Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lamb-ton) moved:: That owing to the late period of the session all the Bills reported this day by the Select Standing Committees on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, Banking and Commerce, and Miscellaneous Private Bills, be placed on the Order Paper for consideration in Committee of the Whole this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):: I would like to draw the attention of the Government to an answer that was made by the right hon. the Prime Minister to a question that I asked on Friday last in regard to Judge Snider's report. The question and answer were as follows:
Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (leader of the Opposition) : Is the Prime Minister now in a position to say when Judge Snider's report will be brought down?
Right Hon. Arthur Meighen (Prime Minister) : I have heard nothing at all about the report. As far as I know, the report, after the final sitting, is not in. I am informed Just now that it is not in.
I do not know whether my right hon. friend is seeking to get under cover through the use of the words "after the final sitting." I believe that Judge Snider made a report some two months ago, which was approved by Order in Council some fifteen days ago. That is the report to which I have reference, and what I should like to know is why that report has not been brought down to the House. If my right hon. friend is talking about some other report, it is not what I have in mind. What I should like to have brought down is the report that was made some two months ago by Judge Snider, and which has been approved by Order in Council.


Right Hon.   S@: That matter has been in the hands of the Prime Minister, and if he were here, he would be
able to give my hon. friend the answer. I will inquire into the matter and let my hon. friend know in the course of the day, if I can get the information.



PRIVATE BILLS FIRST AND SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 202 (from the Senate), for the relief of Agnes Robertson.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 203 (from the Senate), for the relief of Hilda May Freeman.-Mr. Mowat.
ALPHONSE LaMOYNE deMARTIGNY
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 120 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alphonse LeMoyne de Martigny.-Mr. Ross.-Mr Boivin in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When this Bill was last before the committee, clause 1 had been read and was under consideration, when postponement thereof was moved by Mr. Stein.
On section 1-marriage dissolved:


Mr. STEIN:: I have a few remarks to offer against the adoption of this Bill by the committee. I am sorry to feel compelled to delay the House, but I think it is my duty to oppose the Bill on grounds that I shall offer presently to the committee.
I have read very carefully the evidence that was submitted to the divorce committee of the Senate on this Bill, and in my humble opinion there is not sufficient ground for granting a divorce. Contrary to my custom, I took the trouble to read the testimony in a few other divorce cases, and I found that in every other case much stronger evidence was adduced than was offered in this particular case. In no other case has a divorce been granted on so little evidence as in the present case. Now, I have no special interest in this matter, but I am informed that this is the first time that a divorce has been granted in the province of Quebec, from which I come, and I believe I speak for my colleagues, who share my views on this question, when I' say that we do not want this Bill to pass this committee without our humble protest, whatever the result may be. From a legal standpoint, I do not think there is sufficient evidence to warrant the granting of a divorce. It was shown, in two or three actions that came before the Superior Court of the province of Quebec in the district of Montreal, between the same parties, that the suppliant, even if his allegations were true, was far more guilty than he alleges his wife to be. But his wife, before
i

the Superior Court of Quebec, has formally and absolutely denied the accusations against her. I have here extracts from the deposition of the husband, Alphonse Le-Moyne de Martigny, given before the Superior Court in Montreal on February 22nd, 1919. I shall read from the evidence:
Q. Do you keep house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Alone?
A. Yes, sir.	[DOT]	.
Q. There is no woman with you?
A. Yes, to keep my house.
Q. What is her name?
Objected to this proof as illegal.
Q. Do you refuse to answer?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Do you swear that you do not live maritally with this woman?
A. It depends on the interpretation of the word ''maritally.'	.
Q. That you live as man and wife with her?
A. What do you mean by that?
Q. You must know, I am [DOT] not obliged to explain.
A. If you ask the question, I shall answer.
Q. You cannot answer the question?
A. I do not know your interpretation.
Q. You do not know what it is to live maritally with a woman?
A. Not from the legal point of view.
Q. You have travelled with this woman?
A. Am I obliged to answer? that is what I want to know.
Q. Do you refuse to answer?
A. No, sir.
Q. You have travelled with her?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you go with her?
A. To the United States.
Q. Did you go -to 'Europe?
A. I refuse to answer. I have travelled seven (7) months. '
Q. Always with the same woman?
A. No, sir.
Q. You had another?
A. Certainly.	*
Q. How long have you been with this one, the one that you are living with?
A. I refuse to answer.
Q. How long have you been with the other?
A. Which other? .
Q. I do not know. Do you refuse to answer?
A. It is impossible for me to answer that. I do not know which.
Q. You have had many?
A. Naturally.
Q. Many?
A. Many.
Q. Here, at Montreal, have you told us how long you have been with this woman?	[DOT]
A. At Montreal, since 1915.
Here are extracts from the evidence of the wife, taken on the 11th day of March, 1919, at Montreal:	[DOT]
Q. You live with Mr. V. S. Perry?
A. Mr. V. S. Perry hoards with me.
Q. Is it not true that you have been living in adultery with him during the last five (5) years ?
A. It is false, absolutely false.
Q. Have you ever had oarnal relations with Mr. Perry?
A. Never.

The evidence goes on to say:
Q. Now, have you ever told your husband that you were living with Mr. Perry?
A. No, never.	*
The husband, before the Divorce Committee, stated that his wife had admitted to him having committed adultery. Of course, he does not use those words, but he alleges that she has admitted, to him, having lived with the man in question. Before the Divorce Committee Two witnesses, a sewing girl and a man of 84, a janitor, appeared on behalf of the suppliant, the husband, but neither of them was able to prove anything definite. They said they had never witnessed anything that would make them believe that Mrs. de Martigny and Mr. Perry were living as man and wife. On April 23, 1919, judgment was rendered by the Superior Court at Montreal, holding that de Martigny had not proven adultery on the part of his wife. In the month of June, 1920, an action was again taken in the Superior Court by the mother of de Martigny to obtain the custody of the minor child, a little girl of eight years. Again the court held that adultery with Perry had not been proven and refused to give the custody of the child to the grandmother. In two instances Mrs. Perry was allowed alimony by the Superior Court-$75 a month in the first instance, which was increased to $125 a month on the second petition.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Was it not Mrs. de Martigny who was granted the alimony?


Charles Adolphe Stein: Yes.


Pius Michaud: I think you said Mrs. Perry.


Charles Adolphe Stein: It was a mistake on my part; it was Mrs. de Martigny who obtained the alimony. Now, in the action brought against Mrs. de Martigny by her husband as well as in the attempt of the suppliant's mother to obtain the custody of the child, the Superior Court ruled that no adultery had been proved against Mrs. de Martigny, and I think that if hon. gentlemen will read the evidence that was submitted to the Divorce Committee they will come to the conclusion that this is not a case in which a divorce should be granted.


Mr. PARENT:: I do not need to add very much to what has been said by the last speaker. I desire, however, to call the attention of the committee to what took place before the Private Bills Committee in regard to this particular divorce Bill. At the

last meeting of the committee when the present Bill was before it a gentleman named Mr. Dussault appeared. He is an attorney of Montreal and the brother-in-law of Mrs. de Martigny. He stated that he was in a position to offer further evidence showing that Mrs. de Martigny had never committed the offence charged against her, but that the man himself had committed adultery. He therefore wished the Private Bills Committee to reopen the case in order to give this evidence so that a stigma might not remain on the statutes of Canada against Mrs. de Martigny. He also stated that there is a child in the case, and that if the accused woman did not see fit or proper to appear before the Senate Committee, he, as the uncle of that child, had the right to come and bring forward evidence showing that the mother of the child is a good and honest woman, and that she is not guilty of adultery although the Senate committee found that she was. For reasons unknown to me the Private Bills Committee refused to reopen the case and hear the further evidence offered. I did my best to induce the committee to take a contrary'course, but was unsuccessful. The Private Bills Committee took the ground that if the woman had anything to say in her own defence she should have appeared before the Senate Committee and established her innocence. Even so, in my humble judgment the Private Bills Committee of this House should act, in a sense, as a court of revision and correct any errors made by the Senate Committee if such have been committed. That was the view I took before the Private Bills Committee and that is why I think this committee should be made aware of all the facts in connection with' the matter. A recital of all the circumstances in the case will show, if no other result is achieved, that this woman has not been guilty of what has been alleged against her. Hon. gentlemen may not be aware of a certain procedure which is generally followed in our courts of justice in the province of Quebec. We have there what is known as an action for separation as to bed and board. In the present case Mrs. de Martigny sued her husband for alimony. Such actions for separation as to bed and board are generally granted when it has been established that adultery has been committed by the husband. As a result of those proceedings the action taken by Mrs. de Martigny before the courts of Montreal was sustained and in 1912 the husband was obliged to pay her alimony to the amount of $100 per month.


Pius Michaud: If the woman had been guilty of the offence charged against her she would not, as I understand, have been entitled to alimony according to the laws of the province of Quebec?


Mr. JACOBS:: No, that is not right. She is entitled to it whether she is guilty or not.


Georges Parent: In the case referred to
evidence was given which proved beyond a doubt that de Martigny was guilty of adultery, and that while he was defending the proceedings brought by his wife he had openly been keeping a mistress in Montreal for four years. This evidence is very clear and distinct, and every fact in that regard which I am now making is fully established by the stenographer's transcript of the evidence taken before Mr. Justice Duclos in the Superior Court of Montreal.


Mr. CURRIE :: On what date?


Georges Parent: On February 22, 1912.
I will quote, from page 13 of the evidence referred to, the following:
Q. "Where do you live?
A. No. 40 McGill College avenue.
Q. Do you keep house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Alone?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. There is no woman with you?
A. Yes, to keep my house.
Q. What is her name?
Objected to this proof as illegal:
Q. Do you refuse to answer?	-
A. Absolutely.
Q. Do you swear that you do not live maritally with this woman?
A. It depends on the interpretation of the word "maritally."
Q. That you live as man and wife with her?
A. What do you mean by that?
Q. You must know. I am not obliged to explain.
A. If you ask a question, I shall answer.
Q. You cannot answer the question?
A. I do not know your interpretation.
Q. You do not know what it is to live maritally with a woman?
A. Not from the legal point of view.
Q. You have travelled with this woman?
A. Am I obliged to answer? That is what I want to know.
Q. You refuse to answer?
A. No, sir.
Q. You have travelled with her?
A. Yes. sir.
Q. Where did you go with her?
A. To the United States.
Then at page 15:
Q. Did you go to Europe?
A. I refuse to answer. I have travelled seven (7) months.
Q. Always with the same woman?
A. No, sir.
Q. You had another?
A. Certainly.

Q. How long have you been with this one, the one that you are living with?
A. I refuse to answer.
Q. How long have you been with the other?
A. Which other?
Q. I do not know. Do you refuse to answer?
A. It is impossible for me to answer that. I do not know which.
Q. You have had many?
A. Naturally.
Q. Many?
A. Many.
Now at page 18:
. Q. Here, at Montreal, have you told us how long you have been with this woman?
A. At Montreal, since 1915.
No clearer evidence could be given that this man was living openly with a woman as his mistress, and consequently committed adultery. It has been the practice of the Senate Divorce Committee, I understand, to hold that whenever a man has been guilty of this offence himself he cannot come and ask for a divorce. This is the kind of evidence that Mr. Dussault wanted to lay before the Private Bills Committee. He was denied that right with the result that the Bill in question is now before you. Now let me cite the facts with regard to Mr. Perry. The statement of Mr. De Martigny before the Senate Divorce Committee was to the effect that his wife had admitted to him that she had been living with this man Perry. The same allegation was made before the Superior Court of Montreal. But Mrs. de Martigny appeared before the Superior Court, and here is what she said on that occasion when questioned in that regard

it is a denial of every word uttered by de Martigny before the Senate Committee.
Q. You live with Mr. V. S. Perry?
A. Mr. V. S. Perry boards with me.
Q. Is it not true that you have been living in adultery with him during the last five years?
A. It is false, absolutely false.
Q. Have you ever had carnal relations with Mr. Perry?
A. Never.
And at page 4:
Q. Since how long is Mr. Perry your boarder?
A. Since five years.
Q. Where did you live when he first went with you?
A. On Esplanade avenue.
Q. How long was he there with you?
A. He was there all the time with Mr. Lock-ward.
Consequently there were two men and Hie child in the same house with that woman, and her contention is that these two men were boarding there.
Q. How long?
A. When Mr. Lockward got married, Mr. Perry left: he was gone three weeks and as
TMr. Parent.]
I could not meet my finances, X asked Mr. Perry to come back.
Q. Now, have you ever told- your husband that you were living with Mr. Perry?
A. No, never.	,
I may be mistaken, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me that if such evidence had been put before the Divorce Committee they would not have rendered the judgment they did render. When we became aware of these facts we thought that if the Private Bills Committee had a chance to hear this further evidence the wife would not be put on the statute book as a woman who had committed adultery.


Mr. ELKIN:: May I ask the hon. member a question? If the wife had this evidence in her possession, as she must Have had during the trial, why did she not bring it before the Senate Committee?


Georges Parent: I do not know what kind of feeling the hon. gentleman has but probably if he were a woman himself and had been dragged through the courts for years, as this woman has been, he would come to the conclusion that she had had enough, and that after the Superior Court of Montreal had declared her innocent there was no necessity for her to go further.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman has read evidence given in 1912, but the evidence of the woman's guilt was adduced before the Senate Committee in 1914, two years later. While the evidence given in 1912 may be quite true, the evidence since then is that she had been living with another man virtually as his wife, and she did not appear before the Senate committee to refute that charge which was proved by several witnesses. This committee, Mr. Chairman, can only act on the evidence given before the Senate Divorce Committee.


Georges Parent: Does the hon. gentleman wish to put a question to me?


John Allister Currie: Has he read the evidence before the Senate committee?


Georges Parent: The hon. gentleman has referred to evidence given in 1914. Let me say that in 1919 Mrs. de Martigny came back again before the Superior Court of Montreal for an increase of alimony, which was granted her by the court.


John Allister Currie: Did she appear before
the Senate committee?


Georges Parent: No.


John Allister Currie: Then what is all this
trouble about? The case was proved be-

fore the Senate committee by three or four witnesses, and I do not see why the House of Commons should now intervene to listen to a lot of outside evidence about her getting alimony. She seemed to be pretty well satisfied to get a divorce.


Georges Parent: If the hon. gentleman comes to the conclusion that persons representing a child have no interest in a case of divorce, I do not share his opinion. I believe the child's honour is at stake, and that the mother should not go on record as an adulterous woman, when there is ground to believe that she is not, and I think it is proper for any one to interfere to clear her reputation. That very same case was inscribed in review in 1919, and the mother of Mr. de Martigny,-


Mr. TWEEDIE:: Mr. Chairman, I object to this. I do not think we have any jurisdiction to make statements supplementing the evidence given before the Divorce Committee. All we can do is to consider whether on the evidence the Bill should be accepted or thrown out.


John Allister Currie: Surely the Quebec courts will protect the child and see that the father maintains it. I do not think the father ever denied that the child was his. He gave this woman alimony right up to date of something like $100 a month.


Georges Parent: Do I understand there is a point of order raised, Mr. Chairman?


John Allister Currie: Yes. You cannot read other evidence here.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Apparently what the honorable member is introducing for the consideration of this committee is evidence relating to acts of adultery on the part of the petitioner. There is no application for divorce as against the petitioner. We are considering the grounds upon which the respondent, if she had applied, might have herself procured a divorce, or the ground upon which the husband's petition for divorce might have been thrown out. We have only a right to consider the evidence which was taken before the Divorce committee of the Senate, and all we have to do is to determine whether or not in our opinion that evidence is a sufficient ground for a divorce.	.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele) :: Does the hon. member raise that point of order?


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Yes, that is my objection.


Mr. STEWART (Lanark) :: As I understand the procedure of the committee on
Miscellaneous Private Bills, of which I am a member, it is not as has been stated by the hon. member for Calgary (M-. Tweedie), but the committee has the right to hear any new evidence that it thinks pertinent to the issue, and that is the question which was before that committee when the Bill was under consideration.


John Allister Currie: Did you hear evidence?


John Alexander Stewart: No; but the point is we had the right to hear it. As I understand, the question now is whether this Bill should be sent back to the committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills for that purpose. My opinion is that not only has the House the right to send the Bill back, but that the committee has the right to hear any further evidence affecting the issue if the Bill is sent back to them.


Mr. PROULX:: Being a member of the Private Bills committee, I have recollection of a few cases years ago where we heard further evidence. So it is not only the right but the custom, and I endorse what my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Stewart) has said.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: As I understand, evidence taken before the Senate committee is translated to the House of Commons for use by the committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, but there is nothing in the rules of the practice which would prevent the committee hearing evidence to any extent it might desire. Therefore I think it is perfectly competent for this House -to send the Bill back in order that further evidence may be heard by the committee.


Mr. MURPHY:: I was just about to point out to the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Tweedie), in support of the position taken by the hon. member for Lanark, that Sir Allen Aylesworth, when Minister of Justice, took the position which has just been taken by the hight hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), and in fact submitted evidence to the House that had not been before the Senate committee or before the Private Bills committee, and the House concurred in the view then presented by Sir Allen Aylesworth.


John Allister Currie: There is no question at all about the right of the House to hear evidence before its Private Bills Committee, but since Confederation it has been the unwritten law that we leave this matter to be dealt with entirely by the Senate. It is true that several years ago one or two cases were brought before the

Private Bills Committee and some evidence heard. But we have been in the habit of leaving this matter entirely to the Senate in order to reduce the expense in connection with the granting of divorces. The Senate has a committee which hears the case, tries it and decides it and I think it is inadvisable for this House, whether or not it has the right to do so, to go beyond what has been the custom in this regard. It we do, it will make it necessary for people who are asking for divorces to keep their lawyers sitting around Ottawa for weeks and months. They would go first before the Senate Divorce Committee, where their case is heard; then they would have to wait several weeks until the case came before a committee of this House, where they would have to appear-in the meantime counsel fees and other expenses are piling up in such a way as to make the whole thing ridiculous. To my mind the House should revert to the old practice and let the Senate settle these things. I do not think, therefore, that we should refer the Bill back, and I hope the House will not refer back any more Bills of this kind. If we are going to have three or four trials, we shall simply be piling up expenses for those who petition Parliament for divorces. It is true that we have an absolute right to hear the case, to form a committee to hear new evidence and all that sort of thing, but it is a question of expediency, and to my .mind the old method of carrying on is far more satisfactory. I do not think it is fair for us to try this case in the House. The hon. gentleman refers to the 1912 ease. He will notice that the evidence in the Senate points out that from 1912 until 1919 this woman had been living with another man.


Mr. ETHIER:: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the discussion is on a point of order. My hon. friend is discussing the merits of the case.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does any hon. member desire to speak to the point of order?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I do not concur in the remarks of my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie) : I rather agree with those of the ex-Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden). It is true, as the member for Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) has said, that the Senate has jurisdiction in matters of divorce. But what is the use of the Private Bills Committee of this House, then, so far as divorce Bills are concerned? The Private Bills Committee of this House sits,

in a matter of this kind, like a court of review. There is nothing in the rules or practice of the House to prevent the Private Bills Committee of the House from making a further enquete if the facts proved before the Senate _ Committee do not seem satisfactory. That is why we are now asking that this Bill be referred back to the Private Bills Committee-in order that the enquete may be reopeden, the decision of the Senate Committee appearing to be inconsistent with the facts. The Senate has not an exclusive jurisdiction; if such were the case, there would be no use in having a Private Bills Committee of the House to deal with these matters. If the' reports and recommendations of the Senate Divorce Committee were submitted direct to the House, it would be a different matter. But the Private Bills Committee has refused to reopen the enquete and to take communication of new facts which might have been proved but were not proved before the court. One of my hon. friends put a question to the member for Cbarlevoix-Montmorency a few minutes ago, asking why the woman did not appear before the Senate Committee. The hon. member gave the answer, but I may supplement it. As a matter of fact, this woman was aware-and this was brought out before the Private Bills Committee here, if I am not mistaken-of the Bill going through the Senate, after its third reading. When she heard it was coming before the House she asked through her lawyer that the enquete be reopened in order that she might be allowed to bring before the committee the evidence which she intended to submit.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out that my hon. friend is not now discussing the point of order.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; I fell into the same error as that .of imy hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie). But I repeat that this House has jurisdiction to refer the Bill back to the Private Bills Committee with instructions to reopen the enquete. I say also that the Private Bills Committee of the House has full jurisdiction to reopen the' enquete, to ignore the finding made by the Senate Committee, and, if necessary, to return the Bill to the Senate.


Mr. McKENZIE:: As I understand the
point of order, it is whether or not evidence taken in another cause, before a court in Montreal, can be read as evidence before this committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the
point of order was whether or not a committee of this House to which the Bill was referred can itself take evidence, in addition to the Senate evidence.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is not the way I understand it. Perhaps the hon. member for Calgary will put his point clearly.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) is correct. My point is that we have no right whatever to consider the evidence which it is now proposed to submit to the Committee of the Whole House. We might refer any Bill back to the Private Bills Committee. I will go further and say this : we are probably bound by the custom which has prevailed in the House in this regard. But the Divorce Committee is a committee specially appointed by the Senate to hear the evidence of witnesses under oath, and before that committee the petitioner and the respondent may be represented by counsel. Now we have no divorce committee in the House of Commons, and these Bills coming from the Senate are referred to the Private Bills Committee. I submit that the jurisdiction of the House of Commons should be limited practically to a consideration of the evidence taken under oath before the Divorce Committee of the Senate and a determination of the form of the Bill. We have no right to reopen the case and hear additional evidence and then, on the ground of that additional evidence heard by the Private Bills Committee of the House, say that we will not grant the divorce. There should be one final determining body on the evidence itself. Then the Private Bills Committee should have the same right as the Divorce Committee of the Senate to weigh the evidence, and the House of Commons should also have that right. But I do not think that either the House of Commons or its Private Bills Committee should have the right, as a matter of justice, to hear further evidence and keep the thing in the air.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As I understand the point of order, it is that evidence taken before the court in Montreal is not evidence before this committee; that is, that we cannot in this committee deliberate upon what is absolutely hearsay evidence so far as we are concerned. It was evidence in another court; it was heard and deliberated upon by the judge, but it is not evidence for us. Whether this committee decides to send the Bill back to the Private Bills Committee is not, I understand, the point of order; that wil have to be dealt with as a substantive question by itself. The point of order is whether or not we can hear as evidence before this committee testimony which was taken before the Court in Montreal. If that be the point of order,
I suppose it would be well taken.


Robert Laird Borden: Every one
understands perfectly well that evidence taken before a court of justice in Quebec or any other province is not evidence before a committee of this House. The question what is evidence before a committee of this House is, in the first place, a question for the committee itself and not for this committee. That committee must decide what is evidence, and if they go wrong, an appeal can be taken to this House. The point of order, as I understand it, in the first instance was this. Some hon. gentlemen on the other side desired to have this Bill referred back in order that evidence might be given for the purpose of disproving the conclusion at which the, committee of the Senate had arrived. I did not understand them to suggest that evidence taken before a court in Montreal would be evidence before this committee. They were giving the fact that evidence of that character had been given in the Superior Court of Montreal as evidence to show that evidence of the same character should be given before a committee of this House. Then the question was raised whether or not it would be competent for that committee to hear such evidence if it should be given in a proper way. My intervention was merely to say that I thought it was perfectly competent for that committee to hear that evidence if it were tendered in a proper way.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I am glad to hear the right hon. gentleman on this point. I share absolutely his views on the matter. I have read the evidence in the present case; I have not only suspicion but practically moral certainty that there has been collusion between the parties, and it would be very interesting to have the case opened up again in order to make the facts clear one way or the other. As the case stands at present, I am morally certain that there has'been collusion. I wish I could be at liberty to divulge to the House what the father of the party, whom I would call the defendant in this case, told me on Saturday. I need not say that both parties belong to most respectable families in the province of Quebec. I am informed that there is collusion in this case, and it would serve

the ends of justice if the case were referred back to the committee so that evidence may be heard on that point. .


Michael Steele: I do not wish to speak on the point of order, but I wish to make a statement on behalf of the Private Bills Committee.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. Has any hon. gentleman anything else to say on the point of order?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I have something to say on the point of order. As regards the reference to the Private Bills Committee, I agree with the former Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden). I understand that he is following now the same policy that he followed in 1909. At that time I was Chairman of the Private Bills Committee, and on that occasion a similar Bill appeared before the committee. The principle which we are invoking at present is the same as that which was invoked then in the remarks of the former Prime Minister; it applies to the present case, and to the application made by my hon. friend. This is what was said by the former Prime Minister as reported in Hansard of May 10, 1909, at page 6070:
Mr. R. L,. BORDEN: The Chairman of the Committee on Private Bills, I believe, called attention in connection with one of these Bills, to a tendency towards acting on evidence of a more or less loose character in considering these Bills for Divorce.
In that year there were only twenty-one Divorce Bills before the House. This year there are over a hundred.
I have already taken occasion to inform him privately that I entirely concur with the view he expressed. I think it is of the utmost possible importance that the evidence upon these proceedings in the Senate should be given and acted upon only in the way in which such evidence would be given and acted upon in a court, and I would most earnestly deprecate any tendency in the Senate or in our own committee when examining the evidence towards a view which would bring a looser condition of affairs than has prevailed in the past. I think these proceedings should be conducted exactly as legal proceedings are conducted in a court, and only such evidence should be received as is strictly legal evidence. Unless there is the clearest possible evidence, and unless that evidence is of a legal character, the Bill ought not to pass the committee and Parliament ought not to concur in dissolving the marriage. Every one who is familiar with the proceedings in courts with regard to such matters, is aware that there are some precautions observed in court which do not seem to have received very much attention in the proceedings of the Senate.
That is the ease in this particular instance.

For example, in Great Britain, and in all the provinces of Canada where any such courts were constituted before confederation and therefore remain up to the present, there is the King's Proctor who attends in court, who crossexamines the witnesses, who is paid by a fee taxed in the costs of the case, and whose especial duty it is to see that the evidence is sufficient and that there is no collusion between the parties.
In this case it is not proven that there is no collusion.
I do not know to what extent any safeguard of that character has been adopted in the Senate Committee, but I see no reason why every such safeguard should not receive careful attention and consideration In the Senate, and if it be correct, as the Chairman of the Committee on Private Bills has already publicly declared, that there is a tendency towards the granting of divorce upon evidence of a looser and less-satisfying character than that which has been required in the past, I, for one, desire to raise my protest.
Following that principle which the right hon. gentleman has set forth, I do not see why this committee should not accept the suggestion made that this Bill should be referred back to the Private Bills Committee, should we have jurisdiction to reopen the matter.


John Allister Currie: That is not the point of
order.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I concur in the contention that we have no right to receive as evidence before this Committee of the Whole the evidence given before the Court in Montreal. I understand that my hon. friend stated as his point of order that we had the right, but that it was not customary for this committee to refer the matter to the Private Bills Committee. We have the right and jurisdiction, and I say on this ground the point of order should be dismissed.


Georges Henri Boivin: There are evidently
two points of order now before the Chairman awaiting a ruling. First is it competent for this committee to refer back to the Private Bills Committee for further consideration and for the hearing of further evidence, a Bill reported to this House by that committee? A difference must be made between the powers of this committee and the powers of the House of Commons. This committee has no right to refer a Bill back to any Select Standing Committee. But the House of Commons has the absolute right to refer a Bill back to any Standing Committee of the House, with whatever instructions the House may deem fit to give to the said committee.
While it is not customary for
3	p.m. the Private Bills Committee of the House of Commons to hear

evidence in divorce cases, there is no doubt whatever that it has the right to do so. The second point is: Have hon. members the right to read in Committee of the Whole, evidence that was submitted in a Court of Justice in the city of Montreal? I have no hesitation in deciding that question in the negative. Hon. members have no right to submit as evidence to the Committee of the Whole House evidence which was not taken before a committee of the House or Senate and which was not accepted as evidence by the Committee on Private Bills of either House.
Hon. members have the right to refer to this evidence to the extent required to explain why it may be their intention at a later stage to move that the Bill be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills if it is reported by the committee, but I think that the reading of a portion of such evidence for this purpose, would be much more in order upon the motion to refer the Bill to the committee for further consideration.


Michael Steele: As chairman of the Private Bills Committee I would like to make a statement to the committee regarding this Bill. I may say that for some years past, the Private Bills Committee has each session appointed a sub-committee to attend the sessions of the Divorce Committees of the Senate to hear the evidence submitted there, so that they may be in a better position, perhaps, than the other members of the committee to decide whether or not the Divorce Bills that come before the Private Bills Committee should be passed. That was done this session. Some members of the Private Bills Committee attended the sessions of the Senate Divorce Committee and heard the evidence in this case. When the Private Bills Committee met on Friday, when this case was called for consideration, Mr. Dussault, of Montreal, appeared before the committee, and the committee at his request very courteously gave him an opportunity to state his case. Mr. Dussault stated that he did not appear for the respondent; he appeared, if for any person, for the child. The committee heard his statement for a time, heard him state reasons why the Bill should not pass until he at length desired to lay before the committee evidence taken before the courts in Quebec province. At that stage the committee decided that they could not receive such evidence, and in view of the fact that Mr. Dussault did not
represent the respondent, nor of course the petitioner, who were the only parties who could properly be represented before the Private Bills Committee in this case, the committee decided that it was not necessary to hear him further. The committee took the ground further that the evidence as received before the Senate Committee was sufficient to warrant the passing of the Bill. It was pointed out to the committee that, if they chose, further witnesses could be called and further evidence heard, but the majority of the committee- there was no formal vote taken-evidently were satisfied with the evidence that had been taken before the Senate Committee, and for that reason they passed the Bill as we have it to-day. ' Whether or not they were warranted in doing so is probably a matter of opinion, but it is the fact that the committee did pass this Bill, as they have passed many Divorce Bills, believing that the evidence before the committee was sufficient. I think the committee acted quite properly in refusing to accept the evidence given before the Quebec courts, and I am very glad, Mr. Chairman, that the action of the committee in that regard has been supported by your ruling. The committee, I think, extended every courtesy to Mr. Dussault, and while I may have my own personal opinion as to the advisability of granting divorces in many of these cases, I feel that in this particular case I could not go contrary to the decision of the committee.


Georges Parent: I do not know what is going to happen to this Bill, but before it goes any further I want to put on record further evidence, being copies of judgments, in French, rendered in the courts of Montreal.


John Allister Currie: I think the Chairman has ruled that out of order.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must ask the hon. member before he reads this evidence given before a court in Montreal what he intends to prove by the reading of such evidence, and what his object is in placing that evidence before this committee.


Georges Parent: I am producing these
copies of judgments rendered in the Montreal court to sustain the view I have already expressed that the woman in question has not been fairly treated by the Private Bills Committee.


Georges Henri Boivin: The ruling of the Chairman is always subject to reversal by the House, but I would be disposed to rule
\

that while this evidence and the judgments which the hon. member is now about to submit would be quite in order to support a motion that the Bill be referred back to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills for reconsideration it cannot be used in committee as an argument against the adoption of clause 1 of the Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am quite certain that no member of this House would like in such a grave matter as this to rush the Bill through without being fully confident that what we are doing at the present moment is the right thing. If it werfe an indifferent matter I would say at once to my hon. friend the Chairman of the Private Bills Committee (Mr. Steele), that I bow to the decision of that committee and accept their judgment unreservedly. But this is a caie, as was stated by my hon. friend, that affects the future of the innocent child. I say further that, according to the information which I have and which has been divulged in part when the question came before the Senate Committee, there is ground for more than suspicion that there has been collusion in this case. Why should we be so intent upon rushing this Bill through how when in a day or so the Private Bills Committee will be satisfied whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant the passsing of the Bill? I therefore implore my friends on both sides of the House who do not share my views on the question of divorce to wait patiently until everything has been done to clear the matter up. When that has been done, when it has been proven beyond a doubt whether or not there is a case, the committee will be in position to pass upon the Bill. I appeal to my hon. friends on both sides of the House to follow the lead that has been given us in this matter by the right hon. the member for King's (Sir Robert Borden). The committee will lose nothing by waiting for a day or so until evidence has been submitted to the Private Bills Committee. I had evidence submitted to me on Saturday-I do not refer to the evidence before the courts in Montreal, but I saw in Montreal a party closely connected with the wife-and I am informed that there is collusion in this case. Why should we put upon the statute book an Act of Parliament which will forever dissolve the matrimonial tie which binds these two people. When, perhaps two days from now, the committee will be satisfied whether or not there are grounds for granting a divorce? At all events, if the evidence is not strong enough, the Com-
[The Chairman ]
mittee of the House will be at liberty to do as it pleases.


Mr. STEVENS:: There is no motion
before the committee to refer the Bill back.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, I beg to move, seconded by my good friend, the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), that the Bill be now referred back to the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon.
friend does not remember the ruling given by the Chairman a little while ago. If it is desired to refer the Bill back to the Private Bills Committee, we shall have to proceed in another way. We must have the Bill reported, and before it is read the third time, some hon. member can move that the order for third reading be discharged and that the Bill be referred back to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills for the purpose of taking further evidence; or some hon. member can move that the Committee of the Whole rise and report progress, and when progress is reported a motion can be made that the order for reference to the Committee of the Whole be discharged and that the Bill be referred back to the Private Bills Committee. The same result would be attained in either case, but you cannot refer the Bill back to the committee at this stage.
I am perfectly satisfied, since reading the evidence, that there is ample proof that the woman has been guilty of adultery.
It is quite possible that the husband also has been guilty of adultery, and it is equally possible that there may have been collusion. The difficulty about dealing with these questions, in the way they are dealt with in this Parliament, is that the ordinary precautions taken in a court to guard against collusion, are not taken here; and I must confess that sometimes I am a little surprised at the attitude of some of my hon. friends on the other side of the , House. If they want to restrict divorce and put proper safeguards around it, then all these questions ought to be referred to the courts, where the necessary precautions can be observed. You cannot very well have these safeguards so long as the present procedure is continued. You have a sub-committee of the Committee on Miscellaneous Bills going over to the Senate and watching the evidence, and, after all, that is little better than a makeshift. There are circumstances in this case that seem to point to the possibility of collusion. What would take place if these matters were relegated to the Court?

The King's Proctor would be there, and would institute an immediate inquiry as to whether or not there was collusion. You would have a subpoena issued by the Court, bringing the woman before the Court, and she would be examined thoroughly and exhaustively in respect of every circum-tance that might point to collusion or otherwise. You cannot very well carry out any such procedure as that in the Senate or in a Committee of the House of Commons, but you could take every necessary precaution and exercise every safeguard if these questions of divorce were dealt with in the proper way. I hope the committee will pardon me for this suggestion, which has often occurred to me. Let me repeat again: if it is desired to refer this Bill back, some procedure other than that which my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), has just suggested, must be adopted.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I move, then, seconded by my good friend from King's, that the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Chairman, that will not put us any further ahead than we are now.	.


Georges Henri Boivin: The motion is not debatable.
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 49; nays, 42.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Lily Maude McCormack.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Herbert Henry Brown.
Bill No. 167, respecting certain patents of Autographic Register Systems, Ltd.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Rose Seig-ler Schatsburg.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Eudora Edith Webster Perry.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of John Howard Ferguson.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Edith Myrtle Barnes.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Sherman Talmage Smith.
Bill No. 174, for the relief of John Hurst.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Florence Gibb.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Nora Beatrice McDonald.
Bill No. 177, for' the relief 'of Mabel Alice Allport.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Abbie Jane Harris Wigle.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Walter Edwin Sloan.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of James Leslie Glover.
Bill No. 181 for the relief of William Gordon Gordon.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Anna Elizabeth Walker.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Arthur Wilfred Rigby.
Bill No. 184, for'the relief of Albert Sydney McPherson.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Ernest Alfred Ballard.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of William Gladstone Cook.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Frederick Oxford.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of John Deluce.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of John Samuel Bain.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Addie Irene Gilbert.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Ethel Edna Denning.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Audrey Cleeve Bennett Gibbons.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Laura Newson.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Tom Eccles.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of John Chalk.
Bill No. 168 to incorporate the Edmonton and Mackenzie River Railway Company.
Bill No. 189, respecting the Great West Bank of Canada-Mr. Cowan.
Bill No. 188, respecting the Central Railway of Canada.-Mr. Ethier. v

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Douglas (Strathcona) for concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 53 to incorporate the Fort Smith Railway Company:
Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the nature of the amendments?


Mr. DOUGLAS:: They are merely technical changes in the wording to conform with the Railway Act.
Motion agreed to and Senate amendments concurred in.



PROM THE SENATE-FIRST AND SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Sarah Ann King.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Richard John Whitley.-Mr. Porter.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Herbert Morgan Davies.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of James Charles Allward.-Mr. Currie.

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

Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Is the Government pensioning and retiring officials who are sixty-Jive years of age and over?
2.	How many officials are there in the PostOffice Department, Ottawa, who are sixty-five years of age or over?
3.	Who are the four new officials appointed in the Post Office Department, according to the recommendation made by Griffenhagen and Company ?
4.	Is Mir. George Ross appointed General Superintendent? If so, how old is he, and what will be his salary as General Superintendent?
5.	How old is Mr. W. J. Johnstone, Financial Superintendent of the Post Office Department?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes, except in cases where the official is still capable of performing satisfactory service, and where such service is still required.
2.	38.
3.	No new appointments have been made. The following promotions have, however, been approved by the Civil Service Commission :
George Ross from position of Chief Post Office Superintendent to General Superintendent of Postal Service.
L. J. Gaboury from position of Chief Post Office Superintendent to Division Superintendent of Postal Service.
P. T. Coolicar. from position of Post Office Inspector to Division Superintendent of Postal Service.
4.	Mr. George Ross was promoted by [DOT]Civil Service Commission to position of General Superintendent. Age 68. Salary $5,400 as General Superintendent. On account of his wide postal experience, the services of Mr. Ross are, in the opinion of the department, practically indispensable.
5.	66.


TORONTO CUSTOMS BUILDING
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: .*

1.	Was the Toronto Customs building torn down some time ago?
2.	If so, why was this done?
3.	Who recommended this step to be taken?
4.	Was it rebuilt?
5.	How much has been paid in rentals in connection with space required for customs in Toronto since the said Customs building was demolished?


Hon. Mr. McCURDY:: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. Owing to the necessity for additional space to house the public services including Customs and Inland Revenue in the city of Toronto, it has for years been urgently necessary to provide additional office room. This condition still exists. Further, according to an agreement with the railway companies, the examining warehouse will have to be demolished when the Toronto viaduct, in connection with the New Union Station is proceeded with. In April, 1919, a decision was taken to begin the provision of additional accommodation and demolition of old buildings on the proposed site, corner of Bay and Front streets, was begun, and a contract was made with the P. Lyall and Sons Construction Company for the excavation for the new building, pending the completion and calling for tenders for the superstructure. So soon as construction and financial conditions permit it is planned to proceed with the erection of the superstructure.
4.	No.
5.	Rentals paid to May 1,	1921,


$53,492.13. UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROSS for Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:
For a copy of all letters, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Health Department and J. A. Foisy, proprietor of the Dominion Drug and North Eastern Drug, Limited, and Pharmacie F£d§rale, and all correspondence and letters regarding the said Foisy, specially letters from Z. Cardinal and report-from Federal Police McMillan.
Mr. ROSS for Mr. CHISHOLM:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents referring to the change of the mail route from the railway to Marble Mountain, Inverness county.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Solicitor General) moved that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 118 to amend the Bankruptcy Act, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

ARMISTICE DAY	Mr. GUTHRIE:
On motion of Hon. Hugh Guthrie (Solicitor General) Bill No. 119 respecting Armistice Day, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-Armistice Day a holiday:
Mr. BUREAU:: Mr. Chairman, I thought this Bill was originally introduced by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow). I should like to know if there is any particular reason why it should be taken over by the Government as a Government measure?


Hugh Guthrie: I think last session a
Bill having a similar object was brought forward by the hon. member for South Renfrew, but was not passed. This session a similar Bill was introduced by my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat). In regard to section 2, I would suggest-


Jacques Bureau: That does not answer
my question. What is the reason for the the Government taking this Bill over?


Hugh Guthrie: The session was so far advanced before the Bill reached its second reading that in the ordinary course it could not be passed unless the Government took it over. The Government approved of the principle of the Bill, and it is hoped that the committee will approve it.


Samuel William Jacobs: The Government is simply robbing the hon. member for South Renfrew of his own little ewe lamb.


Hugh Guthrie: No. I am sure we
will be glad to accord the hon. member for South Renfrew any honour to which he may* be entitled for having been the first to make the suggestion last session.


Samuel William Jacobs: It indicates that the
Government is two years behind those on this side of the House in adopting good legislation.


Hugh Guthrie: Coming to section 2, I
submit to the committee that the language might well be amended by striking out the words in the eighth line "by which Canada was delivered from her enemies." If words to that effect are to be inserted, I would rather substitute "by which Canada triumphed over her enemies." But'I think it would be better if we eliminated the words altogether.


Samuel William Jacobs: How would the section
read then?
Throughout Canada iij each and every year the Monday in the week in which is the eleventh day of November, being the day in 1918 in which the Great War was triumphantly concluded by an armistice, shall be a legal holiday and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of Armistice Day.
That is the way it will read if the amendment carries.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think that instead of the word "is" in the sixth line the words "shall occur" should be substituted; it is the future tense.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that would be better. That may be incorporated in the amendment.


Michael Steele: Mr. Guthrie moves that clause 2 of Bill 119 be amended by striking out the word "is" in the sixth line and adding the words "shall occur" after the word "November" in line 7, and by striking out the words "by which Canada was delivered from her enemies" in lines 8 and 9.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. PEDLOW:: Mr. Chairman, the Solicitor General is not quite correct in stating that this measure was introduced by me last year. In the first session of 1919, that which immediately followed the cessation of hostilities, I proposed the following resolution, which appears as No. 37 on page 25 of the Order Paper of Monday, April 7:
That, in the opinion of this House, November 11 of each year should be set aside as a day of national thanksgiving', to be a perpetual memorial to the signing of the armistice, ending the great world war.
Almost immediately after that resolution appeared on the Order Paper the press of Canada from one end of the country to the other commented favourably on the proposal. But for some years prior to that time, at the request of the Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada, Thanksgiving Day had been observed on the Monday of the week in which that holiday ordinarily occurred. A delegation of commercial travellers came from Toronto to Ottawa, bringing with them the secretary of their association, and interviewed me with a view towards seeing whether I would not adopt as the holiday the day on which the armistice was signed, which was the second Monday in November, instead of adopting the date, November 11. In my judgment it mattered very little



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS '

[Stage Direction]
whether the exact date or the exact day was named; either would serve the idea I had in mind, and th'e naming of the day instead of the date would, at the same time, meet the wishes of this large and influential body of citizens. In view, therefore, of the representations then made I had no hesitation in adopting the suggestion, and instead of proceeding with my resolution as it appeared on the Order Paper I introduced, on April 9, 1919, Bill No. 66, "An Act respecting Thanksgiving Day." This Bill was prepared by the parliamentary counsel, so I presume it was in proper form. The Bill was as follows:
1. The annual thanksgiving day, heretofore held on a day fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council, shall hereafter be held on the second Monday of November in each year, as a perpetual memorial of the victorious conclusion of the recent war, in addition to such other reasons as may be prescribed by proclamation of the Governor in Council for that purpose published; and paragraph (11) of section thirty-four of the Interpretation Act, and paragraph (a) of section forty-three of the Bills of Exchange Act, chapters one, and one hundred and nineteen, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, are amended by adding "Thanksgiving Day" to the lists of holidays and non-juridical days, mentioned in the said paragraphs.
This Bill received its ,first reading in the first session of 1919. I endeavoured to have it proceeded with during that session but without success. However, during the second session of 1919, on September 4, I introduced a Bill in exactly the same form, Bill No. 2.
Michael Steele: I would direct the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that clause 2 of the Bill is under consideration. I am afraid he is wandering away from that clause.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am keeping as close as I can to clause 2. I wish to give the reasons for an amendment which I intend to propose, and my remarks are all leading up to that point. Shall I proceed, Mr. Chairman, along that line?


Michael Steele: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would reach the conclusion without laying the foundation.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: It is necessary that I should proceed in this way, because the Solicitor General, who has charge of this Bill, has stated that it was introduced at the last session, which is not correct, and I want to show the history of the Bill. Now, Bill No. 2 was passed through several stages in the second session of 1919 and was brought down to the third reading.

On the third reading a difficulty arose through the fact that the Bill had been amended in committee and it was my desire that it should be again referred back for consideration. The member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) on that occasion, moved the six months' hoist, and the motion was carried by the small majority of five. I felt then, as I feel to-day, that the Bill as originally! introduced by me had (many features of merit and was deserving of better consideration at the hands of the House. I felt, and still feel, that the opposition to the Bill was not in accordance with the best traditions of this House. It seemed to be the determination of hon. gentlemen opposite that because this Bill had been introduced by a member of the Opposition, it should be thrown out. In that connection I should not include all hon. gentlemen opposite, because I noted with pleasure that several leading members and supporters of the Government approved of and voted for the measure as introduced by me at that time. It was a great pleasure to me to have had that support, but on that occasion there was, on the Goverivment side of the House, a certain circle of members who seemed to be seized of the idea that it was an intolerable situation for a member of the Opposition to get away with a proposition of this kind. Consequently, the order went forth that the Bill must be killed in the final stages, so the executioner came along and the hon. member for Perth South was the chief executioner on that occasion.


Mr. McMASTER:: To administer poison.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: It was not a slow poison, I can assure the committee, because it was sudden death on that occasion. From that time to the present, there have been appeals from one end of the country to the other for reconsideration of this matter, and last Armistice Day the appeal was so insistent that it evidently had its effect. I am sorry that Canada was denied by a small majority of -her representatives the privilege of observing Armistice Day on the first anniversary of that event and of continuing the observance for all time to come. Armistice Day appealed to me, not for the purpose of observing a great victory over our enemies, but for the purpose of observing a cessation of the hostilities that had raged so long in the great world war. To-day I do not see any reason why the change suggested by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) in the first instance this year, and the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie), who

has taken over the measure on behalf of the Government to see it through on the present occasion should be made. I understand, in a general way, that the change is made out of regard for the feelings of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt), who was one of the strenuous opponents of my proposition in the first instance. I do not see any reason why the proposition as introduced by me in the first instance should be changed now. The change does not add to clearness in the matter, and, as a matter of fact, it makes the proposition so indefinite and roundabout that one would have to do some figuring before he could reach a definite conclusion which day was intended to be observed. If you, Sir, will follow me in reading the second clause of the Bill, I think you will come to the same conclusion. I think you are clear enough in vision and intelligence to do so. The clause reads:
Throughout Canada in each and every year the Monday in the week to which is the eleventh day of November, being the day in 1918 in which the Great War was triumphantly concluded by an armistice by which Canada was delivered from her enemies, shall be a legal holiday and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of Armistice Day.
That phraseology reminds me of the Irishman's clock, one of those old wag-of-the-wall on which you pull a chain in order to wind it up. Some of the older members of the House may have seen an instrument of that kind. By the way, the clocks around this chamber remind me somewhat of the incident to which I am referring, because no two of them are ever at the same time.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: They are on opposite sides.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The priest made one of his usual calls at the house of this countryman of mine, and he looked up at the clock and he said to Pat: "How do you tell the time of day by your clock? It does not seem to be in harmony with the correct time." Pat replied: "Your reverence, that's aisy; when the hands point to a quarter past two, then she strikes nine, then I know it is half past six." That is about the position of affairs in this Bill. When the eleventh day of November appears in the week, then it is quite easy to figure out when Armistice Day will occur, if you know how.
My proposition-to get down to brass tacks-as the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Gordon) suggests, is this. I beg to move that clause 2 be further amended in the following way; that
all the words between the word "year" in the fifth line and the word "being" in the seventh line be struck out, and the following be inserted instead: "On the second Monday in November," so that the clause will read:	-
Throughout Canada in each and every year on the second Monday in November, being the day in 1918 in which the Great War was triumphantly concluded by an armistice by which Canada was delivered from her enemies, shall be a legal holiday and shall Ibe kept and observed as such under the name of Armistice Day.
I sincerely trust the acting Solicitor General and others supporting him on the Government side of the House will see the reasonableness of this proposition. It will make this Bill so much more clear and definite, and it will name the day on which armistice was signed. The Bill as drafted names neither the exact day nor 4 p.m. the exact date. In my judgment, it would be in the interest of the country in general if my proposition was accepted and the Bill as originally drafted and presented to this House in 1919 were accepted by the Government. I do not see that they have anything to lose in accepting my proposition now, and I am sure the country will approve my suggestion because it will make the definite day on which the armistice was signed the day of observance for all time to come. The proposition as embodied in the Bill before the committee does not do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I suggest that, perhaps, the purpose which my hon. friend has in mind in making a little more clear the particular Monday in November for taking the holiday, would be met if his amendment were accepted by the committee, with the insertion after the words "being the day," of the words "of the week in that month."
The clause would then read:
Throughout Canada in each and every year on-the second Monday in November, being the day of the week in that month in 1918, in which the great war was triumphantly concluded by an armistice, shall be a legal holiday.
And so forth. It is just a matter of words, but I think this wording is better.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the words in the clause are miuch more clear than the words read by my ,hon. friend. This year the second Monday falls on the 14th, and that is considered too late in parts of the Dominion of Canada to hold Thanksgiving Day.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would accept the
amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), and in answer to the Acting Solictor General, I beg to inform the committee that the difference in time is so trifling that it is not worth arguing over. Uuder the proposition as suggested by the Solicitor General the earliest that the holiday can be is the 6th of the month, and the latest is the 12th. Under the proposition as I have made it-and for the sake of clearness and directness I appeal to hon. members to accept it-the earliest it can occur is the 8th and the latest is the 14th. The main reason for the difference being made is that the Government will not accept the proposition from the Opposition, and I think it is an unworthy one.


John Allister Currie: I do not want to prolong the debate, but I would say the earlier the date, the better. Most sportsmen in Ontario are off hunting the first couple of weeks in November, and they want a holiday when the weather is good. Also for a holiday during which there can be any movement of troops, the earlier the date the better; so much so, that for years in view of the fall manoeuvres in Ontario, Thanksgiving was shifted on to the middle of October. I think the amendment is shifting the date too far back. I would rather have the Government date than a week later.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: My hon. friend scarcely understands my point. The difference is only two days at the most. The latest it will be held, under the Bill as introduced, is the 12th of November, and, under the amendment, the 14th; the earliest it will be held, under the Bill, is the 6th, and the earliest, under the amendment, the 8th. There is only a difference of two days in either case.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Steele in the Chair.
The Air Board-salaries, $75,000; contingencies, $25,000; Civil Aviation, $700,000; Canadian Air Force, $825,000.
Andrew Ross McMaster: Just what is this for?


Hugh Guthrie: As the committee is
aware, an Air Board was established by legislation in this country in the spring,

I think, of 1920. Last year was practically the first year of our operations, and was largely taken up with the work of organization and of getting ready. The amount expended last year was considerably in excess of the amount asked for this year, by something like $375,000. There are two branches of the Air Service, the Civil Aviation Branch, and the Canadian Air Force, which is an adjunct to the military service of Canada. The four items which appear in this Estimate fairly represent the work of the Board and the expenditure of the money. Our salary list amounts to about $75,000, and we have 106 employees.


Mr. EULER:: What is meant by "Civil Aviation?"


Hugh Guthrie: It is work in connection with civil flying, purely and simply. We are attempting to do, in fact last year we accomplished, considerable work in what might be called research or exploration. The board has established provincial boards throughout the Dominion, the presiding officer of these provincial boards being the Lieutenant Governor of the province. The provincial board meets periodically, discusses the situation in regard to its own province, and makes recommendations to the Government. Several of the provinces have agreed with the Air Board to stand half the expense of all flying operations undertaken within their territory. We have such an agreement with the province of British Columbia, with Alberta, and, I think, although I am not sure,-I could ascertain the fact readily -with the province of Ontario. The Board did a lot of valuable work last year in the province of Quebec. It surveyed all the northern part of Quebec from Lake St. John for a distance of 250 miles north, and I believe that the results obtained in two weeks, flying operations were far better than the work accomplished during five years of progress on the land. Air photographs have been taken of all that territory, showing the location of the lakes, the rivers, and the timber areas, the photographs being distinct enough to show the burnt timber and to distinguish hard wood from soft wood; in most cases also, it shows whether streams are navigable or not. These photographs were regarded as a great achievement by the Air Force, and were welcomed by the province of Quebec. In British Columbia, we do fire ranging, and some exploration work on the coast, and we are also establishing a station there in connection with timber in the railroad

belt. As the House is aware, the Dominion of Canada owns a very valuable block of timber in the heart of British Columbia. In Alberta, something is being done in the exploration of the northern territory; the work there has not been as far advanced as it has been in the province of Ontario. It is hoped that during the coming season the Air Service will be of the greatest assistance in connection with the surveys of oil lands, etc. They are making preparations now in that respect, although actual work has not yet been begun. Work is also being carried on in connection with fire ranging in the Rocky mountains. This is all a part of the work of the Civil Aviation Branch, fn addition, an air line has been mapped out across the continent, and certain landing stations have been erected. But the policy has not been to establish such stations at the expense of the Dominion; the municipalities desiring landing stations must establish them; the Board locates them and leaves it to the municipalities to decide whether they want landing stations established at these places. As the committee is aware, we received a very large number of aircraft from the British Government at the conclusion of the war. We have not been required to purchase much in the' line of aircraft equipment, although year after year our equipment will become more and more obsolete. New inventions are taking place almost monthly, and certainly quarterly. Great improvements were made last year over the year before, and I anticipate that as time goes on there will have to be an appropriation for new aircraft. The figures to-day, however, do not contemplate such an appropriation. We are practically operating now with machines given us.


William Daum Euler: How many airships are in commission in the two services, respectively, and how many men are employed?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that I can give the number of machines that we have at present; there are a large number of them not actually in operation, not having yet been fitted up for the purpose. The following machines have been erected and tested: 12 D.H. 9A's.-These are technical terms-12 S.E. 5 A's; 43 Avlo, 135 h.p.; and 6 D.H. 4. We have 105 civil employees, and we have taken over Camp Borden, which is our military air centre, and fitted it up as an aviation station. We have there an air superintendent, a superintendent of engine repair shops-


Mr. CAHILL:: What are their salaries?


Hugh Guthrie: The following is a list of these employees:
Air Foreman Mechanic	 2,040
Superintendent of Engine Repair Shops. 2,940
Air Pilot and Navigator	 2,460
Air Foreman Meeanic	 2,040
Air Foreman Mechanics (3) each.. ..	1,800
Four Air Riggers	at	1,620Nine Air Riggers	at	1,320Five Engine Fitters	at	1,620Ten Air Engine Fitters	at	1,320One Air Fabric Worker	at	1,080Two Carpenters	at	1,080One Motor Transport Driver	at	1,080One Sign Painter	at	1,080Two Clerk-Stenographers	at	960


Frank S. Cahill: Is that in the civil force?


Hugh Guthrie: That is all in the
military force.


Frank S. Cahill: Have you the civil force?


Hugh Guthrie: The civil force totals 105. In the operations branch we have 16; in the certificates branch, 6; headquarters, Canadian Air Service, 7; secretary's office, 2; technical branch, 5; equipment branch, 17; medical branch, 2; accounts branch, 27; intelligence branch, 8; records branch, 15.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the reason for the increase of 50 per cent in salaries over last year?


Hugh Guthrie: The chief increase is due to increase in staff. These salaries are fixed by the Civil Service Commission, under whom all appointments are made. In connection with the mechanics, it must be remembered that there are at Camp Borden a large number of expert men. In one or two instances we could not get any men in Canada; we had to bring them from Great Britain. These are the highest type of artisans, and as a rule they call for more than the ordinary artisan's salary. They are expert and highly trained men.
Mr. EULER [DOT] Is there any system of allocating the civil aviation force to the various provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: That is done in accordance with the demands made upon us.


William Daum Euler: By whom?


Hugh Guthrie: By the provincial associations, with the concurrence of the Provincial Governments, because, unless the Provincial Government is prepared to stand part of the expense, we do not undertake the work. We have done some work, however, wholly at the expense of the Dominion Government, in Alberta, and, I think, in

British Columbia. The provinces send in their recommendations and we allocate the work according as the staff is available, and as we have the money. The demands on us for the coming season are perhaps a little more than as represented in this vote. I have the particulars and the matter may come to the House on another vote; but I cannot speak with certainty in that regard because it is not settled.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Do the Provincial Governments contribute anything to the air force?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, for civil aviation in connection with work done for the provinces in the way of exploration, surveys, fire protection, etc. They enter into an agreement on a fifty-fifty basis.


Frank S. Cahill: 'Is it the intention to continue the civil air force? When did the Government decide to undertake the work of surveying the different provinces? Is not that work that should be done by the provinces themselves, and not by the Dominion?


Hugh Guthrie: This work is not being done for the provinces alone. There are territories of our own, belonging to Canada and not to any province, away to the North, and also in the Railway Belt, in which we operate. Work has also been performed in connection with our coast service. I suppose as time goes on the usefulness of the airship will be demonstrated. Only a few days ago we were asked to act for the Government of the Dominion in connection with customs examinations at Victoria [DOT]and Vancouver, and if the money is voted by Parliament we will certainly do so. It Is charged that there has been a good deal of smuggling of drugs, opium and the like, into Vancouver and Victoria, these drugs being dropped from incoming ships into the ocean and picked up by small vessels; and air craft can be very readily and satisfactorily used not only in the detection of such operations but also in their prevention. We have experimented in that direction and, since our airships have taken part in the work of prevention, that class of smuggling has largely ceased. Then there is work, and a great deal of work, asked of us in regard to Dominion lands by the Department of the Interior. As the House is aware these lands are largely vacant lands and in regard to them a very long programme has been prepared-at least it is now in the shape of requisitions which have not yet been finally passed upon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend says the airship will prove its worth in the years to come. I do not know if my hon. friend has reference to a special class of airships but, as a matter of fact, I thought the success of that invention was proven beyond a shadow of doubt. I happened to be in Europe a year or so ago and every evening after seven I would go from my hotel to the Place de l'Opera in order to get the London Times which came every day by airship and was delivered in Paris in a few hours. During the Versailles conference I saw that Mr. Bonar Law would not travel otherwise than by airship between London and Paris. I suppose that before long the mails will be transported by airship. Has , the experiment not been tried in the United States and was it not successful? I thought it was.


Hugh Guthrie: There is no question as to its being successful as a system of transportation but it is practically prohibitive up to the present time on account of the cost. That is the difficulty in the matter of air craft operating between London and Paris; I made inquiries last October in regard to that service. Not only do they carry newspapers and mails, but banks utilize them for the carriage of their more valuable parcels, considering it a more secure method for transporting valuable parcels containing'money, jewellery and the like, than the ordinary mail service. But notwithstanding that, the experience of the service up to the present time is that it has not been made a commercial success. Neither has it been made a commercial success by any line operating in the United States. There is a theory- so far only a theory, I believe-that the airship itself will never be a commercial success.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But the word "never" is not in your dictionary?


Hugh Guthrie: It will be a most valuable adjunct in naval and military matters and the like. But when we come down to the question of commercial success we will be thrown back on the lighter-than-air craft, not on the airship. The lighter-than-air craft, of course, carries nothing for its own support, while the airship has not only to do that but carry its gasoline for propulsion which attaches so much weight that it cannot take on very much cargo. It may be in time-that is the possibility anyway-that the, lighter-than-air craft, not on the airship. That is the hope, and that is the contention

of people who are building such air craft to-day; but I do not think that either kind of craft has yet proved to be commercially successful.


Andrew Ross McMaster: This resolution is one of the explanations why the national debt of this country Jias increased one hundred millions during last year. No doubt it is a nice thing to be able to experiment with airships, no doubt they can be put to useful purposes, but it is a question, can we afford it? I say we can't. The minister says that he has got these airships from the Old Country for nothing, but we have all heard of the tale of the young people who were setting up in life and who were ruined by having a fine parlour clock. At first they had to furnish their parlour to go with the clock, and then they had to furnish their dining room to harmonize with the parlour, and so on with the rest of the House. I suppose it is an ungracious thing to look an airship in the wing or a gift ship in the prow, but I wish to protest against this expenditure. I suppose it will be futile, the Government will pass this resolution. But I do protest most energetically on behalf of the tax-laden people -the long-suffering electors of this country-against this waste of money. Perhaps it is not an absolute waste, there will be some good obtained out of it, but we cannot afford it. The country cannot afford this experimenting with civil aviation. I noticed a few days ago, and I think the minister has just referred to it, that they had to' stop the operation of a commercial line of airships between London and Paris. Well, if two of the wealthiest nations in the world, only situated a comparatively short distance apart, cannot find enough traffic to make their airships pay then it is an act of madness-* and I speak with all respect to those identified with it,-to be going on in this way. We should not spend this amount of money. Of course, as far as the military airships are concerned I would not be opposed to some reasonable expenditure upon them, because if we are to have any military expenditure whatsoever, aviation is one of the branches which has to be maintained; but this civil aviation and this most unsound and unwholesome principle of dividing expenses with the provinces on a fifty-fifty basis, merits criticism. One of the things the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) drank in as a law student was that divided ownerships is a fruitful cause of litigation. Divided control is of the same nature, and we are having far too
much of it in this country. We are having too much of this dividing of control with the provinces on this, that and the other thing. The provinces should pay for their own fire protection and we should not contribute to it-we are sufficiently heavily laden and we should simply represent the people of the Dominion as a whole. I do not think there is any use, the House being constituted as it is, in taking up time by insisting upon a division, but I do wish to register emphatic, and I trust well-founded, protest against this vote. It should be cut in half or cut down by two-thirds at least.


William Daum Euler: Can the minister tell us, in connection with the item of $850,000 expended last year, what part was contributed by the provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that I could give more than an estimate. I would think between $35,000 and $40,000 for four provinces.


William Daum Euler: It is a very large proportion.


Hugh Guthrie: That represents the
whole cost. The work undertaken for the provinces is paid on a fifty-fifty basis, but the civil item under discussion represents far more than the work undertaken for the provinces. It represents all the work undertaken for the Dominion of Canada. I have a synopsis of the work performed, and if it is deemed to be of interest I shall give it.


Frank S. Cahill: Let us have the synopsis.
Mr. Guthrie : Speaking of the province of Quebec it says:
This operation was undertaken at the request of the province of Quebec.
It was established at Roberval, Quebec.
It was established as an experiment to show the value of air craft in forest patrol and survey and to facilitate the exploration of the forest areas north and west of Lake St.' John.
The Forestry officers of the Quebec Government have shown the keenest interest in the experiment, and their co-operation has ensured its success.
The free use of a suitable site on the shores of Lake St. John, at Roberval, was given by the courtesy of Lt.-Col. J. A. Scott, of Quebec. Buildings and a slipway were erected by the provincial Government. Two H.S. 2L. machines were flown from Halifax to the station, arriving on July 19th. Flying continued uninterruptedly until the end of October, when winter put an end to the work of the season. The work was carried out under the direction of the Provincial Department of Lands and Forests. Many reconnaissance trips were made; caches were established to allow of patrols being

pushed further afield in future; and photographic surveys were made of the main river-courses in the district.
The provincial authorities have expressed themselves as being fully satisfied with the results of the experiment and have asked for its continuance and extension next season. They are prepared to increase their expenditure on the work considerably, and wish the patrol extended to Lake Mistassini and, if possible, to the shores of James Bay. The total flying time from the station was 73 hours. No accident to personnel or machines occurred.
Operational cost to date, $17,344.34.
That is the Dominion share of the operating cost on that survey. We also have a station at Halifax:
The Naval air stations established during the war at Halifax and North Sydney by the Department of the Naval Service were transferred to the Air Board during 1920 with all aircraft, equipment and material on the stations. As the expense ot maintaining two stations on the Atlantic coast was not justified, it was decided that the base at North Sydney should be closed, and that the material there should be transferred to Halifax or other stations, where it was required for immediate use. This work was completed during the summer.
Halifax station has been maintained as an Operations Branch station for the erection and repair of seaplanes. As this station is open all the year round, it provided an' ideal location for this purpose. Air-routes suitable for water-type machines lead to all parts of eastern and central Canada. The machines required for operations as far west as Winnipeg can be flown from Halifax in the spring, and back to their base in the fall, for overhaul and repair, before ice forms in these districts. This station also provides a base for combined training with the Naval Service and the local garrison.
Constructional cost to date	?	157 90
Operational cost to date	 49,248 67
Then we have a station at Morley, Alberta :
The main purpose served by this station is the. provision of better fire protection in the Dominion Government Forest Reserve on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains, from the International Boundary north to the Yellow-head Pass. The havoc caused by forest fires has been very great, and if better control can be obtained from the air, the expense of the operations will be amply justified. The Forestry Branch of the Department of the Interior are keenly interested in the work and have given the closest co-operation.
An Aerodrome site in the Bow Valley, on the Indian Reserve at Morley was chosen as a base. A Bessoneau hangar was erected in August, and patrols were maintained throughout September and October with excellent results. DH 9A and Avro machines were used. The high speed and reserve power of the former are very valuable in that district, as strong winds are very prevalent and less powerful machines cannot make headway against them. With the co-operation of the Radiotelegraph Branch, Department of the Naval Service, a wireless service between machines on patrol and the base was established. Though the season of greatest fire hazard was over before flying commenced, many fires were reported,'and full information as to their exact location, extent and
 .	/
progress was supplied to the Forestry authorities.
The Superintendent of Dominion Parks and the Forestry Officers of the Commission of Conservation, as well as the Chief of the Forestry Branch, have expressed themselves fully satisfied with the results obtained by the introduction of the Air Patrol; they have ask that the services be extended, and that additional patrols be employed this year.
The base of this operation is being changed, this year, to High River, Alta.
Constructional cost to date	$ 1,000 00
Operational cost to date	 45,840 48
I have memoranda on all the stations, but I do not know whether they are of sufficient interest to hon. gentlemen for me to read them.


Mr. MORPHY:: What does the minister mean by "control from the air?" Is there any application of fire extinguishing elements in connection with the air service?


Hugh Guthrie: No. I know of no control except to discover and locate fires and report them. I suppose the aeroplanes could land if suitable landing places were available, but that is not the object of the survey.


William Daum Euler: I understand that of the amount expended last year only $35,000 was for provincial purposes, and was divided on a fifty-fifty basis. I should like to know what posisible reason there is why the provinces should not pay in full the moneys -expended for their own particular puprposes. I can understand why there should be co-operation with the provinces so long as we have these aeroplanes, but I do not understand why when we do discharge certain duties for them we are not repaid the whole cost.


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose the matter was in an incipient stage when it was taken up last summer and the Air Board wanted to demonstrate what it could do, while the provincial authorities - may have been a little sceptical. At any rate we thought we had established a fair bargain as the work done was in the general interest of Canada.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand this is provincial property that we are guarding.


Hugh Guthrie: Only part of it-not in the West.


Samuel William Jacobs: For instance, the province of Quebec has more money than the Federal Government has or will have for some considerable time to come, due I suppose to the fact that we have had twenty- * five years of good Liberal administration there. Why should we go to the assistance

of an authority highly solvent while we are on the brink of bankruptcy? It seems to me we are doing something which we have no right to do, and that we ought to protest vigorously against it. The province of Quebec needs assistance from no authority, and probably next year it will have a large surplus which it will be prepared to lend to the Federal Government at a fair rate of interest. I have not heard from the minister any valid reason why we should assist an authority which does not require our assistance. The property which is being preserved in this way belongs peculiarly to the province of Quebe. When the provincial authorities sell these timber limits they do not divide their profits with the Federal auhorities, and why in the name of everything that is sane and sensible we should be called upon to assist the province in any way is something that I cannot understand.


Hugh Guthrie: It may be that the matter should be reconsidered to see if we canont charge a higher proportion, if not the whole, of the cost to the provinces who request us to do the work. Quebec has gone into this work, I think, to a greater extent than any of the other provinces. It welcomed the idea, and we have gone ahead and demonstrated what civil aviation can do. As far as I know we have not done any fire ranging, only surveying and reporting on timber, water powers and the like, but the work has been pretty largely for provincial purposes-


Samuel William Jacobs: Precisely.


Hugh Guthrie: -and it might be well for us to reconsider whether we should continue the work unless the provinces pay the whole cost. However, last year we went into it on a fifty-fifty basis. We have not actually entered into any agreements this year, and that matter might be worth considering. There are provinces where all the natural resources belong to the Dominion; of course that would be a different matter.


Frank S. Cahill: Has the minister given any consideration at all to the question of cutting down this Estimate? It would seem that the heads of the branches in each department come to a decision as to how many men they can employ; they make recommendations accordingly to the minister, and the minister simply adopts them. Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) could tell us how soon we shall be in a position to
employ everybody in Canada, taxing ourselves accordingly. It seems to be the object of the Government to get to that position as soon as possible. I am sure that we could save several hundred thousand dollars on this vote without doing any harm to the people; on the contrary, a substantial reduction would result in a great deal of benefit to the people.


Hugh Guthrie: I think I can honestly say that I did use the pruning knife on this item.


Samuel William Jacobs: Use it some more.


Hugh Guthrie: The expenditure under this head will have to progress with time; if we are to keep up with all the modern inventions that come out we must prepare for a considerable increase from year to year. We did not increase it this year; as a matter of fact, we cut down the personnel and stopped seventy-five per cent of the proposed operations. The figures ran to about four millions {before the pruning knife was applied. At the present figure I think we have cut down pretty nearly to the limit, if we are to go on at all. It may be the view in some quarters that we should not go on at all. I myself think that now that we have started it would be unwise to stop at this time. We can progress for a while, anyway, and see whether some real result is not accomplished. I believe that in civil aviation the results already obtained justify the expenditure. It has been intimated to me that last autumn fires which might have cost us several millions of dollars were located through these civil air operations and promptly extinguished.


Samuel William Jacobs: Where?


Hugh Guthrie: In the West, at the mountains. It is possible that these fires might have been put out had we not had the civil aviation, but it is also possible that millions of dollars' worth of timber would have been destroyed. So that there is justification for at least part of the expenditure in actual saving to the country.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The minister intimates that the civil aviation is to be credited with certain valuable services. Now, what service does the Canadian Air Force render to the country?


Hugh Guthrie: Just the same service as our militia render to the country. You cannot maintain an army or anything approaching it, you cannot maintain a military or naval system of any kind, if you

have not an air force in connection with it. The late war demonstrated, I think, to the satisfaction of everybody, even to the ordinary lay mind, that it was absolutely impossible to operate troops without an air service. All scouting is done by the air service now. All artillery work is directed by the air service, as well as all movements of troops. If you are going to maintain any form of militia at all, you must have some air service in connection with it; otherwise your army would be very little use in time of trouble.


William Daum Euler: Does the $800,000 for the Canadian Air Force bear the usual proportion to total military expenditure?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


William Daum Euler: Is it greater or less?


Hugh Guthrie: Ours is much less.
Speaking from memory, I think the proportion of air expenditure in the United [DOT] States is 20 per cent of their total military expenditure, and in England I think the proportion is less than 20 per cent.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In this appropriation
there is an item of $825,000 for the Canadian Air Force and $700,000 for civil aviation. Is it not possible that either one of these branches might be dispensed with entirely and the training necessary in case of emergency made available through one of these two sources?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think that
would work out satisfactorily. There is one matter I omitted to mention: the Civil Aviation Branch has, of course, charge of the training of all airmen, the granting of certificates, and the prescribing of all flying conditions. That branch is already kept busy with applications of various kinds. Regulations are passed prescribing the law under which all flying is done in Canada. Just at the moment there is an anomaly in the condition between Canada and the United States. Canada, having become a member of the League of Nations, is bound by .certain general regulations applicable to all nations which became parties to the covenant. In the meantime we are providing our own regulations' and have notified the United States authorities that their machines flying over Canada must comply with our requirements, notwithstanding the fact that the United States has not become a member of the League of Nations.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: To what extent is Canada bound in this matter by her membership in the League, of Nations?


Hugh Guthrie: Canada has given her
assent as a signatory to the covenant of the League of Nations to certain general air rules applicable to all members of the league, and not applicable, of course, to the United States, which has not become a member.


Mr. DUFF:: The minister has told us
that he is maintaining an air station at or near the city of Halifax. So far as I can learn, that station is absolutely useless, either for commercial or for military purposes. There may be four or five aeroplanes or seaplanes situated there, but they are of no use to the people of Canada. I am sure that the people of Nova Scotia have no desire for an air force or for aero-pldnes either in Halifax or anywhere else on the coast of that province. I would like to ask the minister how many accidents occurred during the year 1920, fatal or otherwise.


Hugh Guthrie: I could not say with
any exactitude. I think there were about eight or nine accidents, three of them fatal, if I remember rightly. Later in the evening I can get the exact number for my hon. friend. The secretary of the Air Board is not in the city this afternoon, but he will be here to-night.


William Duff: It seems to me that this is a pretty high price to pay for an air service in peace time. If we had war, of course it would be necessary to keep our air service and we would expect to have accidents. But it is a crime to render our very best young men, those from 21 to 25 years of age, liable to be killed or dangerously injured, just for the sake of having in Canada a service which is absolutely unnecessary. I protest against it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would direct the attention of the committee to the fact that there is an item in this appropriation for contingencies, $25,000. I would ask the minister what amounts are required for the purposes of contingencies that could not be taken out of the vote for Civil Aviation or for the Canadian Air Force?


Hugh Guthrie: The appropriation last year for this was $50,000. The memorandum which I have is this. This larger amount was necessary on account of organization work which was then going on and which will be dispensed with this year. The expense incurred under this vote will not be so great this year as during the organization period, when no stock of

printed forms, etc., was available. Last year we had to do all that work. In addition we paid temporary employees, and for the present year it is not expected that there will be so many temporary employees as there were last year as the permanent staff has now been organized.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have
voted for civil aviation $700,000 and for Canadian Air Force $825,000. We are not asking for any details. These amounts cover everything in connection with those forces. Why then should we vote $25,000 for contingencies? The items which my
5 p.m. hon. friend has mentioned in regard to last year could have been spent under the general appropriation; I do not think they should be under contingencies, and unless he can show good reasons why they cannot be spent under the general appropriation either for the Canadian Air Force, or for civil aviation, I think the item for contingencies should be struck out.


Hugh Guthrie: I would have to consult with the officers of the board in regard to the matter. I presume this vote is to cover just such matters as I mentioned, printing and stationery, temporary employees, travelling, incidental expenses and the like. I cannot imagine what else the vote is for. If my hon. friend desires further information, I can get it for him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the
minister think any of the items which he has just mentioned could be met out of the vote for civil aviation or the vote for the Canadian Air Force? If he does, this vote for contingencies should be struck out.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not believe they could, because these appropriations are pared down even to a dollar. These are the details of the $825,000 item:
28-day refresher course for 190 flying
officers	$380,000
28-day refresher course for 50 ground
officers	 22,000
Three months' course for 400 mechanics	 240,000
Spares	 100,000
Seaplane training	 60,000
Provincial executives, C.A.F. Associations	 23,000
Total	$825,000
Those are right to a dollar without any room for contingencies. I have not the items for civil aviation, but I know the basis on which the appropriations were made up, and I know there is not a dollar left over unless there was a special item
for contingencies, so closely was the expenditure pared down.


William Daum Euler: By whom are the items made up?


Hugh Guthrie: By the vice-chairman
and the secretary.


William Daum Euler: Who are the members of the Air Board? What salaries are they paid? What are the expenses?


Hugh Guthrie: I am the chairman of the board. Col. O. M. Biggar, K.C., is vice-chairman.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What is his salary?


Hugh Guthrie: Col. Biggar gets no
salary. Sir Willoughby Gwatkin is inspector general of the force. Lt.-Col. Leckie is director of flying operations. Lt.-Col. Scott is controller of civil aviation, Captain Hose is director of the Naval Service. Dr. Deville is surveyor general. Captain Hose and Dr. Deville receive nothing for their services. I think the salaries are $5,000 each for the three other officers whom I named. It may be that General Gwatkin receives more than that. I can verify that in a minute or two.


Samuel William Jacobs: How is the distinction made between those who receive a salary and those who receive nothing?


Hugh Guthrie: The other members of the board like myself and Col. O. M. Biggar, Capt. Hose and Dr. Deville are in other offices of the Government and receive other compensation.


Frank S. Cahill: Are the members of the board all Canadians?


Hugh Guthrie: That depends upon
what you call a Canadian. General Gwatkin is an Englishman, long resident in Canada. Captain Hose is an Englishman, resident in Canada. The others are Canadians.
, Mr. COPP: My hon. friend said that there was an appropriation of some $23,000 for provincial organizations. How is that distributed? Are there boards in the different provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: There are nine pro-i
vincial boards, one for each province, and there is a certain amount of expense in connection with each board. This appropriation of $23,000 covers the expense of the nine boards.


Mr. COPP:: Are there any salaries in connection with these boards? .


Hugh Guthrie: There are no salaries paid for the boards. They hold periodical meetings, and they have examinations of their men and things of that kind. Our officers attend the meetings from time to time for the purpose of conference and discussion.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This would cover travelling expenses and things of that kind?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, this covers everything.


William Daum Euler: Is there any co-operation between the two branches of the service?


Hugh Guthrie: They are kept separate, but one board presides over them both. Their duties are, of course, separate. One is purely military and naval.
Mr. EULER Is a man ever transferred from one branch to another?


Hugh Guthrie: A man may be transferred, but none of the officers.


William Daum Euler: What about equipment?


Hugh Guthrie: Certain equipment is suitable for military and naval purposes and certain is not suitable for that. In matters of repairs, civil aviation machines are repaired by the military repair shops.


William Duff: Who comprise the Nova Scotia Aviation Board?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not believe I could give the names. The Lieutenant Governor is president of it.


William Duff: He is a flier all right. .


Hugh Guthrie: He is chairman of the board, reputable citizens named by the provinces themselves comprise the boards. We have nothing to do with the selection of them.


William Duff: Are they gentlemen who have any knowledge of aviation, or are they appointed on account of some other qualifications? I am speaking only for my own province, because I have some knowledge of the work that has not been done in regard to aviation in my province. It is not necessary to have this aviation board or any aviation in Nova Scotia. I should like the minister to tell the committee what work was done in Halifax last year before we are asked to pass an appropriation, a portion of which is to be spent- in Nova Scotia. As far as my knowledge goes, not one dollar of benefit resulted in 1920 from either a war or a civil standpoint. I doubt if five people in Nova Scotia can say that they ever saw an aeroplane or a hydroplane during 1920,

and before we are called upon to vote a large amount of money to maintain a station in Nova Scotia, we should be satisfied that some beneficial result has been obtained. As far as my knowledge goes, it is an absolute waste of money to have this station in Halifax.	.


Hugh Guthrie: The board is for the Maritime Provinces, not for Nova Scotia. These are the members of the board: His Honour the hon. Wm. Pugsley, Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick; His Honour McCallum Grant, Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia; His Honour M. McKinnon, Lieutenant Governor of Prince Edward Island; J. O. Hyndman; W. H. Dennis; Pilot Officer A. E. Stephenson; Flight Lieutenant R. A. Logan, C.A.F.; Flight Lieutenant J. L. M. White, D.F.C.; Flying Officer A. McGregor, D.F.C., C.A.F.; Pilot Officer H. H. Whitlock, C.A.F.; Secretary, Flying Officer H. R. Stewart, 57 Grafton Street, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
The station in Now Scotia is considered as absolutely essential for the purpose of a seaplane service. The naval service nowadays must have as an adjunct a seaplane service, and the best base for that on the eastern coast was considered to be at Halifax in Nova Scotia, and on the west in British Columbia. These are our two seaplane stations. They are kept up very inexpensively at the present time, and our hope is that they will justify the money we are spending on them.


William Duff: The minister has given us the names of the members of the Air Board for the Maritime Provinces, and I notice that some very estimable gentlemen are members of that board. The Lieutenant Governors of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are members of the board, and I think perhaps no gentlemen are held in higher esteem in the Maritime Provinces than the gentlemen who occupy these positions at the present time, but I think everybody will agree with me that these gentlemen know nothing about aviation. They are on the board, I presume, simply on account of their high official position. I presume that the other members of the board are members of the aviation corps. So far the minister has not given us any reason why this station should be continued. It no doubt is quite proper to have such a Ration in time of war, and, of course, if a station has to be established, Halifax is the logical place on the eastern seaboard, and the station in the West must be in British Columbia, but at the present time I think there is absolutely no neces-

sity to have any air board or any expenditure on either of these stations. I think that no benefit has been derived by the people of Nova Scotia from having this station at Halifax during the past year or since the war. It is quite true that during the war we had seaplanes in the province of Nova Scotia, but they were supplied to us by the American Government and were officered by American officers. They did good work. We had absolutely to depend on American officers to guard the coast of Nova Scotia during the war. I doubt whether you could find five men in Nova Scotia who knew that there was a seaplane in or near the city of Halifax in the last year or so, and I say there is absolutely no necessity for maintaining this station at the present time.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: How
many men were trained at Halifax station last year, and to what use is the station being put? I can well understand that Halifax would be an excellent base for such a station, but we would like to know what this station is useful for. Is it training men, or doing something that contributes to the defence of the country?


Hugh Guthrie: It is not a training station at the present time. All the work that is done up as far as Lake St. John, and, in fact, further west than that, is done by seaplane. All these seaplanes are assembled at Halifax and distributed from there. For instance, the ones that went to lake ' St. John came up the St. Lawrence to that place opposite Riviere du Loup. They made a landing there, and from there went on up the river a considerable distance, and then northward They have to depend upon lake and river landings. You cannot make a landing in the rough forest country at all. It is therefore absolutely necessary to utilize seaplanes. They are assembled at Halifax, and go back to Halifax at the end of the year. We have a staff of repair men there, but no training takes place at the station. The training, which is largely military training, takes place at Borden in the province of Ontario.


William Daum Euler: How many bases are there throughout the country, and what is the equipment of each?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think I can give the exact equipment. We have a seaplane station at Vancouver in British Columbia, one at Morley in Alberta, one at High River, in Alberta, and we are equipping one for both airships and seaplanes near Winnipeg, Lake Winnipeg being the landing stage for the seaplanes. Coming easterly, we have a military base at Camp Borden, and a small establishment in Ottawa at Rockcliffe. We have one in northern Quebec, but from there east we have none until we get to Nova Scotia, where we have a seaplane station.


William Daum Euler: I thought the municipalities had some.


Hugh Guthrie: Those are landing stations, not bases. Some municipalites provide landing stations entirely at their own expense.


John Howard Sinclair: Are any aircraft used in Eastern Canada in connection with forest fires?


Hugh Guthrie: They are used in British Columbia, but I do not know whether they are used for this purpose in Eastern Canada. Airships are used in the Rocky Mountain section and in Northern Alberta, but I do not know whether they are used to put out fires in Northern Quebec. If aircraft are used for this purpose they are seaplanes.


Mr. FORTIER:: In what part of Northern Quebec has the air force operated?


Hugh Guthrie: From Lake St. John 250 miles north. W'ork was done there last summer, and this year they propose to operate from another lake, the name of which I cannot remember at the moment. The member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux), will remember it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
George Green Foster: I move that
the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again this day.
Motion agreed to: progress reported.



CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. R. W. Wigmore (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue), the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Steele in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to constitute the Department of Customs, and Excise, and to amend the Customs Act and Inland Revenue Act, and to provide,-
1.	That there shall be a Department of the Government of Canada which shall be called the Department of Customs and Excise, over which the Minister of Customs and Excise shall preside; and the Minister of Customs and Excise shall be substituted for the Minister of Customs and for the Minister of Inland
[Stage Direction]
Revenue and for the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue whenever they or any of them are or is mentioned or referred to in any statute or in any regulation or order made under or in pursuance of any statute; and such other provisions shall be made as are necessary to carry out the proposed change in the constitution of the said Department, and that the Customs and Inland Revenue Act he amended in these respects.
2.	That section thirty-one of the Customs Act be amended by adding the provision that an entry shall not be perfect unless in all cases of shipments from any country other than the United Kingdom, British Colonies and British Possessions, where the value for duty of the invoiced goods in terms of the standard dollar of Canada is one hundred dollars or over, such invoice bear thereon a certificate of a Canadian Trade Commissioner, British Consul or other duly accredited officer, in the form or to the effect prescribed ^in that behalf by the Governor in Council, who may also prescribe the fee to be charged therefor.
3.	That section forty of the said Act, relating to the valuation of goods at their fair market value in the principal markets of the country whence exported, be amended by providing that such value in no case is to be lower than the wholesale price thereof at such time and place, and by the added provision that the value for duty of new or unused goods shall in no case be less than the actual cost of production of similar goods at date of shipment direct to Canada, plus a reasonable profit thereon, and the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue shall be the sole judge of what shall constitute a reasonable profit in the circumstances.
4.	That section fifty-nine of the said Act be amended toy adding thereto the provision that notwithstanding any of the provisions of the section, in computing the value for duty of the currency of an invoice, no reduction shall be allowed in excess of fifty per cent of the value of the standard or proclaimed currency of the country from whence the goods are invoiced to Canada, irrespective of the rate of exchange existi-ng between such country and Canada on date of the shipment of the goods; and in respect of goods shipped to Canada from a country where the rate of exchange is adverse to Canada^ the value for duty of the currency of the invoice sljall be computed at the rate of exchange existing between such country and Canada at the date of the shipment of the goods.
5.	That section one hundred and four of the said Act be amended to provide that entry of goods outwards by land conveyance shall be made at the Custom-house of the port of exit for Canada.
6.	That section one hundred and thirty-two of the Inland Revenue Act, relating to the recovery of penalties, be amended to provide that the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court be extended to enforce penalties up to two thousand dollars, and that every action, suit or prosecution taken under the provisions of the Act shall be inscribed on a privileged docket or roll, and heard by privilege and preference.
7.	That section one hundred and eighty of the said Act be amended to provide that the certificate^ of a provincial analyst shall be accepted as evidence of the alcoholic content of the beer or wash suitable for the manufacture of spirits.
8.	That section one hundred and eighty-one of the said Act be repealed and in lieu thereof it be enacted that every person who has been convicted of an offence against the provisions of section one hundred and eighty, relating to
[Sir George Foster.j
distilling without a license, or has been adjudged liable to the penalty therein provided for, shall in addition to any such penalty, ^ incur a penalty in double the amount of duties which should have been paid.
'i. That the said Act be amended by the insertion of the provision that on every cask or barrel used in a brewery or for keeping or delivering out any beer, there shall at all times be legibly cut, branded or painted in oil colours on one head, the name and address of the brewer; and on every bottle containing beer, there shall at all .times be securely fixed by the brewer or bottler of the said beer, a label showing in conspicuous type the name and address of the brewer or bottler of the said beer and showing also the percentage of proof spirits contained in the said beer.
10. That section three hundred and fifty-six of the said Act be amended by adding the provision that every person who sells or offers for sale any manufactured tobacco or cigars otherwise than in or from the original package bearing thereon the proper revenue stamps, whether or not the proper duty has been paid on such tobacco or cigars, shall be guilty of an offence and-be liable to a penalty of not less than ten dollars and not exceeding fifty dollars and for a second offence to a penalty of fifty dollars.- The Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Explain, please.


Mr. WIGMORE:: The Department of
Customs and Department of Inland Revenue were combined by Order in Council in 1918, under the name of the Department of Customs and Excise. The Customs Act and the Inland Revenue Act each contained sections constituting the two departments. Briefly, the proposed Act provides a uniform law constituting the combined departments and defining the minister's duties, and at the same time provides for some minor amendments to the Customs Act and the Inland Revenue Act. It is proposed to change the title from "Customs and Inland Revenue" to "Customs and Excise", and to make corresponding changes throughout the two Acts.
The proposed amendments to the Customs Act are: (a) To provide for certificates of Canadian Trade Commissioners or Consular Agents on invoices from foreign countries; (b) To provide for valuation for duty for customs purposes in certain cases; (c) To provide for valuation for customs purposes of foreign currencies in certain cases; (d), To provide for licensing of Customs house Brokers.
The proposed amendments to the Inland Revenue Act are: (a) To provide for increased jurisdiction in proceedings by summary conviction; (b) To facilitate prosecutions under section 180 respecting illicit stills; (c) To provide for marking containers of beer with name of brewer or bottler and description, of alcoholic strength of contents; (d) To

facilitate prosecutions, under section 356, relating to unlawful sale of tobacco and cigars.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would like to submit
a word or two with reference to subsection 7 of the resolution which reads as follows:
That section one hundred and eighty of the said Act be amended to provide that the certificate of a provincial analyst shall be accepted as evidence of the alcoholic contents of the beer or wash suitable for the manufacture of spirits.
Now in Western Ontario it is a very common practice amongst the farmers in various districts to use molasses diluted with water in the ordinary everyday feed of their hogs. The production of hogs in western Ontario is a very staple industry with the farmers, and a case that came to my attention last year was in substance as follows: An excise officer from Toronto went up into the county of Huron, the county adjoining that which I have the honour to represent, and in districts of that county it was a very common practice to prepare molasses with water and to sprinkle it upon the hog feed, at a certain time during the fattening period to the great benefit of the animals and the improvement of the quality of the pork. This officer went to a farmer of good reputation, who had nothing against him, and who was following the practice not only of his immediate neighbours but of the farmers generally throughout the county. The officer found ten gallons of molasses and water in the farmer's barn, ripening there for the purpose of being used to feed his hogs. Now, speaking from memory, section 180 of the Act provides that a man having in his possession beer or wash out of which spirits could be made, is, upon being brought before a magistrate, liable to be found guilty from the mere fact of having that liquid in his possession, and the minimum penalty is $200. In the case in question the magistrate intimated that he was convinced it was a hardship but he could not help himself-the Act was so drastic he had to impose a fine. Under a decision of the Supreme Court of Alberta it had been found that there was summary jurisdiction to try a case and impose a fine under section 180; but that court finally reversed its own judgment and said there was no summary jurisdiction vested in a magistrate, and that a farmer, or any one having the wash could be tried by preliminary investigation, followed by an indictment before the court. I believe that is the law.
Now, it seems to me that one of the things this country is suffering from, to a certain degree at least, is the drastic nature of legislation of this kind under which the most innocent man is at the mercy of a zealous Inland Revenue officer who

without any case other than the fact that the man has such things in his possession

will pay a visit and find the mixture of the alcoholic content. Then under this section that is now proposed, all he has to do is to get the certificate of the analyst and the man is fined, or he is indicted and prosecuted, and then subjected to both fine and imprisonment without the option of saying a word. There is no escape except by an appeal, after conviction, to the clemency of the powers that be-to bring forward the case, and probably present the evidence, and ask for a remission of the fine. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that such drastic legislation should not be acted upon without very great care, and there should be some provision in the law which would enable the man, upon trial, to show that the mixture was on his premises innocently. Furthermore, if the jurisdiction is going to be changed, the magistrate in the case should have summary jurisdiction so that he might hold that in such an instance as I have mentioned the liquid was being retained for a proper and useful purpose. Under the circumstances, and entertaining such an opinion, the magistrate would have power to say there is nothing culpable by reason of having the mixture there. This is a very serious matter and in the district in question it has put fear and trembling into the hearts of the men who have followed for a lifetime the practice I have described. The practice is so common that merchants publish advertisements in the papers declaring that the farmers may obtain molasses for the purpose mentioned. It is not a creation of modern conditions; it has been in vogue for many years. Moreover, the miller who sells chopped feeds also advertises where molasses can be found. It seems to me, therefore, that I am right in asking that before this section is passed the minister should take some steps to amend the Act so that in cases such as I have described a man will be enabled to show his innocence and to escape conviction when there is no guilty intent. I bring this matter forward in the hope that the minister will get his departmental officials to consider this suggestion in the interests of the public, who are entitled to be safeguarded against any unwarrantable prosecution.

Going back to subsection 2, I should like the minister to explain how he is going to have, we will say, a trade commissioner to attend to the business of shipments from the United States when there is no such official as a Canadian trade commissioner among those 110,000,000 people. It does say, of course, that the British consul may act. ^ Well he may; but he may be at Washington, and the man who wants to ship goods, say, at Seattle, San Francisco or some other distant port will be greatly inconvenienced. We ought to have trade agents in the United States for the purpose of facilitating trade with Canada; instead of that we have such agents in countries 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000 miles away.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: As far as that section is concerned, the objection the hon. member raised does not apply at all.


Jacques Bureau: Section 2?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Section 7 of the resolution. This is just for the purpose of defining what is meant by the term "departmental analysis." At the present time if a prosecution takes place the only analysis that the courts accept is from a departmental officer. What we want is that an analysis by a Dominion or provincial analyst or by a man in the Department of Inland Revenue shall be taken by the court as well as the "departmental analysis." I am quite familiar with the case the hon. member refers to. When the inspector visited the premises he found bottles, kegs, in fact everything except the still itself. These violations of the law are taking place throughout the country. Mr. CAHILL: In Ontario?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Yes, in Ontario sometimes. Considerable leniency was shown to that man afterwards. It was assumed that the wash was for his pigs. At the present time our officers are on the lookout for the illicit still, and perhaps in the case in question they were a little more active than they might have been.


John Howard Sinclair: What
did the Government do-collect tKe fine? Mr. WIGMORE: Yes.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: Is it or is it not legal for a person under the regu-ations in Ontario to brew beer of more than two and a half per cent strength for his own use?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I do not think the Dominion Government have anything to do with that; it is purely a provincial matter.


Peter McGibbon: There is a clause in the minister's regulations covering that, and that is why I have brought it to his attention. The regulations of the department do permit it. But how far does that conflict with the local authorities, and who has the greater jurisdiction?


Mr. BOYS:: I should like to get information on a point, although perhaps it has not a direct bearing on what is now before the committee. Referring to subsection (c) of 180 we find the following:
nveiy person who without having a license under this Act, then in force,-
(c)	imports, makes, commences to make, sells, offers for sale or delivers any still, worm rectifying or other apparatus suitable for the manufacture of wash, beer or spirits, or for the rectification of spirits, or any part of such apparatus.
Can the minister tell me whether or not a person manufacturing, innocently, part of a still is liable to prosecution under that section, and whether or not it has been the practice of the department to so read the section, even assuming that there is absolutely no guilty knowledge? The reason I ask this question is because as a matter of fact, such a case came under my own notice. I was defending, and able counsel were brought from Toronto to prosecute, and to my surprise it was argued that even assuming a man was absolutely innocent, nevertheless if he did at the request of some person-evilly disposed, if you like-manufacture merely a part, he would be liable to prosecution under that section. I am glad to say, Mr. Chairman, that I was able to persuade the magistrate that any such interpretation of the section would shock one's idea of common sense, and the prosecution was not successful. But it seems to me an appropriate time to find out whether or not such an interpretation is placed upon that section by the officers of the dfepartment, because, if so, I submit that it would be high time to consider an amendment of the section. Surely to goodness, in this country, if we have a law which enables us to get after those who are knowingly guilty, that ought to be enough. To have on our statute books sections which impose penalties on people who are absolutely innocent seems to me going altogether too far. Perhaps the minister can give me an answer.


George Green Foster: You are speaking from the Act?


William Alves Boys: From the section of the Act which is dealt with by the Bill. With re-

378S
gard to section 7 of the resolution, I take it for granted that the certificate therein referred to is to be received as prima facie and not as conclusive evidence.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No.


William Alves Boys: If it is conclusive, it seems to me it is going too far.


William Duff: What section?


William Alves Boys: The section referred to in the resolution, section 180 of the Act. That is the section I quoted from first. My last remarks have reference only to section 7 of order 36, Which is as follows:
That section ISO of the said Act be amended to provide that the certificate of a provincial analyst shall be accepted as evidence of the alcoholic content of the beer or wash suitable for the manufacture of spirits.
I take it that that is not conclusive, but merely prima facie; in other words, that, instead of bringing the man there to prove what he did and what the result of his operations was, the certificate of such an officer presented in court is receivable in evidence without anything further. If it was to he conclusive evidence, I should think it would be open to doubt, because there might be some question whether the analyst got hold of the right stuff for the purpose of analysis.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Just a word in connection with that to show the idea in my mind that it must be conclusive. The practice is for the officer to visit the place, take his sample, and destroy the rest of the contents of the barrel, which puts it entirely out of the power of the man charged to save a sample. Therefore the certificate must he conclusive, unless the public have the right to go into the provincial analyst's office and demand an independent analysis. What I complain about in section 180-I have not the Bill before me, I am only speaking from memory-is that the mere fact of having in possession a beer or wash liquid out of which spirits can be made in itself creates an offence, whether or not you are innocent of wrongdoing, and there is no escaping the penalty; there is no fine lower than $200-it runs, I think, up to $2,000. Now, the officer of whom I speak was away out from Toronto, about 150 miles west of that city. To show his avidity in the matter, I may say that as soon as he secured the conviction in this case, probably having in mind my argument that he might go into every cellar in the country and find gem jars that had once contained fruit but in which there 240
would be some of the juice remaining- liquid or wash out of which spirits could he made-this officer about two weeks later actually did go into a cellar in Toronto, found a gem jar with liquid in it, took it before the court and based a case upon it. Mr. Cohen, who sat upon the case, notwithstanding that he had no law to warrant his doing so, said to this officer: "What are you doing here? Get out of this court with a case like that".


William Alves Boys: I am afraid that I am
being sidetracked, quite unintentionally of course. If I could get an answer to my question I would like it very much indeed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the minister
answers may I ask him to read the section of the Act in question?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: It is section 180, and reads as follows:
Every person who without having a license under this Act, then in force,-
(a)	distils or rectifies any spirits, or makes or ferments any beer;-


Jacques Bureau: Including spruce beer?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: "Beer" is defined in another section.
(b)	assists in distilling or rectifying any spirits, or in making or fermenting any beer or wash in any unlicensed place; or,
(c)	imports, makes, commences to make, sells, offers for sale or delivers any still, worm, rectifying or other apparatus suitable for the manufacture of wash, beer or spirits, or for the rectification of spirits, or any part of such apparatus; or,
(d)	Completely or partially sets up or assists in setting up, prepares or partially prepares for working, any such still, worm, rectifying or other apparatus; or,
(e)	has in his possession, in any place, any such still, worm, rectifying or other apparatus, or any part of parts thereof, or any beer or wash suitable for the manufacture of spirits, without having given notice thereof as required by this Act, except in cases of duly registered chemical stills of capacity not exceeding three gallons each as hereinbefore provided for, or in whose place or upon whose premises such things are found; or,
(f)	conceals or keeps, or allows or suffers to be concealed, or kept, in any place or premises owned or controlled by him, any such still, worm, rectifying or other apparatus or part thereof, or any beer or wash suitable for the manufacture of spirits; or,
(g)	conceals by removing, or removes, or assists in concealing by removing or otherwise, any such still, worm, rectifying or other apparatus, or part thereof, or any beer or wash suitable for the manufacture of spirits;
is guilty of an indictable offence, and shall, for a first offence, be liable to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars, and not less than one hundred dollars-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is $200 now.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: It has been changed to $200.



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
*-and to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding twelve months and not less than one month, and, in default of payment of the penalty, to a further term of imprisonment not exceeding twelve months and not less than six months, and for every subsequent offence, to a penalty of five hundred dollars, and to imprisonment, with hard labour, for a term not exceeding twelve months, and not less than six months, and, in default of payment of the penalty, to a further term of imprisonment equal to that already imposed by the court for such subsequent offence.
Jacques Bureau: The word "knowingly" does not appear anywhere?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: No.


Jacques Bureau: Does the section mean that a man who may have in his possession, not knowing what it is, part of a still or part of a worm, can be fined under that provision ?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I think it means that
exactly.


William Alves Boys: Then if it means that I want to protest against it most emphatically. That seems to me to be a monstrous attitude to take. In the case that I have referred to, the man who was fined was a tinsmith. He was not asked to make the whole apparatus; if he had been he certainly would have known what he was doing. The guilty party came to him and asked merely for a certain part, a bit of piping, and the tinsmith made it. In my opinion-and I feel certain I am right as to that-he did it innocently, and it is not right that under those circumstances a man should be liable to penalty. If this law has the effect of making such a man liable to penalty even if the magistrate believes he is innocent, then I say it is not right, and I do think the minister should consider the matter. I was just wondering whether the insertion of the word "knowingly"' would be dangerous. I quite appreciate the fact that it might open the door to abuses, but I am not so sure that justice could not be done if that word were used in connection with this provision. A man charged with the offence may deny it, but if the evidence is such as to convince the magistrate that he did it knowingly, he can be fined; if the evidence is not sufficient to show that, surely he should not he fined. I am a little surprised now to hear that the department takes the view that under the set of facts which I have outlined a perfectly innocent man is liable to a very serious penalty. I do not think a law like that should stand, and I hope the minister will change it.


Peter McGibbon: I would like to protest, as I have protested time and again in this House, against this unnecessary restrictive legislation. I have been making this protest for years and I am going to continue to do it. I do not blame the minister; I blame the officials who bring this stuff into Parliament.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Blame the responsible minister.


Peter McGibbon: I say it is time we cut out this kind of legislation which restricts the rights of the people. Speaking in the House a few days ago I pointed out that under these various laws as they now stand a man does not know whether he is a law-abiding citizen or a criminal. We are loading up the statutes with provisions of these kinds, making innocent men guilty and giving them no recourse. I do not really know whether we are losing our moorings, whether we are departing from a condition of sanity or not, or whether we still have any rights left us under the old Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights and other things that our forefathers fought for. Legislation of this kind ought to be removed from the statute book at once.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: This is not new legislation; it has been on the statute book for years. The only change which is being *made is that we are taking the analysis of the provincial men as well as of the federal departmental man. As to the case mentioned by the member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys), I should think that the magistrate would deal with the merits of the case. I am not a lawyer, but I should think that if it was proved that the tinsmith was, absolutely innocent, he would not have been penalized.


William Alves Boys: What the minister said in answer to my question does not bear out what he says now; if it did I would have no complaint to make. If the attitude of the department is that a man who proves that he did this thing innocently is entitled to acquittal, then I have no objection to offer. My objection was to the interpretation put upon this section by the officer of the department who was in charge of the case, and by a very capable counsel who came from Toronto. They argued that it made no difference how innocent a man was; the mere fact of his making a part of the apparatus was sufficient to warrant conviction. That was why I asked the minister if that was the interpretation of the department, and I understood him to say

that it was. If so, I want to protest. I do not know whether at this stage I can move an amendment; I presume I could not as this is a resolution, and I presume the only time when I could move an amendment would be when the Bill is introduced. Perhaps I had better say nothing more now until the Bill is before the House because, while the word "knowingly" would be appropriate to the point that I am making, the matter should be carefully looked into. There are so many other things in the resolution that possibly the word "knowingly" used in a wholesale way would not be proper drafting. In paragraph (f) of section 180, the word "conceal" is used, and if a man conceals a thing, the word "knowingly" would be superfluous. Therefore, I would not wish to move that the word "knowingly" be inserted to apply through all these clauses. Without saying anything further now, I should like to suggest to the minister to consider the point which I have raised, and I Kvill reserve to myself the opportunity of possibly moving an amendment along this line when the Bill itself is introduced.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Just a word as regards the minimum penalty. While I would not advocate that a man should be fined under any circumstances, when he is innocent of any wrongdoing, that has happened and it will happen while the law is at present framed. The former penalty of $100 has been changed by an amendment to the Act to $200. If the minimum were brought down to say $10, in order to give a magistrate a chance, where he is bound to impose a fine, to realize the difference between innocence and guilt, the penalty would not be so severe. It is a disgrace to a man to be fined for an innocent act, his punishment is greater than the fine; but to many men the loss of this money would be a great hardship. Therefore, I would suggest that the fine be brought down to a moderate one, regard being had to the fact that magistrates are not corrupt; that they are endeavouring to carry out the law. Let them have a little opportunity of exercising their judgment as to the extent of guilt, and let them modify their judgment to the extent of imposing a smaller fine than $200 when they think a man is really innocent. On the whole, I believe the law should be so framed that a man who is undoubtedly innocent should not be at the mercy of any magistrate or court.
At Six o'clock the committee took recess
After Recess
The committee resumed at Eight o'clock.


William Duff: I should like a little information on clause 2, which provides:
That section thirty-one of the Customs Act (be amended by adding' the provision that an entry _shall not be perfect unless in all cases of shipments from any country other than the United Kingdom, British Colonies and British possessions, where the value for duty of the invoiced goods in terms of the standard dollar of Canada is one hundred dollars or over, such invoice bear thereon a certificate of a Canadian Trade Commissioner, British Consul or other duly accredited officer,
I think that provision will work a hardship on both importers and exporters. I know some places where it is impossible to get a British consul or a Canadian trade commissioner to perform this service, and even where they are available, I do not see what good it is going to do, though perhaps the minister may have some explanation that will satisfy the committee. Vessels coming from the Mediterranean, for instance, with salt call at an island named Torrevieja and at another named Iviza, at neither of which is there a British consul or Canadian trade commissioner. If a vessel laden with salt goes to these islands and then comes to a Canadian port, I presume that the cargo would not be allowed to be landed here, or that the owner or importer would get into trouble. Even where there is a British consul, he would not know the value of the goods, and his certificate would not mean that the invoice was correct. I cannot see what good it is going to do, and I believe that it will work a hardship on both importers and exporters.


George Green Foster: That is a
clause which will not be brought into effect except by proclamation, and the proclamation will not be issued until arrangements have been made to avoid any undue difficulties such as my hon. friend has suggested. I quite agree with the hon. member that if it were immediately brought into effect it would entail hardship, but we are going to avoid that in the way I have just said.
With reference to the person signing the certificate knowing or not knowing the value of the goods, there is no burden placed on the person who signs to find out what the prices of the goods are. All that the person who certifies has to do is to certify that the three copies are exact copies of the original, as to nrices, and the quantities and kinds of goods. That system

is in operation in the United States and applies to all exports from Canada, with the exception of goods less than $100 in value. The fee that the United States Government charges for this certification is a flat rate of $2.50 for the invoice certificated.
With reference to other countries, all of the South American countries, with the exception of perhaps two, have a system of certification of export invoices, on the same basis, but with varying charges. In some cases a flat charge is made, and in others a percentage charge of the value of the invoice, the minimum charges being in nearly all cases higher than those charged by the United States. Of course, when it is a percentage charge of the value of the invoice, it sometimes amounts to a pretty large figure. A large number of the European countries have a similar system, and they make it obligatory that these certificates shall accompany the invoice, and there is a charge therefor. This provision in our resolution is not to apply to any British country, either to the Old Country, or to any of the overseas dominions, colonies or dependencies. The ultimate object of it is to arrange for a system of trade representation as wide as we can possibly make it. It is not possible to put this into force with reference to the United States until we are in position to put it into force with all other foreign countries; otherwise, we would be discriminating against the United States, and we do not propose to do that. Consequently, at first we shall invoke the good services of the British consular and commercial intelligence officers in all these foreign countries for the purpose of certification, and gradually we shall work up, in the most important points, at least, to the establishment of a system of capable Canadian commissioners, who besides doing mere certification- that is only one part of it-will represent Canadian interests and try to expand Canadian trade. The matter has been engaging the attention of my department for a number of years, but was interrupted by the outbreak of the war, and has not been pursued since. The imposition of the small fee for certification of export invoices affords to the United States in so far as its whole consular service is concerned, an income under present rates which is quite sufficient to carry the whole expense of their consular service, and it is supposed, and I think rightly, that in the course of time it will be possible for Canada through the revenue that it thus obtains to put 
out well equipped and thoroughly efficient trade brigades, so to speak, in all the principal countries of the world, and to do that without the heavy outlay that we would have to meet ;f we did not charge a fee.
Some people may say that the fee itself acts as a tax on the consumer. It may be that sometimes it does, and it may be that sometimes it does not; that varies according to circumstances. It is, however, a very small fee, and where the invoices are for a. large amount the small sum of $2.50 for certification is a very, very trifling charge upon the value of the goods.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: What immediate good does the minister hope to derive from the imposition of this fee? Is it with the object ultimately of extending Canadian trade, or what is the purpose of it?


George Green Foster: I rather have missed what I started out to do, because I was flattering myself that I was explaining the purpose of it. The purpose of it, to take another tack and come up even with my hon. friend, is this: It is to enable Canada to extend into every quarter of the world where it is possible for her to do trade, the distribution of information, through trade agents, trade commissioners, and trade representatives, who will be appointed for the different places, and who will not only distribute information with reference to Canada but,-which is more important,-will gather information as to where, and of what kind, and to what extent there are trade possibilities and trade openings for Canadian products of all kinds, industrial and otherwise.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose
my right hon. friend will say that it is for that purpose that the United States exacts a similar fee against Canadian exporters to that country. I do not think that is the purpose at all. I know that in my own province there are a great many American consular agents in different localities, and as a matter of fact, they are not Americans, but Canadian citizens.


William Duff: They are all Canadian
citizens except one.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, and they represent the United States, or the American consul at Ottawa or Halifax, or elsewhere, as the case may be, where there is a resident consul. These men represent the consul when any citizen of the United States requires the assistance or promotion of tko

United States Government. These officers are not appointed for the purpose of extending trade. The United States, of course, has a special line of officers known as trade commissioners, scattered throughout the world, hut I fail to see how we could hope to extend our trade by having someone whose duty it is to add a certificate to an invoice representing an export of goods. We can never hope, for centuries, to have consular representatives resident at all the ports in the countries to which we export. I do not think my hon. friend has the right idea in mind. The purpose he states is not the purpose of other countries in having a similar arrangement.


George Green Foster: I grant that
the United States have consuls and consular trade representatives of different kinds. The two things are conjoined. I am quite certain-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.	/


George Green Foster: Yes, they are;
they are absolutely conjoined. It is impossible for the United States properly to arrange for the certification of invoices of exports from Canada unless she gives fair facilities to all parts of the country. For instance, it would not be fair for the United States or Canada to introduce and put into active operation a scheme of that kind, involving the payment of fees, unless it made it applicable to the whole country. To do that it employs two agencies; it has its own consuls general and consuls, and it has its own agents and representatives, and it is quite possible that in Canada about 50 per cent of the agents of the United States are such as my hon. friend represents. They are Canadians who live in the localities and they do this work for the United States besides representing it in other ways. But the other half of the agents of the United States are absolutely trade officers. Their function is not only to put their names to certificates in connection with invoices, but they are supposed to be on the lookout from day to day to find out what are the currents, the possibilities, and the openings of trade. It must be remembered that in every case the certificated invoice finds it way to headquarters at Washington, the information is gathered of the sources, the trend, and the quality of trade, being supplied to the commercial headquarters in the United States from every quarter of Canada. My hon. friend can see in a moment that that is very important information to have hold of. It is the kind of information which the
United States gets from both classes of its representatives, and the efficacy and possible result make that very eligible information and much to be desired.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the minister not
think that after all these benefits are very much exaggerated?


George Green Foster: Well, that is
the opinion of my hon. friend-
Mr.- MACLEAN:	I was merely asking
you.


George Green Foster: - and if it pleases him it does not displease me. Now there is a very considerable burden in bearing the expenses of trade commissioners in every part of the world in which we consider it well to have our trade represented, and the small fee that will be charged makes it possible to gather a fund which will allow Canada to increase her trade representation very, very largely and without a burden upon the finances of the country. In these days, when representation abroad is growing all the time more expensive, to pay a trade commissioner, with his staff and his necessary help, in a city in a foreign country takes a very tidy sum of money. It is possible for Canada, by this arrangement, to obtain from the revenue from certifications a sufficient sum of money to enable her to go far beyond her present representation in trade in foreign countries, and to do that without burdening her own exchequer. That, therefore, is a point to be taken into consideration.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I will not provoke
further discussion from my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), because I am of the opinion that he will never put this clause into force for many years to come, and I am willing to let it go.


George Green Foster: We will try it out. I am going to live long enough to put it into force, and I invite my hon. friend to live as long to see its operation.


William Duff: Let us hope that it will be a long time before it goes into effect.


George Green Foster: I hope my hon. friend will be here at the time.


William Duff: I cannot see how the minister can expect, from the fees he may collect, through consular agents, from exporters of goods, to pay the cost of trade commissioners in different parts of the world. The United States has, in this country, and

elsewhere, what are known as consuls and consular agents. The member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), has pointed out that the consular agents are usually Canadian citizens, just as, abroad, they are citizens of the countries in which the United States is represented. For instance, while in Ontario the consul general is an American citizen, practically every consular agent in every town in Ontario or Nova Scotia, or in any other province, is a Canadian citizen. These men are paid half the fees they collect. The minister said that the fee was $2.50. He will not mind my correcting him. It used to be $2.50, but now, owing to the high cost of living, and the American exchange against Canada, it is $2.85. The charge for certification is $2.75, and there is 10 cents added for exchange. Of that $2.85 the local agent gets one-half, and the other half he remits to the agent in the centre of the province who, in turn, remits it to Ottawa. Now in my opinion it is impossible for Canada to appoint agents in all parts of the world. That will cost this country a great deal of money. I cannot see why it is necessary to enact this legislation at the present time unless it is going into force immediately. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has just announced that he would not put it into force immediately; consequently, I cannot see the advisability of passing this clause in the resolution. As I said a few moments ago, there are certain places where there are no British consuls, or consular agents, or Canadian agents-in fact I am afraid that even the present trade commissioners which Canada maintains in certain parts of the world, or in certain foreign countries, are not doing very much good. Only a few days ago I was talking to the captain of one of the steamers in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and I asked him where he had made his last trip. He said he had been down to Buenos Aires and I then inquired if he had met the Canadian Trade Commissioner there. He replied that he had not, and that he did not know there was such a person.
I tried to find out from him if there was a Canadian agent at Buenos Aires, and he said he had been there three weeks and had never seen or heard of him. If that is the kind of trade agents the Government has appointed the quicker it recalls them the better. What I started out to say was that I do not think this is wise legislation to go into effect because it is going to be a great interference not noly with the businessmen of this country but with 
those in countries from which we import goods. At the present time, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows, the exporter from a foreign country sends to the importer three copies of an invoice which is certified to. Those three copies have to go to the customs officer as soon as the goods arrive at the seaport or the place at which the vessel or train arrives. That should be all the information which the customs authorities or the Government should require. It is quite true, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce says, that of the American consular invoices which the Canadian citizen has to get before he can export goods one copy goes to Washington, another to the person to whom the goods are sold, and the third copy remains in the hands of the American consul or consular agent. It seems to me that if three copies of the invoice come to Canada and are deposited with the customs officer in the port where the goods are entered, that information should be sufficient so far as the Canadian Government is concerned. I would strongly impress upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce that there is no necessity for the clause in question at the present time, in view of the great inconvenience that is going to result from it to both exporters from foreign countries and to Canadian importers.


George Green Foster: I want to impress upon my hon. friend who has just taken his seat that I do not think it is a wise thing for him to stand up in Parliament-I am not lecturing him at all, I am just stating how it strikes me-and throw cold1 water upon any trade commissioner, or the whole system of trade commissioners, because a friend of his tells him that he actually spent three weeks in Buenos Aires and never met a trade commissioner belonging to Canada. From that statement my hon. friend draws this conclusion: If that is the kind of trade commissioner you have abroad, you had better not send any abroad. That is not a fair position for my hon. friend to take. What was the matter with that man who spent three weeks in the little country of Buenos Aires?


William Duff: It is a big country.


George Green Foster: Where did he spend that time? One trade commissioner cannot go all over Buenos Aires in three weeks. My hon. friend states that his friend did not see a Canadian trade commissioner after being three weeks in the great country of the Argentina, but I am not going to take that as a condemnation

of my trade commissioner, particularly as we have in Buenos Aires as live a trade commissioner as we have in the whole outfit-a good man, an excellent man, one who understands the work and was there for a long while under Mr. Pousette years and years ago. AVe have kept that officer there, he is now our trade commissioner, and he is a good man. I am hound to stick up for my trade commissioners against such evidence as my hon. friend has given me. Then again my hon. friend says: "You are not going to put this system into force right away. What is the use of it unless you do put it in force right away?" Well, we have to provide for putting a thing into force before it becomes effective. My hon. friend, I believe, is somewhat of a fisherman. I imagine he does not wait until his vessel is ready to go out at the proper season before he gets his twine, and his lines, and his proper apparatus together. He makes his preparations, and we have to make our preparations. It is no slight thing to make proper preparation to put a system like this into force throughout the world. It is possible we will have it in operation inside of six months, and that is what I think I can say to this committee will be done. It takes a little time to do, but I am quite sure it will be done.
I have already communicated with the British authorities, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies has intimated his complete willingness to put me in touch with all the British consuls, consular officers, and intelligence officers throughout the world, and have them co-operate with me in this. That gives you an opportunity, without having to place Canadian commissioners in every part of the world before you can bring the system into operation; it gives you a modus operandi to facilitate your operations.
Now my hon. friend says we will not get much revenue from it. Suppose we test it by the facts? The United States last year got $496,184 in fees on the exports that were sent from Canada into the United States. Well, it is possible, I think, to make a rough calculation on that, and to come to the conclusion, without refining it very much, that we can get a good, tidy fee from this source. I am free to confess that when I first commenced looking into this question I was not very much in favour of the proposition. But the more I look into the matter, and the more the keenness of competition all over the world becomes apparent, the more I
feel that we must put forth more effort in order to help our Canadian producers, industrial and otherwise, to find markets outside for the surplus they produce. I have come to the conclusion that not only will it result in a great gain in commercial information, but it will also help us to represent Canada in a way we could not otherwise do, and to pay for it by this system of a small fee for the certification of invoices. My hon. friend took exception to the amount I stated as the fee in the United States. The fee is $2.50 in the United States. My hon. friend shakes his head and says "no," but that is exactly what it is-no more and no less. The man who pays that fee down there pays $2.50 in American money. If there is an exchange against Canada that exchange is applicable not merely to that fee but to all our trade.	.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I want to congratulate the minister upon what I conceive to be a forward step along the lines of increasing Canadian trade in foreign markets. It may be interesting to the House to know that while at present we have no trade agency in the United States, Great Britain maintains a complete corps there. At Washington there is the Commercial Counsellor to the Embassy. In addition there are consuls-general located at Boston, New York, Philadelphia. Chicago, New Orleans and San Francisco. There are also consuls and vice-consuls in those cities and at other points throughout the country. The total number of British representatives in the United States at present is 115-none from Canada. They are there largely to promote British trade. There are 49 foreign consuls in the city of New York alone, including representatives of the smaller South American republics. Argentina has a consul-general at New York and another at San Francisco; in addition she has a consul at New York and another at Norfolk, Virginia, and twenty vice-consuls at various points. Belgium has sixty consuls and commercial agents in the United States, Bolivia has thirteen, Brazil has forty, Chile has one consul-general in New York and fourteen consular officers; France with less trade than Canada, has consuls-general at San Francisco, New Orleans and New York, and also a full complement of consular officers; Norway has an excellent consular organization in the United States with a personnel of over fifty, including one consul-general at New York. Practically all these trade

representatives collect fees in the United States for viseing invoices or export manifests to their respective countries. The fees vary: Mexico and Ecuador charge 3 per cent on the invoice value; Peru, Bolivia and Guatemala, 2 per cent; France, $2.40; Japan, $4.00; Italy, $3.89; Spain, $12; Norway, $2.70.
The United States has a consular service throughout the world, including Canada, and all her consuls-general and consuls are paid by salary and are divided into classes. The only class referred to hy hon. gentlemen opposite who get their remuneration from fees, to the extent of one-half the fees they collect, are those of the minor branch of the service in Canada. Those of the major branch get salaries ranging from $12,000 a year down to $5,500-not very large salaries for the class of work they do. Their vice-consuls are divided into three classes, with remuneration ranging from $3,000 to $2,500. None of these officers are entitled to retain the fees which they collect; they are paid a straight salary. The total number of United States consular agents in Canada is 92. They are not here for nothing; they are here for the benefit of the United States upon a trade basis, and that fact alone ought to be illuminating to us in Canada, when we consider that with a population of eight or nine million here the United States thinks enough of this small market-small to-day, but which will ultimately be great-to keep here 92 consuls, vice-consuls and trade agents. It does seem very difficult to explain to the business man that that being so, we have not one agent to look after our export trade in that market of 110,000,000 people.


William Duff: Are those 92 American
citizens, or are they partly Canadian?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The majority are
American.


William Duff: How many are American
and how many are Canadian?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: All I can say in answer to the hon. gentleman, because the nationality is not given in the repository where I got my information, is that I was told by the American consul-general here that they sometimes appointed Canadian citizens in small places aside from the larger avenues of trade.


William Duff: Is it not a fact that in most of the outports the United States representatives are all Canadian citizens, those 
of American nationality being confined to the capitals of our provinces and other large centres?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I put on record in this
regard recently a statement that the full list of American consuls and agents in Canada can be found in the report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for 1920 in appendices A and B. It will be found that the United States has trade representatives from Halifax to Vancouver, mainly, of course, at points of importance. For instance, they have three or four in Montreal, in Toronto, and in Vancouver, and two or three in Halifax. What are they there for, is the point. Are they there to benefit Canada or to benefit the United States? Why, absolutely for the purpose of stimulating United States trade in Canada, to advise their home government regarding trade opportunities here, and through them their home industries.


An hon. MEMBER:: And we are paying.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Exactly, we are paying for that service here to the extent of our manufacturers and producers paying the fees on all the invoices coming before the American consuls to be vised. It seems to me that if they can make a profit in eight years of more than $869,000 over and above all their overhead expenses in a market of eight or nine million people, surely Canadian agents over there with the larger market of over 100,000,000 people would correspondingly make their offices pay, in fact make them self-supporting out of the fees paid by the American importers, to say nothing of the advantage accruing from the information they would send our manufacturers and producers of American needs for gooffs made in Canadian factories by Canadian workmen. Surely that would be a step in the right direction, and the minister ds to be congratulated on what he has done. At a time when it is going to be harder to sell goods, the more information we can get of what the American people require the more will Canadian trade expand, and I am surprised at ihon. gentlemen opposite questioning for a moment the advisibility of such a pregressive step.
I appreciate that at the inception it might not be wise, as the minister has said, to put the service upon a complete basis, but it could be tried out. Points could be selected, having regard to the productions of Canada and the requirements for those productions in the markets of the United States, at which trade agentv could be ap-

pointed. Starting first with some bright up-to-date commercial travellers, young vigorous men understanding trade conditions, a limited service of these live wires might be tried out in the United States to give us the 'best information available as to the requirements of that market of 110,000,000 people. The tariff is going up, and, as the minister has said, we have got to be more active if we are to secure our share of the American trade; and undoubtedly we have great industrial establishments that need such export trade. To my mind this is one of the brightest features we have had for a long time, and I commend the minister very strongly for the progressive step he has taken, indicating as it dees, the intention of the Government to do everything possible to stimulate and develop the sale abroad of our surplus products. Already we sell to the United States $522,000,000 worth of goods, some wholly manufactured, some partly manufactured and the balance raw material, and they send us over a billion dollars worth of goods in return. Surely with the extent of the market over there in our favour, we can greatly extend our trade if this policy is carried out when we are already doing such a considerable volume of business without having any trade representatives in the United States.


William Duff: I am sure we are all of one mind in regard to the expansion of Canadian trade, but when the hon. member for North Perth tries to argue that the fact of there being a number of American consular agents dn 'Canada, most of whom are Canadians, has any effect on Canadian trade, I 'am afraid I cannot agree with him. I venture to say that the American consular agents in this country do not increase trade from Canada to the United States $50,000 in one year. That is not there purpose at all-to try to sell Canadian goods to American customers.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is not their purpose, but the information goes there and it is taken advantage of.


William Duff: The whole argument of the hon. member for North Perth was that we should agree to this particular clause in the resolution in order that we might encourage Canadian trade. Now, I say that having these agents in the United States just as the Americans have them in Canada does not in any way encourage the sale of goods by Canada to the United States. I am heartily in accord with the idea of having Canadian trade commissioners in every foreign country, but the matter of having trade commissioners to facilitate the selling of goods is quite different from that of having agents to affix their certificate to goods coming from a foreign country. This resolution has nothing to do with the appointment of trade commissioners for the purpose of increasing trade. To my mind, its specific purpose is to inflict on exporters in foreign countries and importers in Canada something which is not at all in the interest of trade-in fact, entirely in restraint of trade. I know enough about the exporting of goods to the United States to enable me to say that the only purpose it will serve will be, as the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce says, to keep Washington in touch with the goods which are exported from the United States to Canada. I repeat that if this provision involved the appointment of trade commissioners I would be willing to argue strongly in its favour, because if this country is to go ahead and if we are to pay off our war debt we must have live representatives in foreign countries. But I am sorry to say that at present we have not got them, and while the gentleman who is in Buenos Aires may in the minister's opinion be-


George Green Foster: My hon. friend is now making another statement; he is expressing his sorrow-deep sorrow, I am sure-that we have not live trade commissioners outside Canada. Now, will my hon. friend prove the things that he states and give the instances where we have inefficient trade commissioners? I am ready ta give the evidence of ten or twelve years' experience with the actual work of these commissioners, while my hon. friend has scarcely spoken, I suppose, to a dozen of them and understands nothing at all of what they are doing every day of the year. Do not let us have these general assertions. I do not say that a statement of that kind on the part of my hon. friend is going to knock the trade of commissioner-ship system into a cocked hat, but it is not right for a member of Parliament to make that statement-because we are all equally interested in having trade representation at its best-unless he puts up the proof.


William Duff: There is no necessity for the minister to get so worked up oyer this matter. I am just as much interested as he is in the foreign trade of this country; perhaps I am more interested in it than he is.


George Green Foster: Then you must not be so thoughtless.


William Duff: It is not a matter of being thoughtless; it is a matter of knowing what I am talking about, and I am afraid the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not know what he is talking about.


George Green Foster: Give us what you know-come along.


William Duff: My experience and the
experience of business men in Nova Scotia is that there are trade commissioners in foreign countries who do not do any thing to improve trade between Canada and foreign countries, and when the minister says they do he does not know what he is talking about. If these men in South America and the West Indies were competent they would keep in close touch with the business men of this country. We had a member of Parliament get up in this House a fortnight ago and tell us of a business man, representing the Ford Motor Company of Windsor, who had travelled all over Europe for sixteen months, and who in all that time did not come in touch with one commercial traveller or one trade commissioner representing Canada.


George Green Foster: What does that prove?


William Duff: If the minister's trade commissioners are such good men, certainly this man, who represents a very large firm doing a large business, would have come across some of them in France or in other European countries. Now, the minister twitted me a few moments ago with the remark that one of my friends had referred slightingly to his agent at Buenos Aires. The minister did not even know that Buenos Aires was not a country. Buenos Aires is not a country, I want to tell the minister; it is a city, and the largest in South America. And I want to tell the minister that it was not a friend of mine who told me this, it was one of the minister's own friends, the captain of one of the minister's own steamers, part of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for which the minister and his friends voted $70,000,000, and in connection with the operation of which a false statement was given us either by the company at Toronto or somebody else. The man who gave me this information said that he was in Buenos Aires for three weeks and that he did not see the Canadian trade commissioner and never heard tell of him. So that the minister need not try to put off on me any of the sins of his own officials, or his own captains.


Jacques Bureau: The Minister of Trade and Commerce said just now that the provisions embodied in this resolution would come into force only by proclamation. There is nothing in the resolution providing for that


George Green Foster: The Bill will provide for that.


Jacques Bureau: I imagine that some of us will not be here at the time when all these agents will have been appointed in all countries of the world to furnish these certificates for the purpose of expanding the trade of Canada. My hon. friend argues that the object of having a trade commissioner affix his signature to a certificate on every invoice is to furnish information. Well, the invoice has to go through the customs in any case and that information could be obtained through the Customs Department. I do not see, therefore, the need for this provision. But the point I want to make is this: ever since this Government has been in power I have protested against the vesting of all kinds of power in the Governor in Council. This resolution provides that an entry shall not be perfect until the invoice bears a certificate "in the form or to the effect prescribed in that behalf by the Governor in Council." Well, we know what the "Governpr in Council" means; it means the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue. As to the Governor in Council prescribing the form, I have no objection. I want the minister to give me a detailed explanation as to what he is going to determine shall be the effect of this signature on the invoice by the representative of Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that the fee charged in the United States for this service was $2.50. Well, we do not know what the Order in Council will provide as to the fee we will pay. The Minister of Customs says that in the United States last year a revenue of half a million was derived from this source. I say that half a million is paid by the consumer. If this certificate would add1 anything to the validity or the genuineness of the invoice, well and good, but, as has been pointed out by the member for Lunenburg, how is the representative of Canada to know that the prices on the invoices are true and correct? He does not know; he simply puts down his signature and gets a fee of $2.50 to $3, which the consumer has to pay. On a large number of invoices in respect of goods of which the value for duty is over $100, that will amount to something. I

do not see the usefulness of a provision of this kind-unless it be that it will give the Minister of Customs or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whoever will have charge of the matter, the appointing of some men as commercial representatives to sign these invoices. As the member for Lunenburg has said, the member for Perth has shifted his ground. We are not criticising the advisability of having commercial representatives in various countries to show the advantages that may be had in trading with Canada, or the superiority of Canadian products, or what Canada can produce and supply to those countries. But from that to the point of having a man in a foreign country to affix a signature to an invoice which is sent by the man from whom the Canadian importer purchases, there is a long way to travel, and I do not see any necessity for this except, as I have said, to give the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue, through the Governor in Council, an opportunity to prescribe or determine what the effect of the signature will be. I would ask the minister to explain why the words "or to the effect prescribed" are inserted in clause 2 of the resolution.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: The form of certificate to be determined by the Governor in Council is the same form exactly as is called for to-day under section 32:
With the bill of entry of any goods, there shall be produced and delivered to and left with the collector an invoice of the goods, as provided in the last preceding section, attested by the oath of the owner, and if the owner is not the person entering such goods, then verified by the oath of the importer or consignee, or, subject to the provision hereinafter made, some other person who may lawfully make such entry and verify such invoice, in the form or to the effect of the oath or oaths prescribed by the Gorvernor in Council in that behalf.


William Duff: Why is that not sufficient?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Because it is deemed
necessary and advisable to carry out the regulations as laid down by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. This is the form that is being carried out by every other country in the world to-day; it is a check on invoices and also a means whereby we can get information as regards imports into or exports from Canada.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In what respect is this a better check or a greater safeguard than the system which prevails at present?


Jacques Bureau: The reading of that section does not answer my question. I want to know the form. The minister may provide any form he desires so long as the language is not extravagant, and I suppose it would be criticised if it were. What do the words "or to the effect prescribed" mean?


George Green Foster: Does my hon. friend understand exactly what is meant to he done? The form of the invoice which is to be certificated is an exact replica of the invoice such as is rendered now and has been rendered for all these years. It is not another paper that is made up and signed by the person who certifies it. It is a copy or three copies of the invoice itself. It is not a new creation; it bears simply the sign manual of the officer that this is an exact duplicate of the commercial invoice which is sent with the goods, just as is done now and has been done for all these years past. It does not add any force to the invoice at all because it does not change it in any way. But there is this in connection with it, that you get three copies of those forms sent in the different ways that they are sent to the different destinations, and you collect the fee for the work. That gives you the revenue necessary for extending our trade commissioners.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the Canadian importer not pay that fee?


George Green Foster: The United
States at the present time have that system at work in Canada, and the argument is made that if the United States charge a fee of $2.50 in Canada on each export invoice, the Canadian pays the fee. Now the argument is taken that if you reverse that and we put into operation on that side the same system as the United States carry out in Canada, it is still the Canadian consumer who pays the fee. There must be something wrong in that kind of reasoning.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would say that the cosumer pays in all cases.


Jacques Bureau: The minister has not
answered my question, I never doubted that there were to be triplicate invoices or said that the signature would add to or take away anything. My objection is to the words "or to the effect prescribed" in clause 2, which reads:
A certificate of a Canadian trade commissioner, British Consul or other duly accredited officer, in the form or to the effect prescribed.


George Green Foster: That means
simply this, that the accredited officer, whoever he may be, certificates the invoice in the form or to the effect prescribed by the Governor-in-Council.


Jacques Bureau: If the effect is prescribed by law, that makes it perfect.


George Green Foster: The officer cannot go beyond the original invoice. He certificates that that is a true copy of the invoice. That is all that the wording means.


Jacques Bureau: Why should the Governor-in-Council reserve to himself the right to determine or prescribe what effect this shall have? Let the law say what the certificate is to be. Drop the words "or to the effect prescribed."


George Green Foster: You must use such a form as will certify to you that this certificate is an affirmation of the original invoice. The wording may be redundant. That is the way in which it is drawn up by the law officer.


Jacques Bureau: I want to know why it is drawn up in that way.


George Green Foster: 
Mr. FIELDING:: I had the misfortune not to hear the first portion of the discussion, and it is quite possible that the point to which I am about to draw attention has already been covered; if so, my hon. friend will have to bear with me.
When I heard the speech of my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy)
I was under the impression that we were dealing with a resolution to provide for trade commissioners all over America, but I find that there is nothing of that sort in the resolution. The resolution does seem to imply that there are to be additional trade commissioners, because iti refers to the necessity of having these certificates given by the trade commissioner or the British consul. Has the point been considered how many of these new trade commissioners will be appointed for this purpose? Has my hon. friend come to any conclusion on that point?


George Green Foster: What I face is a condition of things which opens up for the future through gradual expansion, an opportunity for a very wide extension of our Irade commissionerships. /No"' the

United States has in this country some 75 or 80 of these different agents, consuls, consuls-general, and otherwise, who cover the whole of Canada, the area of which is equal to that of the United States. Going on the assumption that for us to carry out this scheme thoroughly in the United States would require about an equal number, that would mean that Canada must have in the United States, sooner or later, 60 or 70 or 80 full trade commissioners, or agents who do part of the work of the trade commissioner, but not the whole work, and who receive a part of the fees, as my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) has stated. It is impossible for us to engage such a large force at once, so we propose to utilize in the United States, taking that country, for example, the British consular service and the commercial intelligence service, and probably some agents as well, for the purpose of certification mainly, and not only as gatherers or distributors of Canadian trade information. In the gradual working out of the scheme we will come to the point ultimately where we will have Canadian trade commissioners, pure and simple, in the most important points in the United States, and we will work out with lesser officials, at less expense, the machinery necessary for this certification, which is to be general. So I cannot say how many we will have at first. It will require a good deal of care in selecting those who are to go, and it will take time to get properly qualified persons.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend knows
that once it is well understood that he is going to appoint a lot of trade commissioners in the United States, he will have no lack of applications.


George Green Foster: The applications are easy.


William Stevens Fielding: He will in all probability find that it is not so easy to resist the pressure as he imagines to-day. There is one important point in this matter which my hon. friend has not stated squarely and emphatically. This is a proposal to impose an additional duty on goods coming into this country from the United States; that is what it is. It proposes that a parcel of goods to the amount of $100 shall be taxed for a certificate. The amount of the tax is not stated; it is to be fixed by the Governor in Council; but my hon. friend, by way of illustration, has stated that in the United States the tax is $2.50 for the certificate. Assuming that he follows the practice there-and how many times these hon. gentlemen are pleading the example of the United States; it is amazing how much they are learning from the United States now, and how little they were prepared to learn a while ago-he will add $2.50 to a bill of $100. There is no question who pays all these taxes. Two-and-a-half per cent may not amount to anything, I may be told. Why, Sir, in the memory of my hon. friend, and some of those who are even'younger, a great change in the politics of this country took place on a question of two-and-a-half per cent. In 1878 the Mackenzie Government were asked to add two and a half per cent to the duties, and they refused to do it, and went out of office on a question of two-and-a-half per cent. My hon. friend without the slightest hesitation is going to add $2.50 to the duty on every $100 worth of goods comling in here from the United States. That is a direct tax on the importer.


George Green Foster: I do not think my hon. friend would make a statement that does not square with the facts. The way he stated it would give a wrong impression to the country. He says that this charge will amount to two-and-a-half- per cent upon every $100 worth of goods.


William Stevens Fielding: Upon one hundred
dollars worth of goods.


George Green Foster: That is correct. Let me say this:	If a person sends in a
present of jewellery, that is not a commercial transaction. But some of these invoices will amount to $20,000, $50,000, and $100,000. Now $2.50 on an invoice of $20,000 is only one-eightieth of 1 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: The amount would be small on a large invoice, I admit. If anything I said conveyed the impression that this was a tax of 2i per cent on every $100 worth of goods, that was not my intention, and it is not in accordance with the facts, but be the amount large or small, this is an additional tax on goods coming in from the United States. Can it be that there is some concealed desire to add a little more protection to the manufacturer in this way? It is quite possible, it seems to me. That is the effect of it,	at	all
events.	What is the cause of it?
We have been doing without this thing for ages, and how have the public been affected? Has the business of the country suffered? Has the revenue been defrauded? I cannot see what need there is for this. My hon. friend has given no reason but the one, that they have it in the United States. Once

more the plea is that we must follow the American example. That is not an argument. There may be reasons which might make it defensible from the American standpoint, but that is by no means a sufficient argument as to why we should have it here. I have not heard any other argument put forward than that this arrangement exists in the United States; therefore, it should exist in Canada. If we have been getting along without this tax for all this time without any evil having been created, and if the revenue has not been defrauded in any way, and no public interests have suffered, why on earth do you put on this tax? It is for one of two things: either it is intended as additional protection to the home manufacturer, or it is designed to create a large army of officials. Whether or not my hon. friend starts out with that intention, he will find ultimately that he will be under pressure to appoint a large army of officials in the United States to carry on this work. No man in this House is more anxious than I am to cultivate trade with the United States wherever it can be shown that benefit is derivable, and whenever my hon. friend can submit any scheme whereby we may develop business with our neighbours to the south of us, I will commend him for sending agents there, although, as I stated on a former occasion, when my hon. friend agreed with me, the proximity of Canada to the United States is a reason why we should not have any considerable number of agents across the line. My hon. friend agreed with that view, as I expressed it only a couple of weeks ago, but once he opens the door to the employment of agents he will find that pressure will be brought to bear upon him to send over a large army of such officials. I have seen no evidence to convince me that this is needed for the trade of the country, and I do not think that we should enter upon a policy which will have for its object the providing of places for a large number of officials in the United States.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: 
William Stevens Fielding: When a man ships
goods to the United States, he takes into account, in fixing the price, all the elements that go to make up the cost to him. When making up the bill of costs, he knows that he has to pay this $2.50, and he therefore charges it. Whether he puts it in one form or another, is immaterial. My hon. friend must not deceive himself; these things are paid by the consumer in the end. If anyone goes to New York and buys goods, the bill is made up with full regard to all the expenses which the merchant or manufacturer has to incur in any shape of form. He makes up his bill and includes the $2.50, and the consumer will have to foot that $2.50 in addition to the first cost of the goods. My hon. friend has given no reason for this proposal. What harm has come of the present arrangement? Has the revenue been defrauded? I have asked that question before, but my hon. friend does not answer it. I repeat:	what is the need?
My hon. friend says that the charge will not be heavy, and that the exporter will pay. Well, that is a disputable point, and I have shown that it is the consumer who pays. But waiving that for the moment, I submit that that is not sufficient reason. How is the trade going to be benefited? My hon. friend admits that no new invoice will be taken to the agent to be certificated. He will get the same invoice as the original, and he will simply put a stamp on it and charge $2.50. Well, what additional information will you get from that that will be of benefit to trade? There will be absolutely no additional information from that process, and I do not see any earthly reason for this proposal except that you will make jobs for chaps in the United States. I say once more that I do not object to sending men there when there is business to be done, but I do submit that no case has been made out in the present instance.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friend, I
am sure, does not wish to mislead anyone, but I certainly think that his remarks will have that effect. If his contention is correct, that the consumer in Canada will pay this particular duty, does not the consumer in the United States also pay the duty- my hon. friend calls it a duty or a tax- which is charged on invoices of goods shipped from Canada to the United States? Surely my hon. friend will not argue that, if the consumer in the United States does not pay the tax that is charged on invoices of goods shipped from Canada across the
line, the consumer in Canada will pay the $2.50 levied from the American exporter before he sends his goods over here.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no hesitation in saying that the American consumer in the one case, and the Canadian consumer in the other, pay the duty, as they always will have to do. You may put it on one side of the account or the other, but in matters of this kind the consumer will ultimately pay charges of this kind. In this case, I have no doubt whatever that the charge will ultimately come home to the consumer.


William Foster Cockshutt: Will it be the American or the Canadian consumer?


William Stevens Fielding: The consumer will pay in either case.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: About an hour ago, I ventured to break into the discussion to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question. I want to know in what respect the present system has failed to satisfy the requirements of the Customs Department, and in what regard the proposition put forward in this resolution will be an improvement on the system now in operation.


George Green Foster: This is not designed at all in the interests of the Customs Department. The Customs Department has had for years its system of invoicing, of inspection, and of examination, and it remains exactly the same. It is not aided in that respect by this system when it goes into effect. This method simply says to the agent on the other side, whoever he may be, that he has to certify that the invoice presented to him is such and such, and then he has to dispose of the three copies of the invoice that he certificates in the way which is stated by the law. The purpose of this is simply to have a convenient arrangement so that you can have agencies fairly reasonably well distributed, without being a burden upon the treasury of the country, where the certificates can be got and attached to the invoices and sent on to their destination. The purpose in all this is to extend the trade commissionership work in outside countries and to raise, by the simple method of the fee per invoice, the necessary funds to do it. That is what this is for and nothing else. There are incidental advantages that will ensue. In the first place, there will come with each of these certificated invoices its duplicate and it will be in the hands of the Trade

and Commerce Department here showing the origin of the goods and the peculiar train, trend and current of these different transactions. In that way valuable information will be available to the department which it may use; but the main thing is to build upon this a body of trade commissioners in these foreign countries who will do the work that trade commissioners are doing now, only do it in a much more extended and in a much more widely distributed way.
Now, as to the tax that is proposed. You have, for instance, different kinds of transactions. Here is somebody in the United States who wants to send a present up to some friend in Canada. If the value does not go beyond $100 then there is no payment at all. If it goes beyond $100, payment has to be made for the certification of the invoice. That is not a tax on trade- that is simply what a man pays for sending something that he wants to be sent to a friend. That is one form of transaction. I think we can put that to one side. The number of transactions which are in the neighbourhood of $100, or such small amounts for which invoices are to be made out and sent into Canada, is comparatively small. The invoices are for larger amounts, sometimes very large amounts. On a $20,000 invoice the fee is only one-eightieth of one per cent, and I can hardly look upon that as a tax which is burdensome upon either consumer or shipper, whoever may have to pay it, and it is so small that it certainly could not make an item in the value of the goods which are sent. So that for a trifling burden, if it be a burden at all, we get the funds necessary for widely extending our Canadian trade commission-ership system which is asked for on both sides of the House, which is asked for by the business community as well, and which, from every side within the last four or five years, I have been persuaded and counselled to put into operation. We are asked for more men to distribute information with reference to Canada, and for more men outside who will gather information with reference to trade possibilities.
Now, my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) says that only two reasons have been given for adopting this policy, and one is that the United States does it. I have not in any degree based my argument upon that. I am not doing this simply because the United States does it. I have cited the fact that most of the countries in the world do it, that it is a

system that is generally in vogue, and , therefore we are not inaugurating a system that is not already in existence. Nor have I had the least idea of inaugurating a system of this kind, in order to make offices and places. You cannot have trade commissioners outside of Canada unless you appoint them, whether it is by this system or any other system. If you want more trade commissioners you have to appoint them, and the law as it exists to-day is that they are appointed through the Civil Service Commission. They will be appointed in just the same way as they have been

as prescribed by the laws which are in force for the time being.


William Stevens Fielding: Would they be technical officers under the new Bill?


George Green Foster: We have not
received the new Bill yet.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I have listened with
very great interest to the lengthy explanation given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in answer to my inquiry, but I still fail to see the special reasons for the enactment of this new provision. If it is the intention of the Department of Trade and Commerce to extend this service, why not extend it along the lines that have already been inaugurated-that is appointing agents here and there throughout the world and paying them salaries from the public revenue? I quite agree with the claim made by the member for Shelburne and Queen's that in the last analysis the consumer will pay this charge, the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) to the contrary notwithstanding. In the case of goods purchased in Canada, exported to the United States, the commission or fee charged is paid by the purchaser on the other side. On the other hand in the case of purchases of merchandise in the United States made by a Canadian importer he would be compelled under this resolution to pay a fee of $2.50 for a certified invoice. Undoubtedly that charge will be included by the manufacturer in the cost of manufacturing his goods. Therefore the consumer in either case will have to pay that additional charge, the exchange upon it, and the duty as well. On Saturday afternoon we were discussing another item where an additional charge was 'made. This only goes to show that Government is continually adding to the cost of commodities. On Saturday the Minister of Finance caused a resolution to be passed under which each item of merchandise coming into this country will have to be

branded. Now that is going to be an expensive operation, and I repeat that in the last analysis the consumer will have to pay the cost. I defy successful contradiction of that statement. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and the member for Brantford (Mr. Coekshutt), challenged a statement made by the member for Shelburne and Queen's as to the added cost on $100 worth of merchandise. I think the position taken by them was correct to a certain extent; but the minister has claimed that by the operation of this resolution he will realize a revenue of at least $500,000. If that statement is correct there is no question in my mind but that the consumers in Canada will have to provide that money. Not only that, but in addition they will have to pay the customs duty on that $500,000 and the profits two or three times over on this amount. I claim that the system already in force whereby an importer of over a certain amount of goods must produce an invoice certified by the exporter, or by some one acting under power of attorney from him, gives to the Government of this country all the protection they require; in fact, it gives them all the protection they will have under this system, because there is no question in my mind that the trade agent it is contemplated to appoint will be nothing more or less than a rubber stamp. The exporter will pay him $2.50, and the trade agent will stamp the invoice-which is merely the excuse for collecting the fee. If the Government continues from day to day as they are doing now, the consumer will certainly realize before long why commodities are costing so much more in Canada than in other countries. If this policy proceeds very much longer, I would not be at all surprised if the people began to clamour for another committee to investigate the high cost of living, and after the responsibility is saddled unfairly on the retailers- as was done two years ago-we will no doubt have another Board of Commerce, and on its dying by the process of elimination and otherwise we will have perhaps some other combination to regulate trade. But more effective than any of these committees or boards would be some scheme whereby this Government could be induced to go to the country for a new mandate, for I am confident that the people would then put an end to all this nonsense.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: Mr. Chairman,
.	241	*
I must say that I have failed to notice that my right hon. friend the minister has met the arguments of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's. I would be very willing indeed to support my right hon. friend if I were sure that his proposal made for promotion of trade. My right hon. friend will readily believe that about me. For a number of years in this House I have not been troubling governments so much to promote trade as to persuade them not to prevent trade. That is my trouble with the governments of this country. Though my right hon. friend has persuaded himself that what he is doing is in favour of the promotion of trade, I am not at all sure but that his action will have a diametrically opposite effect. The Government does not need to promote trade. If governments would let peoples alone they would do all the trading that is necessary. It is as natural to a man to trade in a civilized country as it is for him to breathe; and we never think of helping him to breathe by putting him in tight corsets; but we do think of helping him to trade by putting obstacles in the way.
Here we have two countries with 3,000 miles of border line of an imaginary nature, and the peoples on the two sides of that line would trade freely with one another if they were left alone. They cannot be kept from doing it, because we all know, whether in the States or in Canada, people who live near the border line are all free traders by night when they can evade the tariff. We have this border line with the two peoples wishful to trade without any promotion from the Government. But the Government on one side of the line, misunderstanding the true nature of trade, said, "Now, this is an unnatural desire if it goes too far, so we will put up a barrier against those other fellows and prevent them sending stuff into our country." And the Government on the other side of the line says, "Well, we will put up a barrier on our side." So here we have the living waters of human production, which would supply the elements of trade in rich abundance on both sides of the line just as it suited the private requirements of the two peoples, and those waters ready to flow, but we have a double barrier by the efforts of the two Governments. Although each Government has a department of Trade and Commerce, presumably for the promotion of that which the whole policy of the two nations is calculated tf prevent.
REVISED EDITION;

Then my right hon. friend comes along with an imitative instinct, which I am glad my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's condemns-my right hon. friend does not admit that he is imitating the States, and I accept his disavowal; but the speech of my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy) was based almost entirely on the States example-my right hon. friend comes along and he says, "We want some men on the other side of this wall,"-fishermen so to speak-"who will cast their lines over this double wall and endeavour to scoop a little water over it." That is the proposal reduced to the bald economics ' of my right hon. friend. Of course, the States have their men here who are trying to scoop over some of this water also because each Government believes it is quite right for trade to go all one way. But if they would let that trade alone it would flow each way freely.
I have been struggling with the psychology of this matter until my brain is absolutely bewildered. I cannot understand, if the desire be to promote the flow of this water each way, why we put up a dam to prevent its natural flow. Just think of the absurdity of it. We are proposing to have men in the States to scoop this water into Canada and at. the same time my right hon. friend has a colleague who is actually persuading the people on this side-or trying to persuade them, but utterly failing-not to bring in water from the other side. Well, I leave these absurdities for the silent and peaceful rumination of my right hon. friend. He is a great thinker, and I wish he would think out an explanation of the psychology of protectionists and give it to me. He hopes to be here for some years yet, and w^ fondly hope he may prove to be correct-as to how far his interest may be in this chamber for very long is a more doubtful matter-but I do wish before we part that my right hon. friend would settle this point of the psychology of protectionists and explain it to me, because I confess I am 'bewildered about it.
As to these fees, I am thoroughly in agreement with my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's. This is represented as something that does not cost the Government anything. Well, nothing costs the Government anything. The Government is the mere agent for spending the money of the people of the country, and the point is, that while it is trying to delude itself by thinking it is getting some agents to work for it and is not paying for

it, nevertheless it is a delusion. The work will be paid for, and paid for exactly as I think has been correctly expounded by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's. I am surprised at the minister, when we have been working hard here for a good many months, some of us sticking at it day after day, bringing in this worthless proposition at this period of the session. I do not think my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's has been met for one moment in any contentions he made. This will lead to a demand for positions; it is an extension of the Civil Service which all who are studying it contend is too big already. And the most serious thing about it is not only that it costs money to the consumers on both sides of this imaginary line, but that in the end arrangements of this irritating nature only add further to the obstacles to trade that already exist as my hon. friend from Renfrew has pointed out, in too great numbers. I cannot sec what force there is in the proposal. I cer tainly would not do this because the people in the States were doing it. Nations are always doing things which with progress and enlightenment they come to desert, and if we would only learn from the experience of our fellows and desert them a little sooner, we should profit by doing so. If the desire be to bring about trade with the United States, to promote our sales to the United States, there is only one way to do it, and that is not by putting fresh obstacles in the way of trade, but by taking down some of the obstacles that already exist. I may be mistaken, but I honestly believe that my right hon. friend's proposal is not worth the paper it is printed on. It is true that my native land has consular agents for trade, but there is some sense in their having them *-they deal with all the world, in spite of assertions to the contrary, and if the people of England had the chance of summarily dealing with their present Government they would not condone any of the departures from the traditional fiscal policy of the country. Given a country which puts no artificial obstacles in the way of trade, then anything in the shape of agents to help along trade is logical, easily understood, and does not need to go far to get support. But with our present fiscal policy as it is, this proposal of my right hon. friend does not commend itself to my intelligence,, and I am surprised at the time that is being wasted over it at this stage of the session.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that as we

have jettisoned a good many things-not because there is any particular storm prevailing, but because we want to lighten the ship so as to make better time-one of the things that could very well be thrown over is this proposed legislation. I venture to say that none of the supporters of the Government came to my right hon. friend and said to him:	Now, we are getting
close to the end of the session, Sir George; do not forget that resolution and that Bill about those agents in the United States.
I venture to think that my right hon. friend was not troubled very much in that way, and that in this matter he is acting upon his own initiative. The hon. member for Brantford replied to my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's by saying that if the consumer pays everything the consumer in the United States who takes goods from Canada pays for the $2.50 on that invoice. Well, is that an answer? Is that any reason why we should have our people pay $2.50 that they need not pay? We are not looking after the consumer in the United States; we are entrusted with the duty of looking after the consumer in Canada. If the people of the United States are anxious to have the detailed statistics that d system of this kind will provide and are willing to pay for it, that is no concern of ours. It is a mistake to increase by any amount, large or small, the burden at present borne by the Canadian consumer. It is all very fine to talk about $2.50 being nothing at all. I have heard hon. members from Ontario say that the price of butter has gone down to 25 cents a pound. Well, $2.50 represents ten pounds of butter at that price, and to the ordinary man ten pounds of butter is more, perhaps, than a week's supply for his family. If sugar has gone down to ten cents' a pound, that represents 25 pounds of sugar. When we put these apparently small amounts into sugar, beef, flour and so on, they are not so insignificant. When my right hon. friend Comes to be supporting a family of nine or ten he will find that $2.50 means something. The memories of hon. gentlemen on this side are not as bad as the right hon. gentleman may think. He says to us tonight: Do not 'be alarmed about this army of officers who are to be appointed in the United States; the appointments will all be made by the Civil Service Commission. Well, ever since the Civil Service Commission was appointed we have been hearing that from the right hon. gentleihan, but a few weeks ago he had to tell us that he had appointed over the heads of the Civil 241i
Service Commission 24,000 men in connection with the taking of the census. He has been cutting it down; he now says it is not that many, but those are the figures that he gave us in the first instance.


George Green Foster: Let me tell my hon. friend, so that his argument may at least have one premise that is correct, that we are not employing that many men; we are employing about 12,000.	.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Well, the principle is the same. It is bad enough when cut in two.


George Green Foster: It is only half as bad.


William Stevens Fielding: Did not my right hon. friend himself say it was 24,000?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes; I am taking the exact figures as first announced by my right hon. friend. Now he says it is 12,000; we will stay by that figure. But that means that 12,000 officials are appointed as a matter of patronage by the department of my right hon. friend over the heads of the Civil Service Commission. So that when the right hon. gentleman tells us that we have some protection in that Civil Service Commission we have to believe that it is more fanciful than real. If it takes 12,000 men to look after the census for 9,000,000 people, it will require ten times 12,000 to attend to the trade of 110,000,000. If there is to be any kind of service at all and the necessities of this law are to be met, there will have to be someone in every town, village and hamlet in the country where business is done. Then, all these officials will have to be paid, and the money must come from somewhere. They will be Canadian officials, and they must be paid directly or indirectly by the Canadian people. I, therefore, point out to my right hon. friend that it would be well not to suppose that we on this side are so very simple as to take any comfort in his suggestion that he is not going to make those appointments because the Civil Service Commission may do that.
Just one word more. The Civil Service Act was, perhaps, loose enough before, and there were too many loopholes through which too many ministers could break whenever it suited their purpose to do so. But now that we have in process of making the "Spinney" Bill so-called, it makes this ten thousand times worse than it was before, and the "Spinney" Bill so-called is ready for the purpose of putting through anything and everything that must needs

be put through the mill to suit the purposes of the Government and to meet the demands of patronage. There was in this House at one time an hon. member who had much pleasure in using the word "synchronize" and, perhaps, this resolution synchronizes with the "Spinney" Bill so that when the one goes through the other will be ready to facilitate the appointment of this army of officials.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: May I just, for the
benefit of the committee take up the subject from the point of view of the other nations of the world as applied to their operations in Canada?


Michael Steele: I am
afraid that that can scarcely be discussed on this resolution.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: With all due deference
and respect to the Chair, I promise to keep within the lines of the item before the committee. Until I make a breach in those lines, I hope the Chairman will not check me. In Appendix B to report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the year ended March 31, 1920, published by this Government, there is given "an alphabetical list of foreign countries represented in Canada by consuls, vice-consuls, consular agents, and trade agents, according to the latest information supplied to the Department of External Affairs." it proves, I think, the point that, whatever the people of Canada may think about this service, the people of other civilized countries of the world, who are presumed to know something about trade, many of those countries having vastly larger trade than Canada, have found it beneficial to have consular agents in other countries. This information shows that the following countries have consular agents in Canada: Argentine Republic, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Mexico, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, United States. These foreign nations have at least 275 consuls or consular or trade agents in Canada. If these countries have in Canada such an extended service under the caption of trade officials of various kinds and consular agents for trade and other purposes, surely their experience should be a guide to the Canadian Parliament in the adoption of such a progressive policy as the minister contemplates in the resolution before the committee. I might point out that of

these 275 trade agents of foreign countries in Canada, 92 are from the United States. What are they in Canada for except to benefit in some way the people of the United States? I point out to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that Great Britain alone has in the United States 115 consulai or trade agents; the United States have 1,002 agents in the various countries of the world, and with the experience of these older countries before us, surely the argument is overwhelmingly one way. These countries, with a larger experience than ours have seen the benefit of having trade representatives in the various countries of the civilized world, and unless someone can show that Canada can stand to lose by adapting a similar progressive trade policy at a time when our debt is $2,10 p.m. 000,000,000 over the ordinary debt and the only way of stabilising our exchange is by exportation, on the hon. member's own theory, of goods manufactured in this country to other countries of the world, this is an opportunity to press forward progressively and to expand our trade [DOT] through the very medium which the minister has brought forward to-night.


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :: In what manner does Great Britain pay her trade agents? In the same manner as the United States or as recommended in this resolution?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Great Britain, being so anxious for trade and realizing that she gets trade through the medium of those agents, sends them out and pays them herself. She sees such advantages through these agents that she says: "Great Britain can afford to do that for the sake of trade." She is equipped for trade in a manner that Canada is not; she has been a trader from time immemorial; she knows the advantages; she puts 115 agents of that kind into the United States, and yet hon. gentlemen opposite say that we should not have one.


Levi Thomson: I admit that I am one of those who asked that these trade agents be appointed. I must say, however, that at the time that I was trying to convince my right hon. friend, I did not think I was succeeding, and I do not think yet that I succeeded. I do not think that the arguments which I and others put forward in favour of trade agents affected him at all. The arguments that our hon. friends opposite put forward by way of protection did influence him. Apparently,

the suggestion now is: Have trade agents and put on a little more protection under cover, as we got a good deal of it on the Budget debate under cover.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend's diagnosis is wrong.


Levi Thomson: I do not think for a moment that we succeeded in having any effect on the minister; but apparently the arguments of the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) and others had an effect, because it gave him an opportunity of slipping in a little extra protection under cover. I still believe that we should have trade agents. I quite agree with my hon. friend on that, but I think we' are safer in following the example of Great Britain and the United States in this matter. It is quite true that there is something a little bit unreasonable about appointing trade agents to increase our trade when we are putting up barriers to prevent trade. We must, however, remember that those barriers have been put up. I should like to speak in answer to the argument of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). These barriers are up and we have to deal with existing conditions. The existing conditions are that governments on both sides have put up barriers, but the people still want to trade. It is quite proper that we should adopt some means to overcome those barriers to the greatest possible extent. Therefore, I am in favour of trade agents to overcome to a certain extent the barriers that are placed on the border by the Government on both sides. I believe those agents would not be so much needed if we had free trade. There again I disagree with my hon. friend from Red Deer with whom I do not often disagree in trade matters. I think that the proper and sensible way is to do away with the trade barriers, but as we cannot have that, I believe that this is the next most sensible way. While it is quite true that the increase in protection does not amount to anything like 2i per cent on the average it will amount to that in some particular cases. I do not know what the average trade invoice amounts to, but assuming it to be $500 this tax will amount to half of 1 per cent, which my hon. friend is adding to the customs tariff. While I approve of the idea of having trade commissioners appointed, I cannot approve of this mode of paying them. I am therefore disposed to vote against the proposal. I believe that this scheme has been adopted for the purpose of increasing our customs tariff and for no other purpose.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The provision in the resolution before us is evidently based upon an entirely wrong assumption. It seems to have been assumed that the home market values in foreign countries had remained the same and had not been affected by the war and by depreciation in exchange rates, and that the Government should get the same amount of duty that it would have received had exchange remained normal the world over.
I also wish to quote from an editorial in to-day's Toronto Globe, covering the same point. It is so pertinent to the proposition under consideration, that I think I cannot do better than read it. The editorial is headed "Imports and Exchange" and reads in part as follows:
The National Council of Importers at once produced evidence proving conclusively that the prices of goods affected by the proposed imitation of the depreciation allowance had advanced enormously, as stated in the currency of the countries of origin, and; that "the greater the depreciation in currency the greater have been the advances in price." Tables were compiled and presented to the Senate Finance Committee showing that if even the proposed full allowance of 66 2-3 per cent for depreciation were allowed goods from Poland would pay 61 times the amount of duty now paid on the prevailing rate of exchange; from Austria, 21 times; Hungary, 17 1-3 Jugo-Slavia, 9J; Germany, 4.88 ; Czecho-Slovakia, 4.75; Rumania, 4; Serbia, 2 J ; and Italy, 1 4-10 times the present rates of duty.
In the case of Czecho-Slovakia, which constituted the most highly industrialized portion of the former Austrian Empire, an increase of almost five fold in the duties would have completely barred out the products of the Bohemian industries, that are slowly struggling to their feet. The Czecho-Slovaks are not "enemies" of the United States or Canada, and never were. They fought in the Austrian armies under compulsion, and whenever opportunity served they revolted and went over to the Allies, sometimes by battalions. When the Senate of the United States learned that the proposal to limit the allowance for currency depreciation would hit the friendly people of Bohemia just about as hard a blow as the unfriendly Germans, the proposed amendment was at once dropped and the system of computing duties at the current rate of exchange on the day of exportation will be continued, not only under the Emergency Tariff, but under the permanent measure now being drafted.
The editorial continues:
The tariff jugglers who framed the Currency Depreciation clause of the Budget may have had their eyes on only two or three lines of goods in which Central Europe competes with existing Canadian industries. To prevent importation of these limited ranges of products they have framed a clause that would bar out every article of commerce from Poland, Austria, Bohemia and Rumania, as well as from Germany. That is a case of protection gone mad. When he sees how his proposal works out Sir Henry Drayton is not likely to press it. His advisers have led him into an untenable position.

This is a clear-cut article, one that completely covers the position which I maintain, and I should like to hear a full explanation as to why this resolution is put forward to-night, and whether it is the intention of the Minister of Finance to press it to a conclusion. If enacted, it will cut out completely all merchandise coming from European countries. The citizens of this country buy many lines of goods from those countries which they cannot get at home, and I cannot see what good purpose will be served by a measure of this kind. It will have such far-reaching consequences that I am sure it cannot have been given mature consideration. It could not have been considered from all its angles or it would not have been proposed. It is quite evident that our sister country to the south of us perceived this mistake and corrected it before it was too late. I trust the Minister of Finance will reconsider his decision in the matter and eliminate this provision from the Bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: No, it is not carried.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I entirely agree with the hon. member that the question is a serious one. It is not only serious for the German, but it is also quite serious for the Canadian. I think, however, my hon. friend will agree that it is hardly wise to discuss this' matter in detail on the resolution. I venture to suggest that it can be more properly discussed in detail when the Bill is in committee, and that discussion may be, and ought to be, had without the slightest prejudice to any hon. gentleman because of the fact that the resolution is allowed to pass without detailed discussion. But there are two sides to the story; there are two sets of witnesses. We, of course, have very many of our own, and we can get exactly the same evidence which the hon. gentleman is referring to from the German importer. We do get certain evidence from independent sources. For example-and I want my hon. friend to note this, because we want to do the right thing [DOT]-the mark, worth nominally 23.8 cents, has fallen to as low as 1.6, or perhaps 1.8 cents, which, I think, was the quotation to-day. The mark is still used as the national currency of Germany, and the German workmen are paid in the mark. The average rate of pay in territories not occupied by the Allies-I should hardly say the average rate, because the figure I am about to give is higher than the average-is now 200

marks a week. We will say that a full generous rate is 200 marks a week, and that gives a return to the German labourer of $7.20. Of course, the effect of selling German products in the Canadian market is to turn them into cents, and instead of bringing the German labourer here in person in competition with the Canadian worker, the sale of his products here indirectly does exactly the same thing. The result is that you have in Canada a situation exactly similar to that which you would have if you had a certain portion of industrial employees working at the rate of $7.20 a week, while many of our own men are paid perhaps as much as that a day. I am not arguing for high wages; I merely state what I think is approximately the case, and I submit it for the consideration of my hon. friend. Then there is another thing which has been established pretty well by independent evidence, and that is that there are two prices. The German Government to-day is following the principles of the German Government in the past, and perhaps is going a little further, in connection with assisting exports, so that there'* is a lower price for exports than the prices that prevail in the home market. Now it is quite true that costs in Germany have gone up, and it is equally true that costs have also gone up in Canada, and gone up pretty considerably. I will try to get an article, if I can, for my hon. friend's information, in which a calculation was made in regard to the Sheffield trades in connection with this very matter of the depreciation of German currency, and the extra costs in Germany as compared with the extra costs in England, pointing out how very far short of the amount of depreciation was the inverse increase in costs. How is it working out here, and what is the reason for it? There is unfortunately a large amount of unemployment at present with us. I have in mind at the moment a factory which last year employed 225 persons, I do not know whether men or women. That factory is now employing only 15, and there is a reason for that: they can get no orders. Their ordinary customers have been circularized that if they are wise they will not buy, and the reason for that advice lies entirely with the question of German importations at the present time. There are two things in regard to which I am quite sure my hon. friend is just as anxious as I am. He is anxious to see that the Canadian workman gets a square deal and that the
factories are not closed; and, on the other hand, he is anxious to see that there should not be such a barrier as would work too severely against the German prices. But I would like to tell my hon. friend in connection with German prices quoted in this country that according to the information furnished me those prices have not the slightest relation to German costs. I am told that the selling prices of the German goods are fixed without regard to German cost, but that they have regard to the cost of Canadian production, and then the German manufacturers make such a cut beneath that cost of production as will prevent the Canadian producer from successfully competing. I admit it is a serious question and one which ought to be very carefully considered. My suggestion is-having given my hon. friend what he asked for, the underlying reasons for this-that, without the slightest prejudice to him or any other hon. gentleman, further discussion should be postponed until the Bill -is considered.


Frank S. Cahill: How does the minister expect Roumania to repay the advances made to it when the currency of that country would only be worth about 4 per cent in Canada to-day, and the tax in this case would probably equal 200 per cent on Roumanian goods coming into Canada? This country has loaned money to Roumania and it is now proposed to tax that country beyond any possibility of its paying in goods for the advances. The Minister of Finance knows as well as any person that we are only likely to get payment in goods from Roumania or any other country in like position-that it is a matter of the exchange of goods and not of gold these days. Yet my hon. friend insists on increasing the duty on goods from Roumania, and other countries similarly situated, to the extent of 100 or 200 per cent. When he does that there is very little chance of his getting even the interest from Roumania and other countries on the loans that have been made by Canada to them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the hon. gentleman forgets that Roumania is an agricultural country, and that we have somewhat of a surplus of agricultural products in this country at present. In Canada we have not a market for agricultural products. I quite admit it is a matter that must be thought over and worked out carefully.


Frank S. Cahill: What about Italy? The exchange is very much against Italy at the present time and it is not so much of an agricultural country. How about Greece, and the other countries that the exchange operates against in Canada at present? We are simply imposing an export tax in the case of countries which we hope to do business with that will prevent goods coming in from them; and it is not good business for Canada, or any other country, to put on a tax that will be absolutely prohibitive. It may harmonize with my hon. friend's idea of protection, but it is a case of protecting the smaller class too much and not sufficiently protecting the consumers of this country. The people who are paying the taxes and have furnished the money to enable these loans to be made want to get that money back, and the only way they can get it back is by importing goods from the debtor countries.


John Howard Sinclair: Will
the minister tell us how he arrived at the 50 per cent fixed in the resolution? Was it by an arbitrary method, or did he select that figure because of representations made by commercial bodies?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid that would occupy some time and I do not think we should go into details at this stage. We can do that when we are considering the Bill; otherwise we shall have two very long discussions when one ought to be sufficient.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The Finance Minister
may be right in his view, but there are one or two matters I would like to bring to his notice so that they will be before him when he is bringing in his Bill. He stated that the average wage of a German workman was $7.20 per week. That compared with the wage paid in this country would seem alarming, but I submit that $7.20 in Canadian money would purchase a much greater amount of commodities in Germany than it would in this country. I am told that in Poland, which adjoins Germany, the Canadian dollar is worth seven hundred marks, or in other words, that seven marks are only equivalent to one Canadian cent. A somewhat similar condition prevails in Germany. Now this provision is apparently aimed at Germany, but why penalize all Central Europe on Germany's account? There are many countries in Central Europe that were friendly to the Allies during the war, and which are therefore entitled to 
special consideration at our hands. For that reason the United States Government, after considering this very same problem decided to refrain from enacting a law of this kind. It is true, as the minister has stated, that goods are very often sold more cheaply in foreign countries than they are in the country of manufacture, but Canadian manufacturers are not immune from that same fault. Not long ago I heard a lecture by an eminent traveller in a committee room in this building. The member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) presided over that lecture and the member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) was also present. The lecturer stated that in the interest of his concern he had travelled all round the globe and I think he said the journey occupied a period of two years. He travelled in the interest of the Canada Cycle and Motor Company, and he claimed that during the entire journey he had only met one live Canadian trade agent. I mention that in passing for the benefit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce who can make inquiry from my hon. friend the chairman on the occasion in question if he has any doubt on the point. The gentleman referred to also volunteered the information, in response to a direct question, that his concern sold its products cheaper in other countries than it did in Canada, so that Canadian manufacturers are evidently in the same boat as their competitors in other countries. The chief reason for pursuing this policy, I presume, is to get foreign trade. The minister has advanced the argument that this resolution is designed to help the unemployed in Canada. Well, in my opinion, if we adopt too many schemes of this kind to help the unemployed we will create a class of artisans and workmen in Canada that will be inclined to lie down on their job instead of getting up and going to it like men and competing with the world as they have done in some cases. They have done it in the manufacture of cream separators in Canada, and they have done it in the manufacture of binder twine. The member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) is aware of that fact as he has one of those industries in his own city, and his claim is that that institution is a success because it is under capable management and that all it needs for complete success is to obtain the free importation of the raw material which it uses. That is proof of what I say, from the high priest of protection, the hon. member for Brantford. Now the Canadian workman must not be encouraged to lie down

on his job. I am afraid that all these schemes for protecting the Canadian workmen and trying to stop unemployment will fail absolutely to produce the result the minister has in mind. He says that German costs are framed with regard to Canadian costs. That is the system followed in manufacturing in all countries-the manufacturers frame their costs with the idea of competition. If it were not for competition it would be impossible to live in any country. Nevertheless if you frame the tariff along the lines suggested in this resolution you will absolutely shut out competition from Central Europe. That would be a mistake even in lines of merchandise that compete with the manufactured products in Canada. But it covers the whole gamut of manufactures, many lines that are not made in this country that Canadians must have, and if you shut them out by a tariff of this kind I am afraid that the minister will fall short of the object he has in view. He has my cordial support, and I can assure him that my action tonight is not with the idea of obstructing this measure or creating trouble for him, but rather to help him and the country generally in regard to the legislation which is passed in this House.


William Stevens Fielding: One thing is quite
apparent, that the Government not only have abandoned the promise to revise the -tariff, but are seeking ways and means whereby they can increase the tariff without frankly telling the people so. These resolutions afford evidence of it. It is quite clear that the pupose of this resolution is to increase the tariff. If my hon. friend wanted to accomplish that purpose, why did he not do it in a straight and clear way? Not many days ago in discussing our trade relations with the United States my right hon. friend said-and I thought there was a good deal of force in his argument-that by reason of the easy access between Canada and the United States and the large volume of intercommunication there was no need of trade agents being sent over there. That was the general trend of his argument, while of course he very fairly said he would give consideration to what was said on the other side. Now he comes in with a resolution to increase the difficulty of trading with the United States. It may be but small, but it is an increase in the tariff, and I am afraid we will have to reach the conclusion that that was the real aim of the resolution.
I have no desire to encourage German business, and I would think that no matter
how low the price the people of Canada do not want to buy German goods. I should think that any German trader seeking to sell his goods in this country to-day, no matter what price he wanted, would have difficulty in finding a market. But there are principles involved in this. My right hon. friend has given us quotations to show that the German mark is worth less than one-tenth of its former value, but by this resolution you are going to declare it is worth one-half its former value. Therefore you are giving a fictitious value to the goods and charging a duty on what they are not worth. Even though the German mark is worth really only about two cents, where formerly it was worth 24 cents, nearly all things are adjusted accordingly. The financial world has given its judgment of what is the real value of the German mark, and if the Government undertake to collect duty on the real value as established by the proper financial authorities no one could find any fault. Even that will make the duty very heavy. But as the hon. gentleman has said the German mark is worth really only about two cents, and he is going to value it for customs at twelve cents, his is simply adopting a roundabout way, by creating a fictitious value, of largely increasing the taxation which the people of this country are called upon to bear. I do not think it is sound policy, neither do I think it can be defended.
Will my hon. friend allow me to turn to section 3? There is a sentence there which strikes me as curious. It reads:
and by the added provision that the value for duty of new or unused goods shall in no case be less than the actual cost of production-
And so on. I do not quite understand what he means by "new or unused goods." Perhaps my hon. friend will tell me.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Shop worn goods. For instance, goods that have remained on the shelves for some time.


William Stevens Fielding: They would not be new.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: New or unused goods.


William Stevens Fielding: Goods are always new until they are used.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: It often occurs that manufacturers or wholesalers have on hand goods shop worn or out of style, and they seek an opportunity to ship them into Canada and sell them at a reduced rate.


William Stevens Fielding: By the laws of Canada they ought to be sold at their fair market value. But in this section it is provided:

that the value for duty of new or unuued goods shall in no case be less than the actual cost of production of similar goods at date of shipment direct to Canada, plus a reasonable profit thereon.
We have never had any such standard for customs purposes. What have we to do with the cost of production? We impose a duty on the fair market value of the article. If goods are old and shop worn, they have less value, and naturally the price depreciates. This is entirely a new idea. My hon. friend has no machinery whereby he can ascertain the cost of production. It is another attempt to boost the tariff without letting the people of Canada know what you are doing.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: As we all know, there is a surplus amount of goods in the United States, and manufacturers and wholesalers there are very anxious to dispose of them. They establish in the port of export a value by making a few sales here and there in order, as they suppose, to keep within the dumping law. There are scores of manufacturers and wholesale firms that have on their shelves goods that are shop worn and out of style, and they ship them in here at very much reduced rates, which is not fair to the Canadian producer and wholesaler. The idea is to establish what we consider a fair price for the cost of manufacture of these goods at the time of shipment into Canada, and thus prevent dumping. It is possible for us to establish that cost. This department has its own officers and can establish the cost of manufacture by sending them to various points in the United States to investigate and report.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think my hon. friend now has or ever was intended to have any machinery to inquire into the cost of production. He has machinery to ascertain the fair market value. When my hon. friend says that American, manufacturers or wholesalers have sought to establish a market value by an occasional sale here and there, his officials will tell him that that is a distinct evasion of the law, and unless the sales are bona fide and the real market value is established the dumping law will come into operation. There is abundant machinery to-day to give reasonable protection-if you call it protection-to ascertain the market value. If goods are old and shop worn they are not worth the cost of production, for they have suffered deterioration from various causes. But although goods are old and shop worn, and therefore of inferior value, and con-
[Mr. Fielding.1
sequently would have to be sold anywhere at a very low price, the hon. minister is going to have an inquiry as to the cost of production-goods perhaps made in war time-and is going to insist upon that false value and make the Canadian consumer pay duty thereon.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: The hon. member for Queen's and Sunbury-


William Stevens Fielding: Sunbury is coming
soon.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I know a favourable report will come from Sunbury.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps so.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: These shop worn goods should not come in in competition with our own Canadian goods. As a matter of fact, we have the machinery there, it has been working in the past, and we have received information from our officers in the United States in reference to the cost of manufacture. We take what the cost of manufacture would be at the time of export from the United States.


Arthur Bliss Copp: How are you going to find it out?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: We have our officers there.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentlemai
says these goods should not come in. Why: Because they are cheap. That is the whole story. The goods might be sold to the unhappy Canadian consumer at a lower price.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: It is just the same with German goods.


William Stevens Fielding: That is another question. The minister says he is going to impose a still greater duty. I have already discussed that question and do not want to go over it again. But here we have shop worn goods, which whether sold at home or abroad have to be sold at a reduced price. They have not the value they formerly had, but the minister is going to create a false value and make the Canadian consumer pay on it.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry) :: In order to arrive at some opinion as to how this clause is going to work out, will the minister take one or two articles with which we are all familiar and tell us how he is going to arrive at the actual cost of production? There is a duty on butter coming into this country of about four cents a pound; the same applies to cheese and other

articles. How is the minister going to arrive at the actual cost of production of goods of that nature?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I was not talking about products of the field; I was referring simply to manufactured articles.


John Wilfred Kennedy: Does this clause not apply to all dutiable articles? Besides, is not butter a manufactured article?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly
butter is a manufactured article, and of course it would apply to butter. I am willing to confess that this discussion has one item of novelty to me, and that is the use of the word "shop-worn." I have no doubt it has something to do with the technical working out of the Customs Act. I could not very well discuss that aspect of the issue. But let us see, now: was it intended that the principle of the dumping clauses should function?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, certainly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The dumping clauses were put in to serve a useful purpose-to prevent a sudden change in selling price to the wholesaler or to the manufacturer here of protected goods brought in at a lower rate than they could be fairly sold for in the foreign market-that, is than they could ordinarily be produced for, plus something on top of the ordinary.


William Stevens Fielding: Not necessarily.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well I do not think my hon. friend will argue that you can for very long continue to sell goods at less than the cost of production. The goods will not continue to be produced very long if there is not a little something over that cost in the shape of profit.


Mr. DAVIS:: Is that the minister's contention with regard to German goods?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, I do not quite catch that point; I think it is rather an inverse question that the hon. gentleman is asking. I am discussing for the moment the improper invasion of the Canadian market and the protection to that market which the dumping clause introduced by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's was intended to afford. In normal times that dumping provision served its purpose and served it well. But trade in the United States to-day is no more normal than trade is in Canada. In some parts of that country it is even more abnormal than it is in Canada, and the
result is that from time to time certain stocks are liquidated, and liquidated to some extent in the local market. Three, four, five or six local sales are made, sometimes, as we believe, for the purpose of establishing a local market value which really does not exist. So that in that way the dumping clause of my hon. friend can be evaded. I wonder if it is not a good thing that it should continue to be enforced.
I just want to give my hon. friend an illustration. Three samples of goods were produced before me not long ago in connection with the question of the use of Canadian or English material on the one hand and American material on the other. The goods were ladies' dress wear, and I do not think any hon. gentleman could distinguish a difference between them. The price of one sample was $2.65; the price of another, $2.50 and the price of the third, $1.50-and the third sample was American. A quantity of that material was brought into this country. The manufacturer, of course, wanted to get a repeat order shortly afterwards but he could not buy a yard of it; that $1.50 was well below the American cost of production. It was a clean-out sale, and what good did it do here? There was not a cent taken off the ordinary price of the clothing when it was sold to the public, and you could hardly expect that there would be, because the sale of the material was an adventitious sale; it did not represent real value and could only be supported by one or two, perhaps three or four, temporary sales made in a limited area and for a specific purpose. The sending over here from the American market of a large amount of that material was no benefit to the Canadian public; on the other hand, Canadian factories and Canadian workingmen lost work. That is the sort of thing that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's wanted to stop, and he did stop it. But as I have said, these are not normal times, and the purpose of the resolution, as I understand it, is to provide that the value for duty purposes of such new or unused goods, goods which are not second-hand, shall be thus tested.


Fred Langdon Davis: I think that the Chairman will be amused when I point out to him the fact that he has been the chairman of a committee on the fuel question which has been endeavouring to ascertain the cost of the production of coal and other fuels in Canada. The committee has been thus engaged for some weeks, and we are

quietly told by the minister now that he has the machinery by which he can determine, in relation to goods which are in a more advanced state of manufacture than coal, the cost of production in the United States.


Mr. DENIS:: And in foreign countries.


Fred Langdon Davis: And tell that in foreign countries. We wanted to get the cost in the United States of this coal that we have been inquiring about, and it is certainly very negligent on the part of that committee that it did not call those officials of the Customs Department to give it that information. That is a simple matter compared with what you are attempting at this time. The other day I stepped into one of the largest stores in Ottawa, and I happened to run across an old acquaintance who is now in charge of purchasing in that store. He showed me piece of goods after piece of goods which were selling a short time ago at from $7 to $11 a yard. They are selling the same goods to-day for $3, $3.50 and $4 a yard, and he told me that they were making more money on them now than they did when they were selling them at from $7 to $11 per yard. That just illustrates the condition of trade with which you are endeavouring to deal at the present time. Values are going down, are changing, because of the change in the cost of raw materials, and I think, Mr. Minister of Customs, you will have to have a very much more extensive staff than you have yet persuaded this side of the House, at least, that you have the command of, to keep in touch with that and not to work unjustly to the genuine importer of such goods.
While I am on my feet, I want also to comment on the next clause which has to do with this 50 per cent on exchange. I have just secured the latest quotations with regard to Italian exchange. At par it should be 19.3 cents for the lira. It is now 6.24 cents. Therefore, you would put a value of 9.6 or 9.7 cents on goods that have cost 6.24 cents; you will rate your customs upon the higher value, and the consequence is that, with a 20 per cent customs tariff, you have a 75 to 80 per cent duty. In the present state of trade, when there is a possibility that we shall not be able to sell to the United States in the measure that we have sold to that country in the past, due to their unfriendly, if I may so call it, customs, we want to find other markets, and if we find markets to sell in, 
we have to take goods back. One of those prospective markets is Italy. Our trade in the past with that country may not have been very great, but this measure is distinctly designed to kill that trade. We cannot take goods from them; they cannot afford to sell us goods on which we have to pay a duty of 75 or 80 per cent, and that is what this means. When I spoke on this question the other day, I was somewhat concerned as regards France and Belgium whom I felt we should not turn our sword against at this time. With the German indemnity, their exchange is up around 9.77 cents, which is just 11 p.m. over the half way mark, so that they will probably not be touched, because I think, with the continuance of the payment of that indemnity, their condition will be improved, and they will be out of reach of this most unfriendly measure. But with regard to Italy and other European countries, to which, it will be understood, we must look for increasing markets for our produce, you are going to make it impossible for them to exchange goods with us.


William Stevens Fielding: I regret the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) has formed quite a misconception as to the purpose of the dumping duty. He is labouring under the delusion that the dumping duty was designed to prevent the people of Canada from getting cheap goods. It was not designed to do anything of the sort. Those who brought about the dumping duty were perfectly willing that the people of Canada should get cheap goods, provided that that cheapness was the cheapness of the market generally. What was the condition that the dumping duty was intended to meet? There are notable cases which arise in my mind now where an American manufacturer, having a large quantity of goods which he desired to sell, was prepared to sell in Canada at a lower price than he sold at home. Our complaint was not that he sold the goods cheaply. As long as he charged the Canadian buyer the same price as he charged his home buyer, there was no dumping. But when he created a fictitious price, where he charged one dollar in the United States and offered to sell the same goods for 75 or 80 cents in Canada, we felt that that was not a legitimate transaction, and it was to meet that sort of thing that the dumping clause was designed. As long as there is created for the Canadian market a price which is not the real price at home, the dumping clause comes in.

It provides an ample duty; the machinery is in the hands of the Minister of Customs, and there is no need of anything more. When my hon. friend repeated the argument that special sales are made to establish a price, I say, without a moment's hesitation, that the Customs Department is not bound to accept and it will not accept those sales. In the earlier days of the dumping duty, there were some difficulties. It was described by an eminent English statesman as a piece of freak legislation. As time went on and the efficient officials of the department got a good grasp of the question, the thing worked out quite well. The only thing to be determined is: Is this a fair price as quoted in the home market? The design was not to prevent the people of Canada from getting cheap goods. If an article is made cheap on account of a surplus in the market, or by changing conditions, or if raw material is cheaper, or if one of the hundred and one things that enter into the cost of production is cheapened and the article is thus made cheaper, and it is as cheap in Canada as in the United States, there is no reason in the world why we should impose any barriers to keep it out. The real purpose of this proposed legislation is to create a fictitious price in order that you may increase the duty, which many people think is high enough already, but which, in some instances, would be made double what it would otherwise be.


Mr. LALOR:: I think the impression that we had in Canada of the dumping clause was that it was to prevent Americans from shipping goods in here under the price at which those goods were sold in the United States. When the dumping clause was in force under the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), I know from experience in general as regards machinery, canning machinery, for instance, which is expensive and which we use a great quantity of, the price, when the machinery came to the border, has been raised under our Canadian dumping clause from $600 to $1,000, and we have had to pay duty on that for any number of machines running into quite a large amount of money. That was what the dumping clause did for us. I think we all agree as regards the purpose of it, and I do not see much difference between that and the present legislation. We must not forget what the Americans did as regards, us. I have had experience in regard to shipping goods into the United States, and they have all this machinery for which the minister
is now trying to provide. It is said by speakers on the other side that it is impossible to carry out this legislation, to get at the values and to assess the duty. The people of the United States are doing it; they have no difficulty at all in doing it; they assess the value, and they hold up the goods until they get the value.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the
hon. member mean "value" or "cost of production"?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I mean value.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is different.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: They get at the value and the cost of production. I have in my possession a letter from a firm in Canada which has 50 cases of a certain line of goods lying at Black Rock. They are trying to get them into New York, having sold them there. These goods have been held at that point for nearly three months. The United States authorities have given no reason at all why they should not go through. The goods are properly valued, but they raise every objection and every obstacle they possibly can. Let me give an instance. A year or perhaps two years ago a branch factory that we have in the United States wanted to get something that we had in Canada, which we had imported from England and which they could not get at that time in the United States. They asked us to send over a certain quantity and we sent a thousand pounds of these goods to our own factory in Buffalo. The United States sent an appraiser from Washington to examine our books and go over our invoices in our home town at Dunnville. The officers reported that everything was fair and square, and they did not see why there should be any difficulty at all, but in th: face of that report those goods were held in Buffalo, and we were fined $1,200 for undervaluation. There was no undervaluation at all. We had bought the goods in England, and we added to them the freight and took advantage of the exchange for profit. I even referred the matter to Ottawa to see if they could not investigate this awful imposition of a fine of $1,200, but they reported that it was according to the American law and that there was no use talking about it. You have to show a profit of 10 per cent on your goodi or you cannot pass them. That is the way they treat us. Surely we are not going to treat them as generously as some hon. gentlemen would have us do. The values are raised and everything is done to prevent you shipping to the United States.


William Stevens Fielding: It is not a question of how we should treat the American shipper but of how we should treat the Canadian consumer. We are not concerned if the American Government acts foolishly. It is not for us to follow their example. Their method may he good or it may be bad, but if that is the result of the determination of the American people to do business in this way the scheme we have been discussing on this resolution of sending over there a lot of trade agents to sell our goods would be a waste of money. But we are not concerned about the American people. We are concerned about the people of Canada who are going to pay this tax and who are going to be made to pay an extortionate duty which is not boldly mentioned in the tariff but is brought about in this round about way.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: In reply to my hon.
friend from Glengarry and Stormont (Mr. Kennedy) there is no question of valuing the cost of production of butter or cheese; it is so much per pound, not on the cost of production at all.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I propose to demonstrate
that this clause by which no reduction shall be allowed in excess of 50 per cent of the value of the standard or proclaimed currency of the country from whence the goods are invoiced to Canada will have the effect in some cases of raising the duty 500 per cent.
I take the Weekly Bulletin of April 25, 1921, published by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I find that on April 20 -this is not quite up to date, but there is no difference between the quotation of th^t day and the quotation of to-day-the German mark, which has a parity value of 19.8 cents had a value of 1.72 cents; that the Italian lira which has a parity value of 19.3 cents, had on that date a value of 5.45 cents, and that the Roumanian lei, which has a parity value of 19.3 cents, the same as the franc and the lira, had on that day the value of 1.81 cents.
Now, to prove my assertion, I will take the actual value of the German mark and the actual value of the Roumanian lei, which are about the same. Suppose that certain goods were bought in Roumania and sent to Canada, and that they had a valuation of 100 lei in Roumanian money. In Canadian money these goods would have a value of $1.81. If the duty on these goods was 25 per cent, it would amount to 45 cents. Now, if we take into consideration the fact that in order to give currency one-

half its nominal value we have to multiply it by five, it means that we have to take five lei at the present time to be equal to a lei in ordinary times. Therefore, if I multiply this duty of 45 cents on 100 lei of merchandise by five, the duty that will be paid on these goods will be $2.25, or five times more than the duty that would be charged if the actual cost of these goods was taken into account; in other words, a duty of 500 per cent more than the ordinary duty. The effect of this provision will be to close entirely this market to Germany, to Roumania, and to Italy, unless double the duty is paid on Italian goods. As was stated quite correctly a few moments ago by an hon. gentleman on this side of the House, France will not be barred from this market, because the French franc is about half its parity value now. But the other countries which I have just mentioned, which are in a position to sell goods cheaply to the Canadian consumer, will be debarred from doing so- by the duty which is absolutely prohibitive.
I find in this scheme an indirect, or perhaps a direct, way of raising the duties on goods. When the' tariff duties were discussed and drafted, we took into account the fact that the goods were to be valued, not according to the standard of Canadian money, but according to the price at the place where they were bought. By this stratagem in the resolution before us we are simply raising the customs duties all the way from 100 to 500 per cent. Therefore, the consumer will have to pay as high as 500 per cent more duty on goods coming from the countries I have just mentioned than he would have to pay if this proposal was not accepted.
I think I have said enough to demonstrate that this is simply a method of raising the duty on goods coming from certain countries, the duties on these goods, of course, having to be paid by the Canadian consumer. We are altogether losing sight of the fact that the poor people of this country are still laburing under the burden of the high cost of living. The only way at present of reducing the cost of living is to admit such goods as I have mentioned, but by raising the customs duties some 500 per cent, by the method that has been explained, these goods will certainly be kept out of Canada, and the Canadian consumer will not be able to obtain his requirements at reasonable price?


Frank S. Cahill: The member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), asked a question

to which I also should like to have an answer, and that is as to how the Govk ernment arrived at 50 per cent as a fair basis to start on. I am entirely opposed to the principle of this section, and I want some explanation as to how this 50 per cent has been arrived at.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: This is a matter of
exchange which the Minister of Finance can better deal with.


Frank S. Cahill: Where is the Minister of
Finance?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: He is on the other side at present.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Perhaps the Minister
of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), will oblige us with an explanation.


George Green Foster: Let something
stand for discussion when the Bill is under consideration.


Frank S. Cahill: I am opposed to the principle of the resolution, and if we allow the resolution to pass, we adopt the principle.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In arriving
at these figures one can only approximate. There are many different statements as to how costs have gone up in Germany. It is stated that owing to the low standard of living of the German worker to-day, the cost of production has not very materially increased there. The hon. member is conversant with the details of the steel business. German pig iron can be produced and put on the export market at 500 marks a ton, and that shows a very slight increase in the actual cost of manufacturing. The hon. member will also realize that the relation between increased cost on the one hand and depreciation of currency on the other is a material question, and we should also bear in mind what has happened to our own currency. The arguments which hon. gentlemen opposite have made in connection with the loss of buying power of the Canadian dollar have also to be considered. If those arguments are at all right, it is hardly fair that the German mark should be taken at the lowest possible standard and the Canadian dollar held up to practically its pre-war basis. It is therefore difficult to arrive at anything like a scientific basis, and I think we should probably discuss the question to better advantage when we are in committee on the Bill, when we should be able to see what modifications or extensions ought to be made. It may be that something should be done in connection with other considerations not yet fully
covered, as for instance, the question in regard to Czecho-Slovakia already mentioned.


Frank S. Cahill: Is it not the intention of the Government practically to prohibit importations from certain countries? That is undoubtedly what the minister has in mind. Well, why penalize other countries? Personally I would not penalize Germany any more than Greece, Roumania, Belgium, France or England. We. went through the process of adopting and signing the treaty, and were told that we were at peace with the Central Powers, and if it is the intention now to penalize them to the extent of prohibiting their goods, we had better de-clare'that we are still at war. If this does not mean that we intend to penalize these people, then it must be our intention to penalize the Canadian people. If the Canadian cannot buy his goods where he wants to and pay the duty on them, you are merely adding to the cost which the consumer has to pay; or you are attempting to prohibit importations entirely. Let us understand just what is the intention.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: 
Arthur Bliss Copp: I understood from the Minister of Customs (Mr. Wigmore), when he introduced the resolution, that it had virtually been in effect since 1918 through Order in Council.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: What I said had no
reference to this resolution; I referred to the amalgamation of the two departments.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It seems to me that my hon. friend would have made much more rapid progress with his resolution if he had given to the committee the information that was given by hon. gentlemen on the other side. I was very much impressed with the arguments made by my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy), my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Boys), and my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon), in regard

to certain matters on this resolution. What I contend is that the Minister of Customs and Excise has not given a sufficient and proper answer to the arguments adduced by hon. gentlemen opposite who took up time this afternoon, as they had a perfect right to do, in bringing these matters to his attention. For example, in answer to the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy), who is not now in his seat, as to what occurred by reason of the operation of the present law and the necessity for its amendment so as to provide relief in cases of hardship-a matter which arose in connection with section 7-the minister replied that his officers had been. overefficient.


William Alves Boys: He said over-officious, not over-efficient.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I accept the correction. But if the minister said his officials were overofficious I would take that to be a criticism of them. On account of that over-offieious-ness the minister said the department had shown leniency in regard to the special case brought to his attention. One would naturally suppose from that statement that the fine imposed had been remitted by the department, but when the question was put to him by my hon. friend from Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair) as to whether the fine had been collected he said it had been. Now if such defects as these are shown in the operation of the law, now is the time to correct them and not wait until we have approved of the principle of the resolution. If we do make the amendments now, we will be told when the Bill founded upon the resolution is introduced " Oh this is only carrying out the resolution as it passed the committee." Then my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Boys) raised the question as to what this resolution really means. Now it seems to me that the minister seeing that he has his officials around him, and had time, during the recess from six to eight o'clock, to confer with them, ought to be able to tell the committee what the resolution really does mean and what its affect will be in the carrying on of business throughout the country. No person wants to interfere in any way with the passage of this resolution, or of the Bill to be founded upon it, if the legislation proposed is really in the interests of the country. But he is very reticent in the explanations he has been giving not only to hon. gentlemen on this side but to hon. members around him as well-in fact most of the criticisms of the department, and

of the resolution my hon. friend is moving, came from hon. gentlemen opposite in the early part of the discussion this afternoon. It ought to be easily possible to give full information touching the first clause of the resolution which has been in operation I understand for upwards of two years. Besides suggesting to my hon. friend that he should make some general statement in regard to the meaning and affect of the other clauses of the resolution, I would ask him to explain how the changes made by Order in Council in 1918 have worked out. Has there been a saving to the country by the amalgamation of the Department of Customs and Inland Revenue which are henceforth to be known as the Department of Customs and Excise? I would like him to explain how the amalgamation has worked out in particular localities, whether it has been found to be an advantage or a disadvantage. For example in the city of St. John has the amalgamation of the two departments resulted in a saving or has it involved additional expenditure? Then I would like to know what the affect has been in other parts of the province of New Brunswick, how it has operated throughout the country generally? It seems to me the committee would, like to have a frank and open statement from the minister in regard to all these matters. It he had done that earlier in the discussion we might have got along very much more rapidly than we have been doing but we have been obliged to draw out explanations in regard to every little item in every clause-practically as regards every sentence almost in each clause.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I thought I had already given considerable information to the committee. Clause 7 of the resolution provides:
That section one hundred and eighty of the said Act be amended to provide that the certificate of a provincial analyst shall be accepted as evidence Off the alcoholic content of the beer or wash suitable for the manufacture of spirits.
Out of that arose the discussion of section 180 of the Act dealing with stills, and so forth, which I read to the committee this afternoon. What is now proposed does not change the section in question. It merely contemplates the appointment of an analyst. Formerly an analysis could only be made by the officers of our department. What we now want to do is to have that analysis made by a provincial officer or an officer of the Health Department. This section has been on the Statute Book for thirty-five years and that is the

only change that is now proposed to be made with respect to it.
As far as the amalgamation of the two departments is concerned it has been operating satisfactorily for the last year, the Civil Service Commission, under the guidance of the Re-organization Committee suggesting certain changes in each department in Ottawa and in the Outside Service as well. Certain recommendations have been made by this committee on re-organization and to some extent those recommendations have been carried out. My hon. friend from Westmoreland has spoken of the affect of the amalgamation in the city of St. John. Well, certain reductions in the staff have been made there, and greater reductions will be made in the future, but the work is being performed under the reduced staff resulting from amalgamation as efficiently as it was carried on by the former larger staff. Now as to other cities. In Montreal the Customs Department was established in a building in one section of the city, and the Inland Revenue Department in another building in another section of the city. The two departments have been brought together in the one building, and certain reductions of the staff have taken place there. The same applies to Toronto. From reports that we have received not only from our officers but from outside, it is apparent that the work is being carried on to the greater satisfaction of the public generally. We will effect quite a saving by the amalgamation. It is a pleasure for me to accommodate hon. gentlemen, and if I can furnish any further information I shall be happy to do so.


Mr. ARCH AMB  AULT@: What is the policy of the Government when the two departments are amalgamated? Does the Civil Service Commission make the change? A case was brought to my attention at St. Hyacinthe, where , Dr. A. P. Cartier had been the collector of inland revenue for seven years, and M. Handihan, collector of customs. Dr. Cartier was the younger man, had always given good service, and was perfectly fitted for the position, but now by this change he loses his position. What is the policy of the Government regarding these matters?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: All these changes are made on the recommendation of the reorganization committee to a sub-committee of council. In that particular case the collector of customs was also made collector of inland revenue, and it was therefore
necessary to dispense with the services of the other man.


Mr. ARCH AMB  AULT@: Who are the
parties forming the reorganization committee?


Michael Steele: This discussion might be proper when the Estimates of Civil Government in connection with the Department of Customs and Inland Revenue are before the committee, but on this resolution it is quite out of order.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: I would like to bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but the minister has just given the policy of the Government regarding the amalgamation of the two departments, and he invited members to put questions. I am sorry to understand that the chairman of the committee and the minister differ.


Michael Steele: Order. The Chairman has given his ruling, which is not debatable. Apart from that, the fact that the minister invited questions, does not make the discussion in order.
Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Joseph Archambault: Will the minister tell us the personnel of the reorganization committee that he has spoken of?


Michael Steele: I hope it is not necessary for me to repeat my ruling.


Joseph Archambault: I respect your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but the minister has just spoken about the reorganization committee. I submit that it is perfectly in order to ask him who are the parties forming that reorganization committee. It is a very simple question that it might be in the interests of the people to answer.


George Green Foster: Mr. Chairman, we shall have items before the committee on which that question will come up and be thoroughly discussed. Would it not be well for my hon. friend to leave this extraneous matter until then?


Joseph Archambault: Two words will satisfy me.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: He might be away when the question comes up.


George Green Foster: Oh, no, he is going to stay here.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. W. WIGMORE (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 211 respecting the Department of Customs and Excise.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. A. Calder (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) Bill No. 139 to amend the Immigration Act was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Steele in the Chair.
On section 1-non-immigrant classes:
Mr. CALDER:: I would suggest that we consider this section clause by clause. I know some members-not present to-night -are interested in certain clauses of this Bill and wish to make representations in regard to them, and I think, even if the clauses are passed, it might be on the understanding that any hon. gentlemen who desire to raise any question in regard to them shall have the privilege of doing so later. With regard to the first proposed amendment, I may say that under the law two classes of persons are defined, immigrants and non-immigrants. Immigrants must go through a certain procedure which is not required of nonimmigrants. Among the non-immigrant classes there are included the following: members of dramatic, artistic, athletic or spectacular organizations entering Canada temporarily for the purpose of giving public performances or exhibitions of an entertaining or instructive nature, and actors, artists, lecturers, priests and ministers of religion, authors, lawyers, physicians, professors of colleges and commercial travellers entering Canada for the temporary exercise of their respective callings. During the last two or three years the international trade unions have made representations that their accredited representatives who are required to come to Canada from time to time should be included in the description of non-immigrant classes, and there is no reason why they should not be so enumerated in this section. As to the second proposed amendment, under the law as it now stands there must be an officer at a place before it can be designated as a port of entry. It is proposed that a port of entry shall be any place so designated by the minister. The change is a very simple one, purely for administrative purposes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many ports of entry are there now?


James Alexander Calder: I should say seventy, probably eighty.


Georges Parent: Is it the intention to add to this number?


James Alexander Calder: No. It may be found necessary to designate a place temporarily as a port of entry. It is not for the purpose of increasing the number of the ports of entry.


Georges Parent: Has the Government
any control over a person who enters this country from Europe and shortly after reaching Canada goes to the United States?


James Alexander Calder: No, we cannot prevent that. The third amendment is to paragraph (q) of section 2. The term "enter Canada" is applied throughout the law to non-immigrants and "land in Canada" to immigrants. A number of amendments are included in the Bill, some for the purpose of including the terms "enter" and "or land in," which happened to have been left out when the consolidation took place some two years ago. Here it is proposed to insert in paragraph (q) the words "or land in" in order to cover the two classes. The fourth amendment merely inserts the words "passengers or other persons" in the definition of "immigrant station." The law as it stands refers only to immigrants.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Might I suggest to my hon. friend that he give instructions to certain immigration officials who are a little too fussy? We had a very striking example the other day when a distinguished visitor to Canada and his wife were subjected to very severe treatment on the part of the immigration officers.


James Alexander Calder: I am having some difficulty along that line more or less all the time. I am sure the hon. gentleman can understand that these officers are very anxious to carry out the law. Sometimes', though, they may use bad judgment and, in the exercise of their discretion, not do just the right thing. Whenever any matter of that kind comes to my attention I always communicate with them with the object of having the law sanely and reasonably administered, as it should be.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend knows to what I refer?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Sectjon agreed to.

On section 2-Board of Inquiry:
Georges Parent: What are the powers of the board of inquiry contemplated in this section?


James Alexander Calder: They have power to prevent the entry or landing of either an immigrant or a non-immigrant.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Subject to appeal?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-hearing of cases:
James Alexander Calder: Previously this referred to "such" board. Now, you may have two or three boards at any one port. Therefore, we are inserting the word "a" in place of the word "such", so as to cover all boards that may be carried.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-costs of appeal to be paid by unsuccessful appellant.
James Alexander Calder: Under the law as it now stands, if a person is rejected by a board of inquiry, that person is required to make a deposit of $20 for himself, and if he has any dependants with him, $10 for each dependant, in order to pay for the cost of his maintenance during such time as the appeal is pending. We propose that, in addition to his paying for the cost of his maintenance, we should include the costs or expenses of the appeal. Supposing a person comes from some Eu-12 m. ropean country; he lands at Quebec; our officers there decide that he should be rejected because he does not comply with the law. Immediately he and his friends get busy and they want action taken very quickly. This means a great deal of telegraphing and telephoning, and the aggregate cost of this to the department amounts to a very large sum. It is desirable on the other hand that there should be quick action from the standpoint both of the department and of the party concerned. Our officers think it is only fair in those cases where it has been decided to hold up an intending immigrant, that the immigrant himself, if he has been rejected by a board of inquiry, should pay the cost of telegraphic and telephonic communication. To the individual the cost may not mean very much, but during the year the cost to the country runs into thousands of dollars. The purpose of this amendment is simply to require that an immigrant who
242i
has been rejected and who appeals should pay the cost of those communications.


Mr. WHITE:: What happens if the man is of very limited means and is not able to pay?


James Alexander Calder: If he has not the money, I presume we would have to pay for this.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend speaks of large costs. I cannot see how the cost should be so very large. Of course, during the time which elapse between the appeal and the decision of the department, the man has to pay for his maintenance. Let us say that in immigrant lands at Quebec to-day; he is rejected, and he has to remain, say eight days in Quebec before taking the boat or having a decision on the appeal lodged with the department. What is the average cost for maintenance?


James Alexander Calder: The cost of his actual maintenance would be comparatively small. In the contract which we have just let at Quebec for catering, the successful caterer has agreed to give three meals for 75 Gents.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are there costs for the forms to be filled in?


James Alexander Calder: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Only the long distance telephoning and telegraphing.


James Alexander Calder: That is all. Supposing a man comes from Great Britain and some questions are raised as to his right of entry into Canada. Very frequently we have to cable two or three times before we get the required information. Sometimes, half a dozen communications will be sent out to some place in British Columbia in order to get quickly exact information as to a man's right to be in Canada. The cost of all this to the individual may be comparatively small, but I can assure the-committee that it runs into many thousands of dollars for the department-


Georges Parent: Supposing the immigrant does not speak either English or French. Will he have to pay the cost of an interpreter?


James Alexander Calder: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-powers of board exercised by officer in charge:
James Alexander Calder: The law, as it now stands reads that where there is no board of inquiry at a port of entry or at a neighbouring port to which a person detained .under this Act could conveniently be, con-

veyed or to which a case for decision could be conveniently referred, then the officer in charge shall exercise the power. We are cutting out that portion of the clause that relates to a board of inquiry at some other place nearby. It has landed the department in all sorts of trouble, and under that clause as it stood, we have lost one or two cases under habeas corpus proceedings.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8

bill of health.
James Alexander Calder: Clause 8 provides that the form of the bill of health shall be approved by the minister. The present law does not state how that form of the bill of health is arranged for.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-medical examination:
James Alexander Calder: Under the law as it
stands, this clause reads: "medical officers appointed under this Act." They are not appointed under this Act now; they are appointed under the Department of Health Act, and, therefore, the words "appointed under this Act" are struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-landing of passengers:
James Alexander Calder: There are no radical
changes. The first amendment is that section 33, subsection 1, is struck out and a new clause substituted. The only change in that is as follows: The law as it stood stated that:
Every passenger or other person seeking to enter or land in Canada shall first appear before an Immigration officer-
That is changed to read:
-shall first appear and make application to an immigration officer at a port of entry-
The words "at a port of entry" are inserted. He shall make application at a port of entry. That is the spirit of the whole law:
-for permission to enter or land in Canada-
We put in both expression again.
-and shall be detained for examination-
As the section reads now:
He shall be forthwith examined as required under this Act.
Then the clause goes on:

which shall be conducted forthwith on shipboard or on train, or at some other place designated for that purpose.

This is simply to make the present lav, a little clearer.
The second amendment is an addition to subsection 2, and it is a rather important one. It provides a penalty for answering questions falsely. We have officers, say at Niagara or Windsor or Quebec or Halifax, and these immigrants are coming in and they are required to answer questions. They are coming in from the United States on the train in the second or third class car, and our officer goes through and asks certain questions. Their answers are taken down. Of course, the officers have not time to take an affidavit from every man or anything of that sort. Now the proposal is that if these questions are not answered truthfully a penalty follows.


Georges Parent: On that very point, I have had occasion before to call the attention of the minister to a situation that has existed to my own knowledge where officers have been putting questions in English to persons speaking only the French language and coming to a country where both languages are official. With the law as it is now drafted, I presume the same situation will continue to exist, and that immigrants from Belgium and France will be submitted to the same trouble that immigrants from those countries have had in the past, of having no one on the boats or on the trains to put the questions in French. That is the situation now, it was the situation a year ago, and in the years before that. The hon. minister promised a year ago that he would remedy this situation, but he has not done so. He comes here now with a new Bill, leaving the situation just as it was before. I would like him to give a little attention to this very important matter. Desirable immigrants from France and Belgium are put to all kinds of trouble due to the immigrant officers not being able to put their questions in the French language.


James Alexander Calder: We will have to get the matter straightened out.


Georges Parent: How will it be done?


Georges Parent: Where in this Bill will you put the few words that are necessary to make it law?


James Alexander Calder: It is not necessary to have it in the law.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is better to have it in the law. Ministers may change.


James Alexander Calder: The third amendment
[DOT] inserts only the words "enter or" in one

part. There is also a contradiction between subsections six and seven of the present law. Subsection six provides:
Every person who enters Canada except at a port of entry shall forthwith report such entry to the nearest immigration officer,
and so on, while the very next subsection provides:
Any person who enters Canada except at a port of entry. .	.	. shall be guilty of an
offence.
The two subsections are contradictory. It is proposed to change subsection six to read:
It shall be a violation of this Act for any person to enter Canada except at a port of entry.
The section will then be in conformity with all the other sections of the law.


Georges Parent: Suppose the person is an actor or an athlete who does not come through a port of entry, but may be travelling on the high road. Would this apply to him?


James Alexander Calder: The law reads that it shall be a violation "for any person to enter Canada except at a port of entry". It would not make any difference whether he was an actor or an athlete. If he does not come in through a port of entry, he is violating the law as it now stands. That is the provision that runs all through the Act.
Then subsection 9 is changed slightly. This clause provides a penalty for transportation companies or persons interfering with the immigration officers in the discharge of their duties. The law now reads: "Any transportation company or person interfering with or resisting." We are inserting after "company" the words "director, official or employee thereof, or any person interfering with," and so on. Then further down in the subsection it says: "assisting in the escape of any person detained." We are putting in after "detained" the words "in the custody of an officer." The only real difference between the law as it stands and this amendment is that we are including the officers of transportation companies or any other person that interferes with an immigration officer in the discharge of his duties. Then the words "entry or" are inserted before "landing".


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-immigrants may be required to possess prescribed amount of money:
Jean-Joseph Denis: I understood that each male immigrant was required to have $250. This section provides that the amount may vary "according to the nationality, race, occupation, or destination of such persons."


James Alexander Calder: We are making only a very slight change in the existing law. Under the existing law we may make regulations fixing whatever amount may be deemed advisable. For the present that amount is fixed at $250 except in the case of farmers, farm labourers, domestics and so on.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that the maximum
or the minimum?


James Alexander Calder: That is a fixed amount;
there is no variation at present under the regulation. Now, the changes in the existing law are these:	We propose to apply
the principle of a money qualification, not only to immigrants but to non-immigrants as well, that is, to tourists, travellers, artists, etc., because we found case after case, within the course of the last year, where people of these classes had got into Canada and become a public charge. We are simply taking power, if advisable, to fix a money qualification for such people. I do not know that the power will have to be used to any extent, but it might be advisable to apply that regulation to certain of these non-immigrant classes. There is one other change in the section. The law now provides that the amount may vary according to race, occupation, or destination. We propose to add the word "nationality."


Georges Parent: Is there any question of religion?


James Alexander Calder: No. These are the only
two changes in the first part of the law. In the last part, provision is added to the effect that passports shall not be recognized unless issued within a time limited by the regulations, or unless vised in the manner required.


Richard Smeaton White: The minister gave me information in regard to farm labourers from the British Isles, who he said were not required to meet the money qualification. Does that statement apply to farm labourers from other countries, say, for example, Austria?


James Alexander Calder: Yes, unless they come
within the prohibited classes.


Richard Smeaton White: That is to say, alien
enemies, like Germans?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Richard Smeaton White: I ask the question because I have had some inquiries on the subject.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Apart from former
enemy immigrants, is there any policy of discrimination in the department against certain countries, such as Spain, for instance, or southern Italy? Is there a bar to immigrants coming from those countries? I understand that the department does not encourage immigration from the southern portions of Europe, but I suppose it is within its discretion, whenever a proper immigrant comes from those countries, to admit him?


James Alexander Calder: That is right; there is no bar. We may not encourage immigration from those parts, but if an immigrant is mentally and physically desirable, and has the necessary money prescribed he is not rejected.


Frank S. Cahill: Does the minister think he will have to enforce the clause with regard to the money qualification so far as tourists are concerned?


James Alexander Calder: I doubt it, as regards tourists. The non-immigrant class is very wide, and includes a very large number of people. I am advised by the officials of our department that we have had a number of cases where people have come in under that guise and have become public charges on the community, and it may be advisable as regards some of them to require the money qualification.


Frank S. Cahill: Were these people generally Americans, or were they from overseas?


James Alexander Calder: I do not know.


Frank S. Cahill: Because, if the minister starts to require the money qualification from American tourists, he will discourage a great many Americans from coming here.


James Alexander Calder: We will not do that.


Mr. PARDEE:: The matter is left wholly in the discretion of the immigration officers at the different ports.


James Alexander Calder: No.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Suppose a tourist wanted to enter Canada, would he have to satisfy the local immigration officer as to his fitness, and so forth, if he comes within that class? Any such wide power given an officer of the department seems to me to be dangerous.
[Mr. Calder.J


James Alexander Calder: I entirely agree with
that, and I have very much doubt as to whether this provision would apply very largely to tourists. As I pointed out, these classes of people are non-immigrants, such as members of dramatic, artistic, athletic, or spectacular organizations entering Canada temporarily for the purpose of giving performances or exhibitions, and actors, lecturers, priests, and ministers of religion, authors, lawyers, professors of colleges, and commercial travellers. These are all non-immigrants. I dare say what the department is aiming at is the control of the strolling circuses and bands of that kind coming for the purpose of giving exhibitions. Many of them become public charges in Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Travelling in Europe a year ago I found that the authorities there were just as drastic in their restrictions as we are in Canada. For instance, passing from Dover to Boulogne or Calais, or from the Italian boundary to French territory, you have to sign many official documents, and sometimes show your purse to prove that you have the necessary amount exacted by the authorities.


James Alexander Calder: We do not yet know what inconvenience means in this country.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-investigation of complaints-deportation-cost of deportation.
James Alexander Calder: This is the section that was included in the Bill last year introduced, although not passed, in the Senate, and reintroduced in this House by the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). Two years ago, a clause was inserted in the Immigration law dealing with persons guilty of sedition, and provision was made for their deportation. It is proposed to repeal a portion of the section in the law as it now stands. The section at present provides that it shall not apply to any person who is a British subject either by reason of birth in Canada or naturalization in Canada. It is proposed to amend it so as to read that the section shall not apply to any Canadian citizen. There is a wide difference between the two. "Any Canadian citizen" would include a person who came to Canada from the British Isles, was here for a short time, and acquired domicile in Canada. The old law did not provide for that. If a person came from the British Isles and acquired domicile here, say four or five months, he would be

subject to deportation under the old law. He is not, under this amendment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is, the amendment moved by the member for Quebec East.


James Alexander Calder: Yes. Then it is proposed that subsection 2 of said section should be repealed as it is retroactive in its character.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-cost of deportation after five years.
James Alexander Calder: This is simply using the words "any person" instead of the word "immigrant." That is it includes non-immigrants as well as immigrants.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-form e amended.
James Alexander Calder: That is merely to carry out a provision that was not corrected two years ago when the law was amended. It is in one of the forms.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-form ee amended.
James Alexander Calder: That is for the same purpose; it is merely amending a form that was not amended a few years ago. I propose to leave the Bill in committee because some hon. members who are not here to-night are interested in it. I would therefore move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Calder Bill No. 146 to Amend the Chinese Immigration Act was read a second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Steele in the Chair.
On section 1-all immigrants must establish identity to satisfaction of controller subject to approval of minister.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Please explain this.


James Alexander Calder: The reading of the section will explain nothing at all unless the members of the committee have the Statute before them. Under section 7 of the law as it stands, persons of Chinese origin entering Canada are required to pay a head tax of $500 unless they belong to what is called "the exempt classes." Paragraphs a, b and c, of this section set out the exempt classes:-members of the diplomatic corps and other proper representatives, children born in Canada of parents of
Chinese origin who leave this country tor educational purposes, and so on. Then paragraph c includes merchants, their wives and minor children; clergymen, tourists, men of science, teachers, clergymen and students. Now in so far as these exempt classes are concerned they become exempt if they substantiate their status to the Controller of Chinese Immigration, or if they produce certificates of identity issued by the proper officers of the Chinese Government. These certificates of identity must also be countersigned by British consular officers or other representatives of His Majesty's Government in China. To be quite frank, during the course of the last two years, particularly this last year-very largely on account of conditions existing in China, because they have not stable Government in the whole of China-the administration of the law nas fallen down very badly in connection with these certificates of identity.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Canton.


James Alexander Calder: Yes. We had a good deal of trouble during last year, and a very large number of these people got into Canada under these certificates who should never have entered the country. After going into the matter very fully, we have come to the conclusion that, for the time being at any rate, the only thing to do is to repeal that clause and simply provide that when these people come forward seeking to enter Canada they must substantiate their status as men of science, or as teachers, or as students, or as merchants, to our Controller of Chinese Immigration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By what means?


James Alexander Calder: By any means they
choose. Let them bring forward any evidence they can to substantiate their status, but we cannot continue to depend on these certificates of identity that were previously used. I had to send an officer all the way to China to take the matter up with the Chinese Government and the British authorities there, which has cost us a great deal of money and the conclusion we have come to, after going into the whole matter very fully, is, as I say, for the time being to abolish these certificates of identity. It is the only safe course to pursue.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At the same time I am sure my hon. friend would not stretch this regulation to such an extent as to bar those who, under the law or under the comity of nations, are admissable now. I

know that we must not encourage fake immigrants to come from that country to Canada, but if the matter is left entirely to the discretion of departmental officers I am afraid it might work injustice in some cases. I do not say it would, but it might. Is the matter left entirely to the discretion of the officers of the department?


James Alexander Calder: No, not entirely as the section reads "who shall substantiate their status to the satisfaction of the controller subject to the approval of the minister." I doubt if there would be the slightest trouble with members of the diplomatic corps.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know, as a matter of fact, that during the past two years, as my hon. friend says, in view of the laxity of Government control in Canton, passports and papers were signed by the hundreds and thousands not only for Canada but for the United States. Under those conditions I quite understand that the department is not willing to accept as bona fide documents such papers as have been presented within the period mentioned. On the other hand there are certain Chinese immigrants who, under the comity of nations, are entitled to be admitted into any country, such as merchants, clergymen and students. There are many Chinese students in the universities, and it should be easy for our officers to detect who is who.


James Alexander Calder: That is just where the trouble lies. For instance, in the first five months of last year from January to June we admitted forty-five merchants, but during the year we admitted no less than 1,309, who came with certificates of identity.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about students?


James Alexander Calder: We applied the student law a year ago. We got in about 2,000 in one year.


Jean-Joseph Denis: They were all students.


James Alexander Calder: Yes, and they came with certificates of identy.


Georges Parent: There is always something to learn.


James Alexander Calder: There will be no difficulty in regard to members ,of the diplomatic corps, Chinese clergymen, and similar men, but as regards the other class, until such time as there is stable government in China we feel that this is the only safe course to pursue to protect ourselves.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am in sympathy with the object of the law, but I differ with my 
hon. friend as regards the indiscriminate stoppage of the student class. I believe in the Chinese student.


James Alexander Calder: So do I, but we found most of them in the laundries.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I believe in the Chinese student because he will take back to his country some of the ideals of Canada and of the United States, which I think will work for the reformation of China. Does my hon. friend believe that so many students go into the laundry business or something of that kind. I am surprised that they should come for other purposes than entering our universities.


James Alexander Calder: We have no trouble with the student class now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister says he sent an officer to China. Have the members of the Chinese government approved of his method of proceeding?


James Alexander Calder: I would doubt that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The United States have had a good deal of trouble in dealing with immigration from China. Are the powers the minister is seeking under this legislation similar to the powers they have in the United States?


James Alexander Calder: I cannot say, I have not examined the American law.


John Allister Currie: We are not legislating for the United States, but for Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hear the
hon. member saying that we are not following the legislation of the United States.


John Allister Currie: I say we are not legislating for the United States but for Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly,
but we want to benefit by the experience of the United States. I should think one of the first steps the Government would take before drafting a Bill of this character would be to benefit by the experience of other countries. For that reason I ask the minister whether he has taken the trouble to find what methods the American Government are employing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are following the action of the minister in preventing an influx of students.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My impression was that this Bill based on the methods the United States had adopted.


James Alexander Calder: I have not looked into the matter at all, but I shall be very much interested to know the course they are following. My own impression is that outside of persons belonging to the diplomatic corps and other similar classes, the question whether Chinese immigrants shall enter the United States is determined by their officers, which is the way we are proposing here. Our difficulty at present is that the Justice Department has advised us that as our law entitles these people to enter Canada when they produce these certificates, we could not keep them out, no matter if we were certain they were misrepresenting their status. If the law were operationg properly, I should very much like to see the provision stand as in the, but we have had so much difficulty in the last two years that it seems the only course open to us is to change the law.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is desirable-


John Allister Currie: Carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend wishes the Bill to be carried he will have to behave a little better than he is behaving at the moment. I think it is desirable in every way that Chinese immigration should be restricted, and that fraud should be prevented as far as possible, but any one who knows the Chinese will realize that they are very sensitive and very quick to appreciate courtesy. The American Government have been at great pains to avoid offending China in any way, and I think we should be equally careful. While I am most anxious that proper restrictions should be imposed, I should be sorry to see our Government placed in a position where any of these oriental people may feel that we are acting towards them more arbitrarily than our neighbours to the south. If the minister can give us an assurance that his action is not liable to be misconstrued, I think his measure is a perfectly safe and sound one.


James Alexander Calder: I will not take the Bill out of committee. I shall inquire how the American law is so we may know exactly what others are doing in this regard.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-definition of prohibited persons in Immigration Act made applicable to Chinese:
James Alexander Calder: There is a difference in the two sections. We are simply making them the same.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-refund of tax on return within two years:
James Alexander Calder: I should like to have the views of members, especially of those from British Columbia, in reference to this section. Under the present law if a Chinaman goes back tor China, and wishes to return to this country, he must obtain a certificate before leaving and if he returns within one year that certificate gives him the right to re-enter without again paying the head tax. It is proposed to extend that term to two years.


Georges Parent: Does the minister mean that if a Chinamen goes back home he will get a refund of the head tax of $500?


James Alexander Calder: No. Under the law as it stands when he leaves Canada he gets a certificate from our department, which entitles him at any time within one year to return to Canada without again paying the head tax. Now it is proposed to extend that time from one year to two years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A large number of
Chinese persons who come to Canada return to China for the accomplishment of certain rites in their native country. China is passing through a revolutionary period and that condition may continue for some years. As the Chinese who return to their own country may be detained on this account, or for family or other reasons, it seems to me that this extension of time is Christian in its character and I stand by it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-power to arrest prohibited persons:
Jean-Joseph Denis: What change is made by
this clause?


James Alexander Calder: The first change is to
make this law conform with the general Immigration Act in respect to the definition of prohibited persons. Under the law as it stands, if a person belongs to a prohibited class he may be either imprisoned or deported. We have cut out the imprisonment and made the person liable only to deportation. Then there is a provision that the question whether a person is liable to deportation shall be determined by the controller.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Michael Steele: Shall
I report the Bill?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the minister will give any required information

on the third reading, I have no desire to keep the Bill in committee. It can be recommitted if anything important comes up.
Bill reported.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) Bill No. 138, to amend the Criminal Code, was read the second time.
On motion of Mr. Doherty that the House go into committee on the Bill:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a
very long Bill, and I do not think that the minister ought to attempt to go further with it in committee.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I would not suggest
that we take up anything about which there should be the slightest difference of opinion. There are a large number of clauses; I think quite a number would give rise to no discussion at all, and these we might deal with. It is not impossible that any that develop any very serious objection might be dropped altogether.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The question whether or
not a clause is continuous is a matter of opinion. The few members who are here might not think them contentious, but others who are not here might take a different view.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will take the other man's opinion on that point, not my own.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the minister will make as much progress with his Bill if he does not attempt to go on with it at this hour.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Steele in the Chair.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER announced that he had received a message from His Excellency the Governor General. The message was read to the House as follows:
Devonshire.
Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
I have received with great pleasure the Address that you have voted in reply to my Speech at the opening of Parliament and thank you for it sincerely.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 12.53 a.m. Tuesday.

Wednesday, May 25, 1921