We do not really owe these countries anything in the matter of trade, and when the minister is thinking in terms of the United Kingdom let me tell him that the man in the old country wants the preferential spread. That is all he wants, and he will get the business. England will gather and distribute the goods, selling them again. Give her a little preference. She asks for ten, but I would not object to her getting twenty-five, so as to keep the trade in that channel.
I urge upon the minister the seriousness of this matter-and let me assure him that there is absolutely nothing political in what I am saying now. When I stand here to discuss these matters I feel sorry for the Minister of Finance. He 'has this heavy load to carry when there are around him a hundred able men, some of whom could relieve him of a great deal of the burden. There ought to be some way of dividing up the work among the able supporters of the minister so that some of them might stand part of the gaff, if I may call it that, and allow the minister to touch the high spots. I suggest that somebody else might have put this agreement through the House of Commons so that some

of the rest of us might feel free to pound away at it, because it is hardly fair that one man should stand the whole gaff of this budget and of the United Kingdom trade agreement as well. Half of us in the house are loafing, having very little to do, while a little circle of men sitting in front of me are doing most of the work. It is unfortunate, I say, that something cannot be done to distribute the work.
However, seeing that the minister has assumed these heavy responsibilities, I am bound to appeal to him and I ask him to do something to ease the situation and to promote the manufacture of these raw materials in Canada. I want to see him invoke article 16, or take action in some other way, to encourage the Canadian people and to put a stop to the economic waste that is now going on. There is a vast natural increase in the production of these materials overseas, and the United States is backing up a billion pounds of them on the world's markets; and the same neighbourly United States takes from our Canadian people this very waste material which is a natural product of Canada.
In the inedible field the situation is equally, if not more serious than in connection with the edible products. In a few years, if nothing is done about it, those interested in the inedible product in Canada will be out of that field. As an example in 1936, 560,000 pounds went to New Albany, Indiana, to a large plant situated at the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. As it happened, the flood submerged that plant. Nevertheless the product is entering the United States free of duty. I know of a plant that is being started outside Buffalo by a Canadian who wishes to hold his connection in this country. He does not want to go there, but unless something is done he will be forced to do so. That is the situation. Products containing proteins only but not fats are being conserved in Canada. And the products which contain proteins and fats combined are going to the United States. The difference is being made up by buying non-fat bearing materials from the continent, to the amjunt of $70,000 worth in the last two months, on account of this one condition. The Indian kip and calf waste has no fat but just protein. That is coming here, replacing our natural beef material which contains fat and protein, which is going to the United States. That is false economy, it is making the products of these protein-bearing substances more expensive, and lessening the ability of our Canadian economy to hold up its head in the face of world conditions which surround us at the present time.

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
This, the minister said the other night, was something new just because a Liberal government came in. Now that is not the case. The something new was when the United States passed the Bailey amendment in June, 1936, and put 3 cents a pound against the natural products of Canada, and nothing was done about it. That 3 cents stands there, and our market drags 3 cents behind United States. The normal market being 6 cents, the 3 cents they put against us is equal to 50 per cent. They take away the raw material free, and shut out Canada's finished product; and we depend on cheap products from overseas and let our own natural production, which is ample, go to waste. That economic waste is a matter of concern to all parties, regardless of politics. After many conversations with the Minister of Finance I feel that the matter is in safe hands, and without any political motives whatever, and begging my colleagues to do likewise, I ask that he and his colleague the Minister of Agriculture give consideration not only to the edible fat situation but also the inedible in connection with this national problem.


Charles Avery Dunning: In reply I can only say that, as my hon. friend knows, that is precisely what I have asked the tariff board to do, and they are engaged1 on the job. I do not want to minimize the importance of the problem from my hon. friend's point of view. As I said the other night, I am willing to be shown, and I expect to get information which will at least enable a course to be determined. Whether that course has to do with tariffs I have grave doubts, as I know my hon. friend has. There are many angles to it, and it is being investigated now. More than that I do not think I could say if I continued talking for a long time.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I should like to make one or two observations on this matter. I will identify myself with anything that will assist the producer of dairy products, as I have always done. These figures on vegetable oils were brought to my attention about a year ago, and when I saw the amount of vegetable oils brought into this country and the amount of domestic shortening sold:, I came to the conclusion that a lot of the inedible was refined and sold as edible. During the recess I made some personal investigations and was surprised at the amount of shortening being sold in eastern Canada. If this government can do anything to assist the dairy farmer, it is up to them to do it.
The provincial governments have done much to help the dairy farmer. Starting on June 1, 1934, when the dairy commissions or milk
control boards were appointed, the man who had a fluid milk market was fortunate among dairy farmers. The price was increased from about SI a hundred pounds until to-day they are getting $2 a hundred for 3J per cent milk, and those who go a little higher in butter fat get more, up to about S2.45. Compare that with the man who is obliged to sell his milk to the butter factory and take 60 to 80 cents a hundred. I have produced this stuff and I know what it costs. The man who produces for the fluid milk market has a little higher cost than the man who sells his milk to the butter factory, but not in the same proportion. The spread is too great.
The dairy commissions of the provinces are being constantly approached by farmers who are compelled to sell to the butter factories, asking them to do something. To such an extent is that true that about a year ago there was a meeting in Toronto of all the dairy commissions across the country to see if they could do anything, and a resolution was sent to this government asking them to do what they could. Our Department of Agriculture is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to improve the quality and quantity of the dairy products of this country. I am not against that, I am in favour of it. But it would be much easier if we had a market for the dairy products when they are produced. So I ask the Minister of Finance to look into this matter and do something about it. And if he has any money left over when he puts this duty on, let him give it to the Minister of Agriculture who can use it to advantage to help the dairy farmer of this country.


Charles Avery Dunning: There are some others as well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-278.	Oils, viz: cocoanut,
palm and palm kernel, not edible, for manufacturing soap; carbolic or heavy oil: rate of duty, free.
Mr. GARDINER:: Last night I agreed to deal with the letter which was referred to by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). The letter was dated May 29, which of course is not quite thirteen months ago as was suggested. It is from Mr. Allan C. Fraser, secretary of the National Dairy Council of Canada, and is not too long to read. It expresses the view of the council at that time and indicates what they desired when they wrote to the department. The letter reads: Ottawa, May 29, 1936.
Dear Mr. Gardiner,-
Re imports of oils into Canada. We are seeking your aid in determining the need for these importations to the extent to which they
1974	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
are made and the class of industry making the importation, and the tariff which they pay, if any.
The matter is of serious concern to our industry in that it appears that these imports are competing with butter produced in Canada at a time when exportable surpluses are increasing.
The manufacture and sales of oleomargarine is prohibited by law in Canada and it is well for our industry that such is the case. This is best illustrated by the increased manufacture of oleomargarine in the United States, which country now produces as much oleomargarine as we in Canada produce butter. It occurs to us that while the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine is prohibited here, the law is being made less effective by the manufacture and sale of these foreign oils in the form herein indicated.
The facts, as nearly as we can determine them, are as follows:
We import (in round figures) -
Cocoanut oil, edible, 498,000 pounds.
Cotton seed oil, edible, 377,000 pounds.
Olive oil, edible, 3,918,000 pounds.
Peanut oil, edible, 330,000 pounds.
8oya bean boil, edible, 1,365,000 pounds.
Peanut oil (crude, for refining for edible purposes), 52,000,000 pounds.
Cocoanut oil (not edible, for the manufacture of refined cocoanut oil), 8,529,000 pounds.
Cotton seed oil (crude, for the manufacture of refined cotton seed oil), 20,276,000 pounds.
The total of these importations is 87,831,000 pounds with a value in excess of $5,000,000. The figures quoted are for 1935.
In addition to the foregoing there would appear to be certain lard compounds imported, amounting to about 1,700,000 pounds.
The slaughtering and meat packing industry produced and sold in Canada shortening containing no animal fat to the amount of
58.640.000	pounds. They produced cotton seed oil, refined, to the amount of 3,155,000 pounds and certain vegetable oils, 4,700,000 pounds.
Miscellaneous food industries produced shortening containing no animal fat to the amount of 22,575,000 pounds, and refined oil,
7.434.000	pounds.
Summarizing the foregoing: there is produced and sold in Canada 81,215,000 pounds of shortening containing no animal fat and it is suggested (and we believe it a fact), that this production is made largely from the imports referred to above. We think this is a reasonable conclusion in that our information indicates that the packing industry is making the larger part of these imports and they are the ones putting on to our Canadian market these various shortening products. You are in a better position to confirm this than I am; as a matter of fact, I have no facilities for going farther than I have gone and I hardly know where to go from here or what specifically to ask you for. I am hoping, however, if you can and will confirm these figures substantially, that we may be able to discuss the matter profitably with you and work out some plan for minimizing these imports so as to improve the domestic market for our own production of butter fat. If ways and means can be found for utilizing butter fat in place of these imported products, the problem of our exportable surpluses will be solved.

As evidence of the menacing aspect of the situation, the production of (what we call) these fat substitutes has increased by 24,000,000 pounds in two years.
The picture suggests another problem and that is the actual food value of these commodities. My impression is that they are without such value or at least that there is sufficient doubt about it to warrant some investigation by the department interested in the administration of our food laws.
Yours faithfully,
A. C. Fraser,
Secretary-Manager.
It will be noted that this letter was written
in order to obtain certain information from the department with regard to figures that apparently had been submitted to Mr. Fraser. I immediately took the matter up with the department and sent a memorandum to Doctor Barton, asking him to have this matter investigated and to give me any information available. After receiving the information I replied to that letter under date of June 17, 1936, as follows:
Mr. A. C. Fraser,
Secretary-Manager,
National Dairy Council of Canada,
Journal Building, Queen street,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Fraser:
I have your letter of May 29th, with reference to the importation of vegetable oils for shortening purposes, in which you point out that there was produced and sold in Canada 81,215,000 pounds of shortening containing no animal fat. It is true that this represents an increase, as you suggest, but according to further information I have received the total importation in 1930 was 74,855,227 pounds of vegetable oils, so that, over the period of years, the increase is not so striking as would appear, when compared with 1932.
As you are, no doubt, aware, the popularity of these products with housewives generally, rural as well as urban, would make the curtailment of their use very difficult. It is true that packing plants supply the larger part of these products but a substantial amount comes from other industries as well.
As to comparative food values, I understand that this is quite an involved question and determination is exceedingly difficult to make. However, I am informed that information available would indicate that the chief differences are in vitamin content and digestibility.
In reply I had a letter from Mr. Fraser dated June 22, 1936, as follows:
Importation of Vegetable Oils Dear Mr. Gardiner:
In reference to your letter of the 17th instant, I fully appreciate the difficulties of the situation and wish that I could make some concrete suggestion as to a remedy.
The situation, however, is assuming proportions alarming to our industry, and we can only appeal to you and through you to the

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
government to endeavour to find some way out, either by restricting imports or by restricting the manufacture and distribution of the products.
While the importations may not have been so greatly increased from 1930 on, it is, I think, agreed that in the two years ending 1934 the increase was very sharp. It is in these recent years that the intensive advertising program of the manufacturers and vendors of these products has taken place.
My information is that the manufacturers and packing companies manufacturing this product, are in spite of huge advertising appropriations, making very substantial profits out of the product, indicating that the original cost is small. I do not contend, generally speaking, that because a food product is cheap, it is undesirable, but I do suggest that this is very often the case, and I think it rather obvious that these products are not only taking the place of butter, but to some extent are taking the place of lard-good lard-the exports of which amounted to some 18,000,000 pounds last year.
It is our further contention that the virtues of vitamin content and digestibility in these manufactured products is more "assertive" than real, and that the health of the community would not suffer one bit by the curtailment of the use of these products.
My own early childhood was spent on a Manitoba farm where no such substitutes were used and many of my forebears still living well past the four score years have never, in their own household, used anything but animal fat.
We trust it will be possible to find some way of reducing the manufacture and distribution of the products in question so that our own natural product-butter-will find its rightful place on our Canadian tables, and the problem of the exportable surplus minimized thereby if not completely solved.
I replied to Mr. Fraser under date of June 25, in these words:
Dear Mr. Fraser:
With further reference to your letter dealing with vegetable oils, I may say that I think your comment on the effect of advertising suggests a way in which we could improve the position of live stock products.
It is very apparent to anyone travelling through this country that we are not making the most of the market which is available for such products as butter and cheese, and some others that I could name. Everywhere you go there is a sign advertising something which is a substitute, but very little advertising of the products in which those of us who are on farms are interested primarily.
You will perhaps have noticed that I had an item of 8300,000 placed in the supplementary estimates for the purpose of promoting the sale of farm products.
I am going to England on the 11th July for the purpose of seeing at first hand what is being done by some of our competitors in that market. I hope after I come back to be able to take some definite action towards promotion and sale of farm products in the home market as well as in the British market.
After my return, and before deciding upon our line of action I hope to have an opportunity of discussing the matter with you.
In reply I had this letter from Mr. Fraser, dated June 26:
Dear Mr. Gardiner:
Many thanks for your letter of the 2oth instant. ' This is a very encouraging letter, and I would greatly appreciate the opportunity of discussing the whole situation with you on your return.
Meantime, for your information I enclose a copy of a telegram which I have to-day sent out to the secretaries of the various creamery associations in the west.
Amours faithfully,
A. C. Fraser.
That telegram has to do with the advisability of meeting market requirements for butter in the old country. That_ the correspondence, and I have read it in order to bear out what was said by the Minister of Finance yesterday, that as a matter of fact, as far as the correspondence reveals, there was no pressure brought to bear upon the government to take any particular action in connection with this matter, at least no action related to the British trade agreement, before we went overseas.


Joseph Henry Harris: There is just that one little sentence which says "through you to the government."


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; the Minister of Finance will agree with me that the substance of these letters has been submitted to the government. The representations spoken of yesterday or last night are not altogether in line with the representations in these letters. Mr. Fraser, as secretary of the dairy council, was apparently quite satisfied with the correspondence which took place and with the proposals which we made in order to assist in the marketing of the farm products, which have been so much emphasized in the discussions we have been having.
May I add that in searching through the files to find out whether there was any other correspondence to which reference might have been made, I did gather considerable information as to the whole matter. I find that the last letter written emphasizing the question, previous to the letter I have just read, was written in March, 1932, and addressed to the previous Minister of Agriculture. That letter contained reference to the representations of some twenty packing houses and representations made by the United Farmers of Ontario with regard to the inclusion of the arrangements then proposed in the agreement of 1932.
That is, previous to bringing together those who were going to meet at that conference, apparently there had been considerable discussion on the question, and considerable
1976	COMMON'S
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
agitation carried on in connection with it. I believe I should place on file along with the letters I have read at least three others.
On March 5, 1932, a letter was addressed to the then Minister of Agriculture from Kitchener, on the stationery of Dumarts Limited, in these words:
Re. request for tariff on vegetable oils with British preference.
I now have pleasure in enclosing the endorsa-tion from the United Farmers of Ontario. It has been difficult to have these people see this matter in the proper light. I expect several other endorsations in the course of a few days.
Respectfully submitted,
Yours very truly,
R. D. Morrison,
President.
The letter I have just read was attached to the following, which comes from the farmers of Ontario, and clearly explains their position. Dated, February 29, 1932, and addressed to the Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa, on the stationery of the United Farmers of Ontario, the letter reads:
Dear sir:
Great Britain has been generous in the measure of preference which she has extended to Canada in her recently announced tariff proposals. This action gives Canada distinct advantage in the European market. With a preferred position on the British market Canada is assured of the best possible outlet for her large exportable surplus of staple farm products. So long as she, in turn is willing to buy British goods in exchange should we not do all we can to strengthen our position upon that market? And should we not also demonstrate our appreciation of her action in granting Canada this preference. Since we can do both by extending a greater measure of preference to British imports surely it is in our best interests to do so. Not only would such action result in mutual commercial advantage to Canada arid the mother land, but it would, at the same time, tend toward a better understanding and a strengthening of the bonds of empire.
The unanimous viewpoint of the various provincial united farmer movements in regard to British preference was set out in the national policy issued by the C.C.A. in 1918.
I believe the Minister of Finance subscribed to it at that time, and as a member of a farmer organization out west, I believe I subscribed to it. It is in these words:
"By reducing the customs duty on goods imported from Great Britain to one-half the rates charged under the general tariff and that further gradual uniform reduction be made in the remaining tariff on British imports that will ensure complete free trade between Great Britain and Canada in five years."
We learn that Canada is importing annually a very large volume of vegetable oils from the United States which could be, we are informed, just as well secured from England.
I Mr. Gardiner.]
You will notice they are not objecting to the importation of all the oils. They say they are being secured from the United States, and they might just as well be secured from England.
The United Farmers of Ontario has repeatedly expressed itself as favouring an increase of preference on those products and goods which can advantageously be secured from Great Britain. Accordingly we would request the government to give careful consideration to the possibility of placing vegetable oils on the preference list.
Yours very truly,
Robt. J. Scott, President.
J. J. Morrison, Secretary.
The other letter on file, which refers to both of those, is the only other one I shall read. I find this letter, dated March 8, 1932:
R. D. Morrison, Esq.,
President Dumarts Limited,
Kitchener, Ont.
Dear Mr. Morrison:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 2, enclosing brief for a duty on vegetable oils, and your telegram of the 4th instant reading as follows:
" Have mailed you brief for tariff on vegetable oils with the British preference with endorsations from twenty packers. Stop. Trust you will give this every attention as is very vital to the Canadian farmers. Stop"
That is the end of the telegram. The letter continues:
Your letter of the 5th instant enclosing endorsations from the United Farmers of Ontario has just come to hand. I am forwarding copies of these letters to my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and I wish to thank you for the trouble you have taken in getting the endorsations.
Yours very truly,
R. Weir.
All I wish to say is that when the budget was first introduced, and when the right hon. leader of the opposition was replying, the Prime Minister made a remark across the floor of the house. The remark was to the effect that if it had not been for the nature of the agreement made in 1932 it might have been possible to have made a different agreement at this time. Every hon. member will recall that the reply he received from the leader of the opposition, who then had the floor was, " Yes, if it had not been a fox it might have been a cat." Well, I do not know that it was an answer to the suggestion, because after all, the suggestion made by the Prime Minister contained the essence of the position in which we find ourselves in connection with this whole matter.
Probably that can best be indicated by reading to the house the first sentence of each paragraph of the address delivered by the then

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Prime Minister, the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), to the conference called in 1932. The conference of 1932 was called in Ottawa, following a conference which had been held in the old country in 1930. At the conference in the old land certain suggestions were made by the present leader of the opposition, one of which was that Great Britain should establish duties, particularly on the natural food products and farm products imported into that country from outside the British Empire which would make possible a preference of ten per cent in favour of Canadian products. Here is a statement by the present leader of the opposition at the conference of 1930, held in London:
I offer to the mother country, and to all the other parts of empire, a preference in the Canadian market in exchange for a like preference in theirs, based upon the addition of a ten per centum increase in prevailing general tariffs, or upon tariffs yet to be created . . .
The basis of the proposal is the adequate protection to industries now existent, or yet to be established.
Here is what was said by the present leader of the opposition at the 1932 conference, held in Ottawa:
At the imperial economic conference held in London two years ago, Canada submitted what she conceived to be the basis of a plan for closer economic association.
What do we hope for from this conference? The answer is. I think, from all of us, greater markets within the empire.
As we desire greater empire markets, it is our task to decide the means by which they may be obtained.
Under our prevailing tariff system, Canada is equipped to make this readjustment. The United Kingdom, through its existing tariff preferences and their application in principle to natural products, will be similarly equipped. We, therefore, will propose that _ the United Kingdom shall extend the principle of her present tariff preferences to natural products.
It is most important that the attention of the committee should be called to the fact that it was the government of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) that asked to have the principle of tariffs applied to British imports of natural products. I continue to quote the statements of the then Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett):
The Dominion of Canada has always enjoyed free entry into the markets of the United Kingdom. That free entry has been for products which, generally speaking, did not come in competition with their own. We now propose that the United Kingdom have free entry into Canada for her products which will not injuriously affect Canadian enterprise. Canada in the days when its industrial structure was less strong than it is now, granted to the United Kingdom preferences in her markets. And we will ask that for those natural and processed products which comprise the most important part of our exports, we be given a preference.
On the assumption that measures will be taken to ensure that the effective operation of the agreement will not be impaired by the unfair competition to which I have referred, Canada proposes to grant to the United Kingdom:	(1) extension to the free list; (2) retention of the existing preferences in favour of Great Britain, and (3) increased preferences in respect of a selected list of articles in which Great Britain is especially equipped to supply the Canadian market without injuring efficient Canadian enterprise.
And in exchange Canada asks:	(1) the retention of existing preferences and (2) their effective extension to those other natural and processed products of which the United Kingdom is an importer.
I submit that those sentences give as clearly as it is possible to give it, the policy that was laid down at that time in connection with natural products, and more particularly in connection with farm products going from this country to the United Kingdom.


Mr. BAKER:: Does that relate to the
item we are dealing with?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it relates to the
item we are dealing with. The argument was advanced last evening, and again to-night that we should do something or other about these vegetable oils coming into Canada in order that a better market might be provided for the farm and dairy products of the dominion.


Richard Langton Baker: That is far-fetched.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not a bit farfetched. In the statements which have been made to this committee in the last few hours of discussion on these items, I think a very decided attempt has been made to show this. The statement has been made that we should not introduce politics into the discussion.


Joseph Henry Harris: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: An attempt has been
made to show that something has been done by the government of Canada which might injuriously affect the farmers of Canada. I often wonder why men want to come to this parliament who do not want to discuss politics. I have always understood politics to be a business of the people of the country.


Joseph Henry Harris: It should be, but it is not.


James Garfield Gardiner: When we are here we
should be willing, not only to discuss the business of the people of the country, but to check up on the discussion of others. The information obtained from the packers in 1932 resulted in there being included in the agreement a section having to do with the bringing of vegetable oils into Canada and the providing of free access to the British market for our dairy products.
1978	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: And animal products.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. If we look at the facts we find that our farm products have not been affected by the agreement of 1932 in the way it was thought they would be. Had it not been for the challenge thrown out the other evening, I would have let this discussion go until we were dealing with the estimates of my department. But since it was thrown out, and thrown out so strongly, I think the figures in connection with one or two items should be placed on the record alongside what has been given already.
The trend of the development of a market for our farm products in Great Britain has not been in the direction which was indicated. I should like to give the Canadian exports to Great Britain of some farm products. The exports of cheese were as follows:
Canadian cheese exports (hundredweight)
1931-	32	
813,1061932-	33	
825,0811933-	34	
714,1331934-	35	
572,1021935-	36	
528,914
The exports of butter were as follows:
Canadian butter exports (hundredweight)
1931-	32	
86,9271932-	33	
21,0221933-	34	
37,1851934-	35	
4
There was a decrease from 86.927 hundredweight in the year before the signing of the agreement to 4 hundredweight in 1934-35, the last year of the regime of the previous government. In order to increase the exports of butter, a bonus was provided that fall which brought the exports up to 71,358 hundredweight. The exports of cattle were as follows:
Canadian cattle exports
1931-	32	
26,7341932-	33	
24.3011933-	34	
54^4481934-	35	
47,8611935-	36	
2,811
What I want to point out is that, under the agreement, the exports of live stock and live stock products to Great Britain did not increase. In all but one of these important farm products, the exports went down year after year. In only one case was there an increase, which was brought about by the granting of a bonus.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Might I ask the minister to go a little further and deal with hams and bacon?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is just what I was going to do. If you go back to the figures given for hams and bacon, you will find that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) started with the year 1932. He was able to build up fairly good figures to the year 1935. As a matter of fact we exported to Great Britain-attention was called to this fact last evening by the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Rowe), and for that reason I might have passed it over-in 1925-26, 1,233,000 hundredweight. The quantities went down year by year until in 1931-32 exports were down to-about 105,000 hundredweight. By 1932-33 they were up to 366,000, and from that time there was a constant increase until, in the year 1935-36, the total exports to Great Britain only were 1,186,000 hundredweight-still considerably less than was exported away back in 1925-26 before there was any agreement. Running over the records one finds that with or without the agreement, there has been a rise and fall in the exportation of hams and bacon from this country to Great Britain.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the minister argue that the agreement made in 1932, which gave a preference on Canadian hams and bacon, has not been of any advantage to the Canadian farmer?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not going to argue whether it has been or not; I am going to give the facts. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) stated, or at least has been quoted to-night as having stated last evening, that the change of policy since the new government came in has had something to do with some matters which were then being discussed; and, dealing with exactly these same products, I want to give the figures and place them on Hansard so that anyone reading them can see what has happened. Because after all, as regards all these products we have been discussing, there has been a very remarkable change in the last eighteen months. Take the exports of cheese:
U. K. U. S. All countries
1935. ... $ 5.900.000 $	85,000 $ 6,400,000
1936.. ..	9,400,000	1,600,000 11,300,000
Then let us take a look at exports of bacon. Our exports amounted to:
U.K.	U. S.	All countries1935..	.. $19,700,000 ?	! 100,000	$20,000,0001936..	.. 25,100,000	600,000	26,000,000Exports of cattle:	U.K.	U. S.	AH countries1935..	.. $ 400.000 $6,300,000	$ 6,900,0001936..	.. 2,900,000	9,400,000	12,500,000
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement


Mr. TUSTIN:: The minister gave us the value of the cheese exported in 1935 and 1936. Could he give us the weight that was exported in those two years?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I can give the -hon. member the weight. It is not in this particular table, but I have the figures for all the years back to 1900. I do not suppose the committee wishes me to read all of those.


George James Tustin: All I wanted to point out is that there was about three cents difference in price.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is another factor of which I want to speak in a few moments. I am now dealing with sales and exports of our products, and pointing out that there has been a very remarkable increase since the adoption of the policy of promoting sales in other countries along with the principles of agreements entered into with other countries by a Liberal government. I now come to the exports of wheat and flour:
Crop year	U.K. U.S. All countries
1934-	35 .. $ 91,100,000 $12,300,000 $136,700,000
1935-	36 ..	144,500,000 23,200,000 210,200,000


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like to ask what relation all this has to the importation of edible and inedible oils.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will connect that up in a minute in a way which the hon. member will completely understand.


Richard Langton Baker: We asked some time ago that the connection should be explained, and the minister has gone miles and miles away.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am right alongside of it. I am indicating to this committee that in spite of what has been said about edible oils coming into Canada and replacing the dairy farmer and the live stock producer, both the dairy farmer and the live stock producer are selling more of their products than they ever sold while hon. members who have been carrying on this discussion had control of the government of this country. That is clearly shown by the records.
The facts regarding the production of butter indicate this, that in spite of all that has been said about edible oils coming into this country and replacing butter, more butter was produced in 1936 in Canada than ever before in the history of the country. The production of creamery butter alone amounted to 250,000,000 pounds, and the greater part of it- all, with the exception of about 5,000,000 pounds was consumed in this country. That happened at the same time that these edible oils of which hon. members have spoken were being consumed.
And cheese: cheese production during the last year was higher than it has been in any year since 1928, and in that you have some of the fats derived from the dairy industry. Then butter was up in price during the year 1936, higher than it has been in any year since 1930. It went down and down from 1930 to 1933, remaining about the same price during the years 1933 and 1934 namely, about 18 or 19 cents, but in this last year it has been 23-66 cents per pound on an average throughout the year. The price of cheese has been the highest since 1930; as was indicated a few moments ago, it is about 3 cents higher than it was the previous year-to be exact, 2f cents.


Richard Langton Baker: Have not the prices of almost everything been higher in 1936 than in 1934?


An hon. MEMBER:: The Liberals are in power.


Richard Langton Baker: That has nothing to do with it at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: The price of cheese was higher in 1936, at 12-76 cents than at any time since 1930.


Richard Langton Baker: So is the price of everything.


James Garfield Gardiner: And we are very happy to be living under a Liberal government, and have these prices go up.


Richard Langton Baker: That had nothing to do with it at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then with regard to consumption. In spite of the fact -that edible oils are coming in-and I am not advocating the bringing in of more of them-in spite of all we have heard -about edible oils, there has been consumed in Canada this last year 12,000,000 pounds more butter than in the previous year.


Mr. BROOKS:: Would the minister not consider that he should protect that market so that more butter will continue to be consumed in Canada instead of vegetable oils?


James Garfield Gardiner: Out in our country we do not talk as much about protection as some of those who live in other parts of Canada. We like to be able to demonstrate that when we are not indulging in so much of that kind of thing we get a better market for everybody and, as has been said, a better price for everybody on everything.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister knows that the government has not a single solitary thing to do with it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am just placing the figures on Hansard so that my friends can read and examine them.
1980	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom. Trade Agreement


Richard Langton Baker: Do you not know, as the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) correctly says, that your government had nothing at all to do with it?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No more than the man in the moon.


Richard Langton Baker: You surely know that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite sure my hon. friends thought that we had something to do with the price of butter back in 1930, and I am sure, too, that they had something to do with the price of butter in 1932, and something to do with the very question that has been thrown across the floor of the house on two or three occasions since this debate began.


Richard Langton Baker: We rightly protested when you allowed New Zealand butter to fill Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been stated time after time that the members on this side of the house-I was not here and had not the privilege of voting with them-in 1932 voted against the British agreement when they voted for a resolution, introduced by Mr. Coote, connecting up the agreement and the prices obtained then for goods with something that happened in the previous year, when the government of Canada refused to do what almost every other country that traded in farm products with Great Britain did. Those countries tied up their exchange with the British pound sterling, and by doing so in 1931 the Dominion of Canada could have reduced the amount of money required to pay the indebtedness of Canadian farmers. That indebtedness could have been reduced by about 30 per cent if the Canadian government had followed the other countries in that regard. In other words, we should not have required from that time to this the various debt adjustment acts which we have had to pass. They would have been unnecessary if the Canadian government had done exactly what more than twenty other countries did in tying their dollar to Great Britain's pound sterling. But our friends sat by for one whole year after that before they realized the damage they had done. As a result of their inaction the prices of farm products were driven down to the point indicated by the figures which I have given to the house. They went down year after year until they touched bottom; and when the government were compelled to enter into a trade agreement to revive Canadian trade they based their action, not upon the principle of greater freedom of trade between Canada and Great Britain, but upon the blocking of trade 'between Great Britain [Mr. Gardiner..1
and some other countries. That was what was meant by the statement made the other day, that if it had not been for the type of agreement drawn in 1932 we might have been in a position to draw up a different agreement to-day.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister is rambling all over the lot. Has the government anything to do with the price of scrap iron being $26 a ton?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will leave my hon. friend to deal with that. He speaks for the scrap iron people; I am speaking for the people who produce these particular products. The position is simply this. We have been trading in these products now in what may be called a new spirit with regard to trade, if not under an altogether new policy. We have gone as far as it is possible to go in one new agreement with Great Britain in wiping out the bound articles and in changing the policy that was inflicted upon the whole empire at that time. Probably, when one or two more agreements are made, we shall get back into the position occupied prior to the coming into power of the previous government; and as we advance into that position, more and more Canadian farm products will be sold in different parts of the empire, and Canadian consumers will be able to pay for and consume more of our farm products here.
There are two reasons why vegetable oils are being used here at the present time. One is the fact that they can be put up in convenient packages and placed on the shelf, and they are not so liable to damage as animal products used for a similar purpose. The other reason is this. There has been a great improvement in the production of butter in this country. Everyone knows that the grading policies established by the provincial governments, with the support of the federal government, have resulted in raising the standard of our Canadian butter and cheese; and by raising the standard of our butter we have put more into consumption. There is more butter being used on the tables of the nation, and more being diverted from use as shortening. More and more of our butter is being used for the purpose for which it is intended. Indeed, Canadian butter can now be placed on the tables of .people the world over as a product that is second to none, if the best butter produced in our creameries is used. And it brings a better price because of that. Less and less of it is being used as shortening, and more and more as butter; and because it is of better quality our people

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
are buying more of it. The result is that our farmers are getting a greater market at home to the extent this year of 12,000,000 pounds more than last year.
I am going to ask the house later on to vote a greater sum than was voted last year in order that we may promote the sale of farm products; and I may tell hon. gentlemen who have been discussing this question that the Department of Agriculture intends to follow the policy outlined in the letters to the secretary of the dairy association. Judging by his reply to the last letter I wrote to him, the policy meets with the approval of the Dairy Council of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-278b. Crude peanut oil, for refining for edible purposes, used as materials in Canadian manufactures: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-278c.	Cocoanut oil, not
edible, when imported for use in the manufacture of refined cocoanut oil: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-278d. Olive oil for manufacturing soap or tobacco or for canning fish; olive oil for use in the processing of textile fibres, including the finishing of fabrics: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: On the last of these items perhaps I should make this statement. It is important that there should be no misunderstanding in regard, to the tariff on these particular items especially in. the light of the discussion that has taken place. For the most part these goods do not come from the United Kingdom. Importations from the Straits Settlements and other British colonies are still being made under the provisions of schedule F of the 1932 agreement, which is being carried over without modification for the time being as schedule VII of the new agreement. The provisions of the trade agreement respecting the colonies which my hon. friends opposite negotiated in 1932 with Great Britain continue in force. I might be asked, why did you not negotiate a new agreement with the colonies. The answer is that Canada's commercial -relations with the colonial empire are regulated in part by the Canada-West Indies trade agreement, of 1925 which cann-ot be revised before 1939, and in part by schedules D and F of the 1932 agreement with the United Kingdom. After considering the whole question we decided it was better to continue the colonial clauses of the 1932 agreement until they could be reconsidered at the same time that the agreement with the West Indies, which they supplement, is revised. I want the
committee to be clear on the point that there is no change whatever with respect to the colonial arrangement under which the great bulk of these commodities enter Canada. They enter Canada under the provision of schedule F of the 1932 agreement, and will continue to do so. It is merely continued by this agreement until revised by a further one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 282a. Firebrick, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 7J per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-284. Drain pipes, sewer pipes and earthenware fittings therefor, chimney linings or vents, chimney tops and inverted blocks, glazed or unglazed, n.o.p.; earthenware tiles, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 20 per cent.
Item agreed; to.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could we have the particulars of the imports from Great Britain as we go along?


Charles Avery Dunning: Wherever there is a reduction in rate I undertook the other evening to give it and must therefore turn back in that regard to ex 282a:
There is a reduction in rate from 12^ to 7i per cent on firebrick n.o.p. Imports from the United Kingdom, $97,000 worth.
On item 284, drain pipes, sewer pipes, and earthenware, etc. the total imports in 1935-36 were very small, $9,000 from all sources, of which $2,300 were from the United: Kingdom. Earthenware tiles, part of the same item, is ra-ther larger, $102,400 worth, the principal amount of which, $49,000, came from the United- Kingdom.
Then we exported- during that year only $71,000 worth of the articles covered by this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-285. Tiles or blocks of earthenware or of stone prepared for mosaic flooring: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: A reduction in rate from 20 per cent to 15 per cent. Our imports were $31,000, principally from the United States, about $5,000 from Great Britain. We have not any record of exports of that item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
-Customs tariff-286. Earthenware and stoneware, viz:-demijohns, churns or crocks, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 20 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: Small imports, $3,900, principally from the United States; our exports are not listed separately. There is a reduction in rate of 5 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
1982	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Customs tariff-287. All tableware of china, porcelain, semi-porcelain, or white granite, but not to include teapots, jugs and similar articles of the type commonly known as earthenware: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: Free entry bound.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-288. Stoneware and Rocking-hamware and earthenware, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 20 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: A reduction from 25 to 20 per cent as against Great Britain. I shall have to take a moment to give the information in regard to the imports because they are classified under different commodities. Our imports of brown earthenware, stoneware, Rockinghamware were $20,000, of which $10,000 came from the United Kingdom. Cream coloured ware, total imports, $23,000, of which $12,000 came from the United Kingdom.
China and porcelain ware, n.o.p., $46,400 of which $11,700 came from the United Kingdom.
Earthenware n.o.p., $254,000, of which $88,000 came from the United Kingdom.
Of the combined items, $120,000 altogether came from the United Kingdom last year.
Our exports are not listed separately. Our home production in 1934, the last year for which I have figures, was $223,700, but that should not be taken as production confined to these articles, as it includes coarse earthenware and stoneware.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-288a.	Chemical stoneware
composed of a non-absorbent vitrified body specially compounded to resist acids or other corrosive reagents: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-288b. Hand forms of porcelain, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of rubber gloves in their own factories: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-289. Baths, bathtubs, basins, closets, lavatories, urinals, sinks and laundry tubs of earthenware, stone, cement, clay or other material, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: Reduction in rate from
20 to 15 per cent. Our imports totalled $75,000, of which $44,000 came from the United Kingdom. Our statistics of production are not available separately; they would be part of a total of $1,600,000, covering porcelain insulators, sanitary ware, sewer pipe, floor and wall tile, tanks, pottery, et cetera.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Customs tariff-296c. Magnesium carbonate, imported for use in the compounding or manufacture of rubber products: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-300. Crucibles of clay, sand or plumbago: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-312a. Asbestos in any form other than crude, and all manufactures thereof, when made from crude asbestos of empire origin, n.o.p.: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-316a. Incandescent lamp bulbs and glass tubing for use in the manufacture of incandescent. lamps, and mantle stocking for gas light: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: A reduction of 5 per
cent. Imports $504,000, of which $500,000 came from the United States. Our exports, none. Our domestic production in 1935, that is incandescent electric lamps, the finished product, was about $4,800,000. That is reported by fewer than three firms.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The plants making this
line of material at present are not over busy. Any importations of course would reduce the employment in making that material in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-318. Common and colourless window glass: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change. Free entry
bound.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-319. Glass, in sheets, and bent plate glass, n.o.p.: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-320.	Plate	glass,	not
bevelled, in sheets or panes not exceeding 7 square feet each, n.o.p.: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-321.	Plate	glass,	not
bevelled, in sheets or panes, exceeding 7 square feet each, and not exceeding 25 square feet each, n.o.p.: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Customs, tariff-322.	Plate glass, n.o.p.:
rate of duty, 174 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: A reduction in rate from 20 per cent to 174 Per cent. Our imports in 1936, not bevelled, $183,000 worth, of which $78,000 came from the United Kingdom and $69,000 from Belgium. Of bevelled plate glass we imported $1,687 worth, practically all from the United States.


Richard Langton Baker: What is the Canadian production?


Charles Avery Dunning: We exported $81,000worth, some of which went to the United Kingdom. Our total production for 1934, the latest year for which we have records was $238,774. As my hon. friend doubtless knows, the statistics in regard to production are considerably behind those for imports and exports.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-323. Silvered glass, bevelled or not and framed or not, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 20 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: A reduction in rate from 224 to 20 per cent.
Our total imports were $105,000, of which $65,000 came from the United States and $12,000 from the United Kingdom. Our exports are not separately listed in the trade returns. Our total production of silvered glass in 1934 was $566,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-326 and ex 326a.	(i) Demijohns or carboys, bottles, flasks, phials, jars and balls, of glass, not cut, n.o.p.; lamp chimneys of glass, n.o.p.; decanters and machine-made tumblers of glass, not cut or decorated, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
(ii) Opal glassware, glass tableware, cut glassware and illuminating glassware, n.o.p.: rate of duty, .10 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change in the first part. There is a reduction in the second part, opal glassware, et cetera, from 15 to 10 per cent. Our total imports of these goods were $884,000 in 1936, of which $558,000 came from the United States and only $68,000 from the United Kingdom.
Our exports were less than $100. Our Canadian production in 1934 was $185,000 worth. Including pressed and blown glass bottles in the production figures, there was a very large production, $7,500,000 worth in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-326a. Manufactures of glass, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 10 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: The statistics I last gave apply to the second division of the previous item. I hare not given the figures with regard to item 326a. The imports of glass 31111-125
lenses, n.o.p., totalled $202,000, of which $169,000 came from the United States and only $10,000 from Great Britain. Other manufactures of glass which are included in the same item total $482,000, of which $345,000 came from the United States and $41,000 from Great Britain. As I indicated a moment ago, the rates are reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent against Great Britain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-326e. Articles of glass, not plate or sheet, designed to be cut or mounted; articles of glassware, w'hen imported by manufacturers of silverware, to be used in receptacles made of, or electro-plated with, precious metals, in their own factories: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-326g. High thermal shock resisting glassware: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-339a. Lead capsules for bottles: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-340. Type for printing, including chases, quoins and slugs of all kinds: rate of duty, 74 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-341. Babbit metal and type metal, in blocks, bars, plates and sheets: rate of duty, 10 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 352, ex 427, ex 445k, ex 446a, ex 462. Fixed or stationary meters, of a size or capacity not made in Canada, for hydraulic engineering; gauges, indicators and recorders for water or other liquid levels, volume or flow, of a class or kind not made in Canada: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a reduction in rate. This is included in schedule IV of this agreement in order to afford free entry from the United Kingdom of meters, gauges, indicators and so on, described in detail in the item. In each instance they are of a size, capacity or class not made in Canada. Formerly they would have been dutiable at the rates shown opposite the items in the votes and proceedings, ranging from free to 20 per cent. Now they have a classification of their own.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
1984	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Customs tariff-ex 352, ex 362, ex 519, ex 597a, ex 624, ex 647, et al. Antiquities (other than spirits or wines) produced more than 100 years prior to date of importation, under such regulations, including proof of antiquity, as may be prescribed by the minister: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: I think this speaks for itself. It is a reduction all round.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-353. Aluminum and alloys thereof, crude or semi-fabricated, viz:-pigs, ingots, blocks, notch bars, slabs, billets and blooms; bars, rods and wire; angles, channels, beams, tees and other rolled or drawn sections and shapes; pipes and tubes; plates, sheets and strips, including circles; leaf, n.o.p., or foil, less than -005 inch in thickness, plain or embossed, with or without backing; wire and cable, twisted or stranded, reinforced with steel or not; aluminum powder: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-353a. Aluminum leaf, less than '005 millimetre in thickness; aluminum scrap. Provided, that nothing shall be deemed to be aluminum scrap except waste or refuse aluminum, fit only to be remelted: rate of duty, free.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is there any change in this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-354. Manufactures of aluminum, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-354a. Kitchen household hollow-ware of aluminum, n.o.p.; rate of duty, 20 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-357. Britannia metal, nickel silver, Nevada and German silver, manufactures of, not plated, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a reduction from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. Our imports of Britannia metal were quite small, amounting to only S4,400, of which $1,500 came from the United Kingdom. In the larger part of the item, manufactures of nickel and German and Nevada silver, total imports were $133,000, of which $20,000 came from the United Kingdom. There are no exports, and1 there is no separately recorded production.


Richard Langton Baker: What do we produce in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not separately recorded, so there are less than three firms producing. We have no information.


Richard Langton Baker: The output is not great?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-361. Gold and silver leaf, Dutch or schlag metal leaf; brocade and bronze powders: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs	tariff-362.	Articles consisting
wholly or in part of sterling or other silverware, n.o.p.; manufactures of gold or silver, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 20 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a reduction against Great Britain from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. Total imports of manufactures of silver were $70,000, of which $47,000 came from Great Britain. Imports of manufactures of gold were $20,000, of which $10,000 came from Great Britain. Our exports were none, but our production of silverware in 1934 amounted to $2,878,000; of gold to $957,000; of gold filled wire and gold leaf to $54,000.


Richard Langton Baker: Will not this change mean
a great deal more unemployment?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not of that opinion. I have not had a single objection from any source.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-362b. Toilet articles of all kinds, including atomizers, brushes, buffers, button hooks, combs, cuticle knives, hair receivers, hand-mirrors, jewel boxes, manicure scissors, nail files, perfume bottles, puff jars, shoe horns, trays and tweezers, of which the manufactured component material of chief value is sterling silver: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is an expansion of the item, is there not?


Charles Avery Dunning: There was a tariff board report two sessions ago in connection with this item, and the language used is exactly that language.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-362e. Nickel-plated ware, gilt or electro-plated ware, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 17J per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Customs tariff-368. Clocks, time recorders, clockwork mechanisms, and clock cases: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in duty on clocks, movements, cases and so on, from 20 per cent to 15 per cent as against Great Britain. We imported 8298,000 worth of clocks, of which $178,000 came from the United States and only 822,000 from the United Kingdom. Our imports of clock movements totalled $74,000, of which only 813,000 came from the United Kingdom. Our imports of time recorders totalled $21,000, of which $4,000 came from the United Kingdom. We are also exporters of clocks, watches and parts; in fact, we sold to the United Kingdom $60,589 worth. That is, we sold to the United Kingdom far more than we bought from them of clock and watch movements. Our Canadian production of clocks and watches was $905,000 in 1934, and of watch cases $202,000 in the same year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-369. PaTts of clock movements or of clockwork mechanism, finished or unfinished, not including plates: rate of duty, 10 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a reduction on parts of clock movements, excluding plates, a companion item to the previous item, from 15 to 10 per cent. Our imports amounted to $150,000, of which only $1,000 came from the United Kingdom. Our imports came principally from the United States and Germany.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-370. Copper rollers, and stones, used in the printing of textile fabrics or wall paper: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 377a, et al. Wrought iron in the form of billets, bars, rods, sheets, strips, plates or skelp: rate of duty, free.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suggest that these steel items are likely to involve a good deal of discussion. I know the leader of the opposition and some other hon. members on this side desire to make some statements in regard to these items, so I suggest that they stand.
Item stands.
Customs tariff-488. Nitrate and acetate of lead, not ground; platinum and black oxide of copper, for use in the manufacture of chlorates and colours: rate of duty, free.


Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-506b. Wooden doors of a height and width not less than 6 feet and 2 feet, respectively: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
31111-125J
Customs tariff-ex 511. Fishing rods: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction, requested by Great Britain, in the rate on fishing rods from 20 per cent to free. Our total Imports were $53,000 last year, of which only $16,000 came from the United Kingdom.


Mr. STIRLING:: What did we produce?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a combination item; it goes wider than this item. It includes fishing nets and fishing tackle, and under that combination item we produced $139,000 worth in the last year of record.


Mr. POTTIER:: Would that include fishing reels?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, just the rods.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-511a. Cricket balls, bats, gloves and leg guards: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-512.	Picture frames and
photograph frames, of any material: rate of duty, 17J per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a reduction from 20 per cent. Our total imports amounted to $115,000, principally from the United States. Only $12,000 worth came from Great Britain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-518. Billiard tables, with or without pockets, and bagatelle and other game tables or boards, cues, balls, cue-racks, and cue-tips: rate of duty, 17J per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in rate from 22i per cent to 17i per cent on billiard tables. We imported 52 last year from the United Kingdom, valued at $2,553. I did not know billiard tables ever got as cheap as that. However, that is the figure. Our principal source of supply is the United Kingdom. Then, bagatelle and other game tables totalled $156,000, of which the principal import came from the United States. Of the $156,000, $145,000 came from the United States. There were $5,000 worth of balls, cues, cue-racks and cue-tips, of which $1,700 came from the United Kingdom. Our Canadian production is included in sporting goods generally, and it cannot be separated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-519. House, office, cabinet or store furniture of wood, iron or other material, in parts or finished: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in the rate from 20 to 15 per cent. This is a very large item, and widely subdivided. If hon. members wish the information, I shall be glad to give it.
1986	COMMONS
Canada-United. Kingdom Trade Agreement


Richard Langton Baker: Does the minister fear any more unemployment because of the change? It must be understood that we manufacture a lot of these materials around the Newmarket district.


Charles Avery Dunning: The competition in furniture is only to a small degree from Great Britain.


An hon. MEMBER:: Could the minister give the round figures?


Charles Avery Dunning: It would be more simple to read the list. In connection with furniture of metal, the total imports were valued at $221,000, of which $208,000 came from the United States. Great Britain is not a very strong competitor. The total amount of furniture of wood or other material, n.o.p., was valued at $564,000, of which $364,000 came from the United States and $104,000 from the United Kingdom; and there are a number of other countries. We exported $107,000 worth of furniture of metal, and $145,000 worth of furniture of wood, a small amount of which went to the United Kingdom. Our total production, in round figures, would be about $12,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff

522. Rovings, yarns and warps, wholly of cotton, not more advanced than singles, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 12J per cent.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could we not proceed to another item? This one deals with textiles, and it seems to me that there might be considerable discussion on it. It is now eleven o'clock.


Grote Stirling: The clock is striking.


Charles Avery Dunning: Would the committee prefer to permit the textile item to stand? If so, we will proceed to the end of the textile items.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is eleven o'clock.
Item stands.


Charles Avery Dunning: We may proceed to item 586, in connection with which there is no change:
Customs tariff-586. Coal, anthracite, n.o.p.: rate of duty, free.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-597a. Musical instruments of all kinds, n.o.p., phonographs, graphophones, gramophones and finished parts thereof, including cylinders and records therefor; and mechanical piano and organ players: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in rate from 20 to 15 per cent against Great Britain. Our imports total $58,000 in con-

nection with part of the item, of which $11,000 came from the United Kingdom. In another part of the item imports totalled $73,000, of which $13,000 came from the United Kingdom. Other musical instruments, not included in the figures I have just given, were valued at $282,000, of which only $6,000 worth came from the United Kingdom.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-598. Brass band instruments, n.o.p.; parts of pianofortes and parts of organs: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-598a.	Brass band instruments, of a class or kind not made in Canada; bagpipes and complete parts: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-603. Fur skins, wholly or partially dressed, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 604. Belting leather in butts or bends; and all leather further finished than tanned, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 7J per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a leather item. Sole leather is taken out of the old item. If hon. members wish, I can give the figures at length. If any hon. member is particularly interested he need only say so, and I will give the information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 604. Crust oil leather, for use in manufacturing chamois leather:	rate
of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a reduction. It covers the raw material used in the manufacture of fully finished chamois leather.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 604. Sole leather: rate of duty, 12£ per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: No. change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-605. Leather produced from East India tanned kip, uncoloured or coloured other than black, when imported for use exclusively in lining boots and shoes; genuine reptile leathers: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-605a. Genuine pig leathers and genuine Morocco leathers; so-called roller leathers: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.

Canada-United. Kingdom Trade Agreement
Customs tariff-607. Leather, when imported by manufacturers of gloves or leather clothing, for use exclusively in manufacturing gloves or leather clothing, in their own factories: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in
the rate from five per cent to free. There are imports valued at $31,000 of which $4,700 came from the United Kingdom. Of leather n.o.p., which would also be included in the item, the total imports were $402,000, of which only $22,000 came from the United Kingdom. Canadian production is about $1,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-607a. Leather, not further finished than tanned, in whole hides, in grains, or splits, when imported by manufacturers of upholstering leathers, for use exclusively in the manufacture of upholstering leathers, in their own factories: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-608.	Leather, not further
finished than tanned, and skins, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 5 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in
rate from 10 to 5 per cent against Great Britain. On one part of the item the total imports were over $11,000, and on the other part they amounted to $138,000, of which $112,000 came from the United Kingdom. The Canadian production is included in all other leathers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-610 et al. Belting, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in
the rate from 20 to IS per cent as against Great Britain. The total imports of rubber belting for machinery were valued at $80,000, of which $22,000 came from the United Kingdom. Beltings of cotton were valued at $39,000, of which $12,000 came from the United Kingdom. Under the n.o.p. item the value was $36,000 of which $8,000 came from the United Kingdom. Under this item we export to the United Kingdom more belting than we import from her. It goes both ways, but we sell them more than they sell us.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-610a. Belting of camel's hair, for machinery: rate of duty, 7J per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in duty, but this is a relatively unimportant item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-611a. Boots, shoes, slippers and insoles of any material, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 22J per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in
rate from 25 to per cent.


Richard Langton Baker: Have the Canadian boot and shoe manufacturers had much to say about this?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, of course I have
had letters.


Richard Langton Baker: Do they fear unemployment through it?


Charles Avery Dunning: They do not say so.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Richard Langton Baker: This is not a joking matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: I realize the hon. member is asking a serious question.


Richard Langton Baker: But somebody thinks it is funny.


Charles Avery Dunning: The letters I have received with regard to the item make the usual complaints made when a duty on a manufactured article is reduced. I am not surprised to receive them, but I would point out that we are large manufacturers. More than 98 per cent of the Canadian boot and shoe demand is supplied by Canadian manufacturers. They also export a substantial quantity of boots and shoes, notably canvas shoes with rubber soles," the exports being valued at $1,205,000; and exports of boots and shoes-of leather are valued at $350,000. Our Canadian production in 1934, the last year for which there is a record, was valued at $30,305,000.


Richard Langton Baker: The minister does not anticipate that it will cause much more unemployment?


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, Mr. Chairman, in negotiating the agreement, so far as my judgment would permit me I was anxious not to cause unemployment at all, but rather to create employment. I think on the whole that will be the effect of the agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 612. English type saddles: rate of duty, 10 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in the rate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-617. India-rubber boots and shoes: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
1988	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Customs tariff-619a. India-rubber clothing and clothing made from waterproofed cotton fabrics: rate of duty, 25 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a reduction
brought about by the removal of a former specific duty. Previously there was a specific duty of 50 cents per garment under all tariffs, and under this item that is being removed as against Great Britain. Our imports were $21,000 in the one item and $45,000 in the other, $5,000 and $4,000 of which respectively came from the United Kingdom. We are large exporters of rubber clothing, in fact, we exported to the United Kingdom considerably more than we imported from that country. Last year the total Canadian production was close to $700,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-622. Trunks, valises, hat boxes, carpet bags, tool bags, and baskets of all kinds, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in rate from 20 to 15 per cent. Our total imports were $84,000 and $44,000, of which $43,000 and $4,000 respectively came from the United Kingdom. We exported a small quantity. In 1934 our production was valued at about a million and a quarter dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-623. Musical instrument cases and fancy cases or boxes of all kinds, portfolios and fancy writing desks, satchels, reticules, card cases, purses, pocket-books, fly books, and parts thereof: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction from 20 to 15 per cent. Our imports of pocket-books and so forth were valued at $552,000, plus $345,000 for books, cases and so forth. In both cases the principal source of supply was the United' States, with the United Kingdom coming second. The total imports of both items from the United Kingdom were valued at about $258,000. We do not export these commodities. The total Canadian production would be valued at about a million and a half dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 624. Statues and statuettes of porcelain or earthenware: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in the rate from 20 per cent to free. The making of these art ornaments is an important branch of the English ceramic industry. Several potteries specialize in this type of product.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
IMr. Dunning.]
Customs tariff-624a.	(i) Dolls; toys of all
kinds, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 10 per cent.
(ii)	Mechanical toys of metal: rate of duty, 10 per cent.
(iii)	Juvenile construction sets of metal, consisting of various stampings, punched, and connections therefor; parts of the foregoing: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in the rate on dolls and toys from 20 to 10 per per cent; there is no change in the second division.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-625.	Caps, hats, muffs,
tippets, capes, coats and cloaks of fur, and other manufactures of fur, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-628. Braces or suspenders, and finished parts thereof: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-647. Jewellery of any material, for the adornment of the person, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 25 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in the rate from 30 to 25 per cent. Our total imports were $621,000, only $40,000 coming from the United Kingdom. We exported $68,000 worth, of which $29,000 went to the United Kingdom. Our own production is just over $2,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-653. Brushes of all kinds: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in the rate from 17J to 15 per cent. Our imports were in the following amounts: $31,700, $65,900, $88,400 and $99,036. The United Kingdom is the principal source of supply in all but the last item. We exported to the value of $85,000, of which $13,000 went to the United Kingdom. Our total production is valued at a million and a half dollars.


Mr. BARBER:: Were there any importations from Japan?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. On one item, $16,000; on another $9,000, and on another, $2,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Customs tariff-655. Pens, penholders and rulers, of all kinds: rate of duty, 124 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: Reduction in rate from 15 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-655a.	Lead pencils and
crayons: rate of duty, 10 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in rate from 15 to 10 per cent.


Richard Langton Baker: How will this reduction affect the manufacturers north of Toronto?


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports will tell the story. Our total imports of lead pencils, nonpropelling-I like that	description-were
$76,000, of which $35,000 came from the United Kingdom. Of lead pencils, not self-propelling, our imports totalled $117,000, of which $37,000 came from the United Kingdom. Our imports of crayons totalled $62,000, of which $15,000 came from the United Kingdom. The production in Canada in 1934 of lead pencils was valued at $397,000; of other pencils, $166,000, and of crayons, $9,300.


Richard Langton Baker: I do not see the hon. member for that district upholding his industry.


Charles Avery Dunning: The industry is well-established, and in fact, is exporting.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-656. Tobacco pipes of all kinds, pipe mounts, cigar and cigarette cases, cigar and cigarette holders, and cases for the same, smokers' sets and cases therefor, and tobacco pouches: rate of duty, 174 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is an item for myself. There is a reduction in the rate from 22J to 174 Per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex. 657a. Film of standard width (one and one-eighth of an inch and over) when imported for the sole purpose of having 16 millimetre reproductions made therefrom and provided that the original is re-exported within three months from date of importation: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: The previous rate was 1^ cents per lineal foot, and it now comes in free.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-659. Photographic dry plates: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-663. Fertilizers, compounded or manufactured, n.o.p.: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.	,
Customs tariff-663e.	Sea-weeds or seaplants, charred, whether powdered or not, for use exclusively in the feeding of animals: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-670. Grinding wheels, stones or blocks, manufactured by the bonding together of either natural or artificial abrasives; manufactures of emery or of artificial abrasives, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 10 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in rate from 15 to 10 per cent. This is a rather important item for industry.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the production in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: In 1934 the production was $46,000 in one item; $569,000 in another; $62,000 in another, and $934,000 in another, We export more than we import.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-683. Barytes: rate of duty, free.	[DOT]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-684.	Rubber thread, not
covered: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-685. Pantagraphs and parts thereof, including diamond points, and engraving mills, for engraving copper rollers used in printing textiles and wallpapers:	blankets,
blanketing and lapping imported for use exclusively by textile manufacturers and wallpaper printers: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-689. Charcoal, animal, for use in the refining of sugar: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex. 710. Coverings, inside and outside, used in covering or holding goods imported therewith, shall be subject to the following provisions, viz:
(b) Usual coverings containing goods, not machinery, subject to any ad valorem duty, when not included in the invoice value of the goods they eontani: rate of duty, 10 per cent.
(bb) Usual coverings containing machinery subject to any ad valorem duty, when not included in the invoice value of the goods they contain: rate of duty, 5 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There are reductions from 15 to 10 per cent and from 7i to 5 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex. 711. Iodised mineral salts, for use exclusively in the feeding of animals: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed: to.
1990	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Charles Avery Dunning: This leaves us only the steel and textile items in schedule IV. We still have schedule V to deal with. I would point out that this schedule deals only with margins of preference not with rates. It is the guaranteed margin of preference which, as I said in the budget speech, applies to 91 tariff items as compared with 215 in the former agreement. Perhaps the committee would like to know that 20 of the 91 items carry a lower guaranteed margin than they did in the former agreement; the remainder of the 91 carry the same degree of guaranteed preference as in the previous agreement. Hon. members have had a chance to look over it and perhaps they would be willing to carry schedule V as it is.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, it is eleven o'clock,
Mr. Chairman.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am well satisfied.


Richard Langton Baker: These items will not take
long.


Charles Avery Dunning: They should not, but
you never can tell. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
It being seventeen minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, March 22, 1937