MORNING SITTINGS

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) moved:: That on and after Friday, 3rd June next, until the end of the present session, the House shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning each day except Sundays, and that in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock p.m. there shall also be an intermission every day from one to two-thirty o'clock p.m., and that the various committees of the House be at liberty to sit during the sessions of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: When does the right
hon. gentleman expect prorogation?


Arthur Meighen: I understand the leader of the Opposition expects it on Saturday. I agree with him.



RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
HON. N. W. ROWELL, FOR DURHAM, AND Mr. MAHARG, FOR MAPLE CREEK
Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the resignation of the following members-of Hon. N. W. Rowell, for the electoral district of Durham, and of John A. Maharg, Esq., for the electoral district of Maple Creek. .1 have accordingly issued my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer-to make out a writ of election for the said electoral districts respectively.



REPORTS TABLED

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of the Superintendent of the Geodetic Survey of Canada, Department of the Interior, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1920.-Hon. Mr. Tolmie.
Copy of the Joint Report of the International Boundary Commission upon the survey and demarcation of the boundary line betwen the United States and Canada. -Hon. Mr. Tolmie.

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

Mr. GORDON:: 1.	What rate of pay is received by civilian caretakers of rifle ranges, drill halls, armouries

and other buildings under the control of the Department of Militia?
2.	Is the cost of living bonus being paid to civilian caretakers for the year 1921, and was it paid during 1920?
3.	What number of such caretakers receive free issue of clothihg and uniforms?
4.	Have civilian caretakers of rifle ranges been given an opportunity of enlisting in the caretakers' section of the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps?
5.	If so, how many have enlisted, and how many have refused to enlist?
6.	Why has the Department of Militia on its staff, in some instances, enlisted caretakers, and in other instances, civilian caretakers?
7.	What hours are the civilian caretakers required to work each day?
8.	Has the pay of such caretakers been increased since 1914?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	The rates of pay for military and civilian caretakers are divided into the several classes, particulars of which are given below:-
(a)	Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps enlisted men who receive regimental rates of pay, etc. The pay of a private soldier of this section amounts to $1.70 per day, regimental pay; 85 cents per day allowance in lieu of quarters and rations; total $2.55 per day. If married, $200 per annum, dependents' allowance, is also paid.
An allowance in lieu of fuel and light is also issuable to all N.C.O's and men, based on prevailing local prices.
(b)	Part-time civilian caretakers for safeguarding armouries, drill halls and other militia department buildings, are usually paid the amount of $10 per month.
(c)	Various rates are paid to full-time civilian caretakers, ranging from $2 per day to $100 per month, according to the nature of duties being performed.
It has recently been decided that, due to the paucity of funds in the caretakers' appropriation for the present financial year, the standard rate of pay for a fulltime civilian caretaker will amount to $66 per month (plus bonus).
2.	Yes, except in a very few recent instances where the appointment has been specially approved without bonus.
3.	Only the 75 Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps enlisted caretakers referred to in paragraph 1 (a).
4.	In the ordinary course of events, no offers have been made to caretakers who are already employed as civilians to enlist in the caretakers' section of the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps.
5.	See answer to No. 4.
6.	The larger portion of the caretakers were employed as civilians up to the date

of organization of the caretakers' section of the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps in July, 1920. However, it is now necessary to appoint civilian caretakers only, in view of the fact that all enlistments into the caretakers' section, Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, have been suspended due to the limitation of the Permanent Force establishments. Many of the civilian caretakers who are now employed are not eligible for enlistment into the Permanent Force, being over age, medically unfit, etc.
7.	No stated hours are laid down, but this matter is usually arranged locally. As Units of the Non-Permanent Force attend drills, etc., during the evening hours, caretakers of necessity are usually required to be present at the armouries and drill halls during this period.
8.	Yes, the rate of pay laid down in 1914 was $1.50 per day.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS-EXPENDITURE
Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	How much has been paid by the Government to the Lyall Co., for commission or other remuneration in connection with the construction of the Parliament Building at Ottawa up to April 20, 1921?
2.	How much has been paid to architects
in connection with said building?
3.	What is the total expenditure to date on said building?
4.	How much more will be required to complete the same?


Hon. Mr. McCURDY:: 1.	$314,805.26.
2.	$342,188.24.
3.	$9,412,764.86.
4.	The architects have been requested to furnish estimate in detail of further cost for completing the entire building.


FOUNDATION COMPANY OF MONTREAL
Mr. JACOBS:: 1.	What sum or sums were paid to the Foundation Company of Montreal for work done for the Department of Public Works during the years 1912-1917?
2.	What work was done by the said company for the Government during that period?


Hon. Mr. McCURDY:: 1.	$64,982.78.
2.	Preparing plans for foundations of the Customs-Examining Warehouse, Montreal, and building foundation for the Customs Building at Ottawa.


BRITISH REMOUNT COMMISSION
Mr. JACOBS:: 1. Did the British Remount Commission
establish depots in Canada during the war? If so, where?
2.	How many horses were shipped from Canada by the commission during the war?
3.	How many horses were actually purchased in Canada by the said commission?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1, 2 & 3. The information asked for is not available at Militia Headquarters, as all horses were purchased for the Imperial Government by the British Remount Commission, Montreal.
SINKING OF THE ESPERANTO On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg):: I would like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he has been apprised of the fact that the fishing schooner "Esperanto", which had on board many Nova Scotia fishermen, has foundered off the island of Cape Sable, and if any steps are being taken by the department to see that the submerged rock which the vessel struck, as well as the wreck of the Esperanto itself, which now constitutes a menace to navigation in the case of vessels which pass Sable island during the summer time, will be removed? I would also like to ask the minister if his attention has been called to the fact that the captain of the Esperanto, after being landed at Halifax, complained that although the wreck occurred in broad daylight no attempt was made by the crew of the life saving station to render aid to the distressed fishermen whilst they were in their boat?


Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: The matter
which the hon. member has brought to my notice is already receiving the careful attention of the department. As to the complaint regarding the life saving station I will look into it and let my hon. friend know to-morrow.


SALMON FISHING LICENSES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Earlier in the session I
drew the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the conflict of jurisdiction, as to their respective interests, which exists between the Dominion Department of Fsheries and the Quebec Department of Colonization and Fisheries, as regards the application of the law concerning the issuance of licenses to fish in the river St. Lawrence, and in the various streams which empty into the river, where there is salmon. I understand that my hon.

friend is acting according to what he understands to be the law under the recent judgment of the Privy Council in the matter. However, the province of Quebec under an Order in Council passed recently, have also decided to issue licenses. They claim that the judgment does not apply within certain limits in the rivers referred to, and the result is that as the Provincial Government continue to issue licenses and on the other hand my hon. friend has enacted new regulations, there is at present a conflict of authority. The license holders are therefore "between the devil and the deep sea",-and my hon. friend (Mr. Ballantyne) represents the first element. I would like to know from the minister if it would not be possible-pending an arrangement between the Federal and the Provincial Governments-to have the old regulations stand, and then by a conference during the recess to endeavour to adjust the matter. It is in order to avoid conflict and trouble that I make this suggestion.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have nothing
to add, in reply to my hon. friend, to what I stated on a former occasion when the matter was brought to my attention. The decision of the Privy Council is quite clear, so I am informed by the Department of Justice, and the fishery rights in all navigable streams leading from the sea are now vested in the Federal authority. There is no doubt about that. If our friends the Provincial Government think otherwise, of course we cannot prevent them from holding any opinions they may see fit; but no one will be allowed to fish in these navigable streams leading from the sea unless they have a license from the Department of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa. A large number of licenses have already been issued, and ! have not heard, as yet, of any trouble. If any man is foolish enough to take out a license from the Provincial Government and pay for it that is his own business; but he will not be allowed to fish in those streams unless he has a license from the Federal Department of Marine and Fisheries.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL

[Stage Direction]
SENATE AMENDMENTS Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved that amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 138 to amend the Criminal Code be concurred in.
Mr. JACOBS:: What are the amendments?


Mr. DOHERTY:: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure that this Order should not read: "Consideration of the remnants of the Bill left by the Senate." Their honours have introduced a number of amendments, consisting for the most part in striking out of sections of the Bill. On the principle that we want to save the remnants, I find myself under the necessity of moving to concur in these amendments, hoping that in future we may be able to have accepted the excellent legislation passed by this House but which now disappears by reason of these amendments.
The first amendment consists in striking out section 1 of the Bill. That section struck out a proviso which the Senate last year had appended to the law with regard to the seduction of girls between sixteen and eighteen years of age, that in such cases the judge would be at liberty to instruct the jury whether there was equal or greater fault on the part of the girl, and if so the man might be acquitted. That proviso, therefore, remains notwithstanding our effort to have it disappear.
The next amendment is to section 2, but it is a purely verbal modification with which I need not detain the House. It does not alter the substance of our enactment at all.
Section 5 of the Bill raised the age in cases of indecent assault in which the consent of the victim should not furnish a defence. The Senate in its wisdom has seen proper to strike that section out. I think that is to be regretted, because it makes our law inconsistent with recent amendments in regard to illicit connection.
The next amendment is the striking out of section 7. By that section this House struck out from section 301 of the Criminal Code the words "of previous chaste character" in relation to the offence of carnally knowing girls between fourteen and sixteen years of age. This requirement, that in order to constitute the offence the girl should have been of previous chaste character was inserted last year by the Senate. This House sought by the present Bill to strike out the words, but the Senate has restored them.


Mr. BUREAU:: That is, their own section which they put in last year we struck out by this Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: Chacun son tour.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We hope in time that their honours will come to realize the wisdom of this amendment of ours.


Mr. COPP:: They will grow wiser as
they grow older.


Mr. BELAND:: Is not the Senate now
sufficiently reformed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There still seems room for improvement.


Jacques Bureau: The Senate may think that we are getting too old.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is characteristic of
some people to labour under false impressions.
The next amendment deals with section 12 whereby the burning of chattels was constituted a crime. The penalty is reduced from fourteen to five years' imprisonment, and the value prescribed for the article burned is raised from $25 to $200.
The next amendments consist in striking out articles 14 and 15. These are the clauses dealing with cruelty to animals, the first clause being directed against the docking of tails, and the other against cruelly killing.
The next amendment is of a constructive character and consists in introducing into the Bill section 24A adding what appears to be an omitted offence in the article of the Criminal Code proscribing prosecution for certain crimes and is in this form:
24a. Paragraph (a) of section 1140 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following sub-paragraph:
"(iv) Any offence relating to or arising out of the location of land which was paid for in whole or in part by scrip or was granted upon certificates issued to half breeds in connection with the extinguishment of Indian title."
There does not seem to be any good reason why the same proscription which applies to other offences should not apply to this, and I am disposed to accept the amendment.
Then there is one other amendment, which is also of a constructive character. It introduces a provision which was contained in a Bill passed by the Senate this session. It provides for a revision of sentences by the Court of Appeal for the province in which the conviction was had. I would have preferred to have this clause the subject of further examination and consideration before adopting it. The Senate, however, passed the measure. When the Bill came to this House I consulted with the attorneys general of all the provinces, and, with one exception, I think no objection was taken to the clause, and in some instances positive approval was expressed. In view of those circumstances, and recognizing that there is merit in the proposal, I am disposed to ask this House to concur in the amendment.


Samuel William Jacobs: What is that amendment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It provides for a revision by the Court of Appeal for the province in which the conviction was had of sentences in criminal cases. It does not provide an appeal proper from the conviction, but it does make it possible to submit to a Court of Appeal the question whether the sentence is either inadequate or too severe.


Samuel William Jacobs: The court can increase or diminish the sentence?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. A. Calder (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 139 to amend the Immigration Act were read the second time and concurred in.

Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Minister of Agriculture) :: I beg leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw this resolution. Motion agreed to and Order discharged.



INCOME TAX ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 221 to amend the Income Tax Act was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-penalty for failure to file returns:
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Will the
minister explain the amendment?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: At present
the penalty for failure to file return of income is 25 per cent of the tax payable; that is reduced to a penalty of 5 per cent of tax payable, with a maximum of $500. Every person failing to make a return under the other provisions of the section is subject to a penalty of $10 for each day of default, but it is provided that such penalty shall not exceed $50.


Mr. McKENZIE:: It seems to me that this penalizing principle is not sound. If a man fails to make a return as called for by the Act his offence is the same no matter whether the tax to which he is liable is $10 or $1,000. Why not fix a certain amount which will be applicable to all?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no doubt that the offence is the same in each case, though the result of the offence is not the same. We are adhering to the principle which is maintained throughout the whole Act, that of making the ratepayer with the lower income subject to the lower assessments. The man with the larger income and whose default seriously affects the public treasury pays the higher penalty.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-penalty for short payment:
Jacques Bureau: We are providing that this income tax shall be paid at the time of making the return, but it is very difficult for some people to determine exactly what amount they should pay. If the taxpayer pays one-quarter of the tax upon making the return and the balance in certain instalments, he pays interest on the deferred payments. Now, I think that the interest should not be payable until such time as the taxpayer receives from the inspector of taxation a statement setting forth exactly what he has to pay. I know that I find it extremely difficult to make out this income tax return as I think it ought to be made out. If the interest payments started from the date of receipt of statement from the inspector, the taxpayer would know exactly what he had to pay, not merely a peu pres. Otherwise, he does not know the exact amount of taxation to which he is liable.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon.
member's objection really goes to the root of the whole Act; at present we are merely considering penalties. The ratepayer can always make sure that he will pay no interest by making a sufficient payment when he submits his return. If he pays too much he can get a refund, so that he is fully protected.


Jacques Bureau: Does he get interest
on the refund?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no doubt that he would get interest on the refund if he was entitled to it. I would point out that the result of this payment in advance is this: while last year at this time we had taken in practically nothing on the year's taxation-most taxes did not became payable until some time in November and many bills could not be got out until some time in January or February- we have already collected this year $39,000,000. The result of the change will be 
a tremendous saving to the country by way of interest. I am sure that this method of collecting the tax ought not to be departed from. As to penalty, I admit that the old penalty was a heavy one, but it is now being modified; the penalty provided by this amendment, is, I submit, a very reasonable one.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: May I be permitted to offer, in a single sentence, my congratulations to my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) on the success which he has achieved? To a believer in direct taxation, as I am, the success of the minister is somewhat of an oasis in a fiscal desert. No chastisement for the present is joyous, but grievous. Taxation is always more or less chastisement, but it is much more so when it is indirect than when it is direct, if people only knew it. I congratulate my hon. friend that he is a very vigorous instructor of the Canadian public along this line; he is doing a valuable public service, and I wish him greatest success in his operations. Of course, in a little while he will see the need of reducing the tariff and relieving the people at the other end of the scale, while he makes his direct penalty stiffer. I have no fear about my hon. friend's education proceeding to that further point.


Mr. FIELDING:: In municipal taxation the practice is to notify the party of the amount of his tax and to give him an inducement, by way of a discount, to pay it within a reasonable time. If a man delays payment, of course he must pay the full amount. Has my hon. friend considered whether that might not be done? It is a simpler form than that adopted by my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The matter is one of rates, after all. We have to get as much money as we possibly can, and if discount rates were to be given, basic rates would have to be so much more. I do not think it is any more difficult to add than to subtract, and that is really the difference between the two methods. If taxes are not paid sharply on time, we add. Some municipalities if they get paid sharply on time, subtract. Other municipalities throughout the country follow the same principle that we are now following.


Mr. EULER:: The minister stated that he does not consider this a proper time to discuss any of the principles underlying the Act. I would say to him, though, that I still believe the method by which

the taxpayer is compelled to assess himself is wrong. The only advantage to be gained from that method is, of course, the fact that the money comes into the treasury a little earlier. Has the minister sufficient information from the operation of the tax which came into operation on April 1, to say whether taxpayers have been able to make out their tax returns with any degree of accuracy? I doubt it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The best
proof whether a thing works out or not is results, and our results are infinitely better than they have ever been before. We have collected far more money. Not only is there the advantage of getting the money in earlier and saving the interest, but there ought to be in the future great economy in administration. That will not be so for this year, because the cost of administration this year will probably be quite as high if not higher than before. We have still the business profits tax in operation, and we have this immense amount of material to check. There will, therefore, be just as much work this year as any other year, but the ratepayers will become accustomed to tax themselves. Having done it this year, when they get the corrected bills, as they will get them the year following, it will be the easiest thing in the world for them to tax themselves.


William Daum Euler: I would remind the minister that while he quite properly has in view the object of obtaining the money quickly, which naturally is very desirable in the eyes of the Minister of Finance, he should not lose sight of the convenience of the public. I believe it is hardly worth while, even in view of the fact that he is obtaining his money a little earlier, to put the public to the extreme inconvenience that they were put to in making out their returns. After all, the minister has not answered the question that I asked him: Has he found, as a matter of actual working out, whether the returns were accurate in any considerable degree? Perhaps he cannot answer that question; I should like to know if he can.


Mr. CRERAR:: Is this the practice in the United States and Great Britain where, I understand, the income tax has been carried to a pretty high state of efficiency? Is it the practice in Great Britain, for instance, for the taxpayer to make his owrn assessment?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understand that it is not the rule in Great Britain. It
is the rule in the United States. In Great Britain they tax at the source. ,


William Stevens Fielding: Taxation is at all
times a disagreeable thing, and I do not suppose my hon. friend or anybody else in his office can make it agreeable to the people; but we should endeavour to make it as little disagreeable as passible. I think the method of making a man make his own return and assessment is not giving satisfaction. Collection of money is not evidence of the success of the system. I notice from common talk everywhere that the demand of the minister that the people shall make their returns and assess themselves is giving widespread -I will not say universal-dissatisfaction. I sympathize with the minister in his desire to get money, but the requirement that a man shall make his own return and assessment is a very unpleasant and unnecessary feature of the matter. I do not want to insist that we shall copy English methods rather than American; but if it be a fact that in England, where the income tax is of such long standing and where they have brought the machinery of collection to a higher pitch of efficiency than in any other part of the world, they do not require that a man shall make his own return and assessment, the minister should have regard to that fact. I think hon. gentlemen sitting around the minister will tell him that this system which he has adopted is most objectionable, disagreeable and exasperating to many people throughout the country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A great statesman in England, Edmund Burke, once said that humanity was divided into three classes, those who were born rhetoricus, those who were born historicus and those who were born mathematicus. That is, people who were born rhetoricians, others historians, and the third class mathematicians. He said that the latter class was in a large minority.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Where do the poets come in?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I agree with what has just been stated by the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who should be an authority on this matter. When the first income tax bills were sent to the public, I think the public generally agreed that the method pursued in the collection of that tax was fair. There may have been errors, but machinery was provided to correct such errors. The last phase of



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
this collection has certainly created in the minds of the people-and my hon. friend knows this-a furore. I have received letters from merchants in my constituencies, I have received communications from many people, protesting against this method. People were in holy fear of being sent to jail or of being mulcted in penalties. There Was published, I think, in the Montreal Star, not very long ago a cartoon which gave a splendid expression to that fear that the public had of the many penalties surrounding the collection of that tax, because, forsooth, the public was obliged to make the calculations. There are people whose business is so intricate that they cannot prepare the statement required by the income tax office. I would therefore ask the hon. gentleman to revert to the former system. Ask the public to state what their income is, and let their books be open for examination by the officers of the department-and I am sure the department has an excellent staff of officers under Mr. Breadner, who as head is certainly a credit to the Government. I can assure my hon. friend that the public do resent the present method of collecting the income tax, and I trust that he will allay their fears by reverting to the former system.
Henry Lumley Drayton: We are collecting the tax now on such a system that the fears of the public ought to be pretty well allayed. The penalty we are providing is very reasonable. My hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) and my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) have spoken of the feeling of the public. I admit everything they say with regard to that. There is no doubt that taxation is unpopular, and that tax gathering is a nuisance. But while I am on the job I want to be an effective nuisance. The money has to be raised, and the returns have to be made. It is the return that gives far more trouble than the assessment. Because, in making the assessment the public have the instructions issued by the department, with a list of incomes showing the tax due on each; so that when a man has made out a return he can tell within a few cents or dollars just what his assessment should be.
My hon. friend from Maisonneuve, says that the machinery first adopted was fair, but if he had been in the unfortunate position in which I was, and am, he would have found that complaints were very general all over the country against the first

method of collection. People complained that this man had received his bill and paid his taxes, while this man over here did not get his bill for months afterwards They complained that the assessments for this town were all out and the taxes collected, while that town over there did not get its bills for weeks, and perhaps months, afterwards.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is a question of system.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is far more than a question of system. It is a question of economical administration. If you have to have enough men to make out all the bills of this country at one time, your cost of collection will go up to such a point that it would be very questionable what the results would be. As it is now, everybody is treated on the same basis.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Most people fail to make a right calculation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I want to support what has been said by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve and my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's. If the public thought that this tax was going to continue for only two or three years until we have got out of our war difficulties, they would possibly put up with it, but if it is going to last as long as most of us here will live, the minister should certainly change the method, because I can assure him that the Canadian public will not stand for it. There is no reason why the Crown should be in a different position from any corporation which has to collect bills. I am willing that the Crown should have some advantage that the ordinary creditor does not have, but I think we should set the example of being humane and lenient in the collection of our bills. If any other concern on earth came to this Parliament and asked: Give me power to make the man who has been dealing with me for a year or two, and who knows what he has bought on credit, send in an account of what he owes me, and pay the bill by a certain date; and if he does not do so, give me power to impose a fine, or if he makes an incorrect statement to impose double the fine-everybody in this House would laugh at any person who thought for one moment that he would be given such power. We would say to him: Send out your bill and make your demand decently, and if your debtor does not pay, the courts of the country are open to you to collect your bill. Why should not the same rule apply to the Government in

the collection of the income tax? Surely, the sane and sensible thing is for the department to make out their accounts and send them out to the different individuals, to myself, for instance, telling me that if I do not pay the account by such and such a date I shall be subject to a certain penalty. I could not complain very much about that. But as it is now, the department does not even send out a form. I have to hunt around the country myself until I get a form, and a busy man often forgets about it. Then when he gets the form, he has to make the return, and if he makes a mistake in assessing himself, one way or the other, particularly if he does not send in enough money with the return, he is subject to a fine. I submit that that system does not commend itself to the Canadian people, and I say-and I am a somewhat old parliamentarian by this time and have had a great deal to do with the public in one way and another-that the Canadian people if they felt that this system was going to be followed in perpetuity would not stand for it one minute. They are standing for it now because of the war necessities, and only because this is a sort of war measure. The minister may not be able to change the system right away, but I hope that at the very earliest possible opportunity he will modify it in such a way that the department in collecting the money will be as nearly as possible on the same basis as other creditors who have to collect money from the public.


Mr. WILSON (Saskatoon) :: I think it is going a little too far to expect the average man to make his own assessment. It is all right to ask him to make a return, because there is no one else who can make it but himself, but I think it is going too far to expect him to make his assessment, when possibly he does not know enough about the taxes and super-taxes and exemptions to make an accurate assessment. We must not forget that the average man with a taxable income is not an expert book-keeper, and it takes almost an expert accountant to make the assessment on his own income, for the first time, at least.
There has been considerable dissatisfaction in my constituency over this system, not so much because people object to pay the tax, but mainly on the part of people who are not liable to the tax. Two of my constituents were brought before the courts in Saskatoon last winter, and were fined $100 for failing to make a return, notwithstanding the fact that they claimed they
276J
did make a return. Apparently there is no regulation in the income tax offices compelling an acknowledgment of returns when sent in. When I learned this fact I adopted the practice, when making my returns, of registering them, so that I might have something to show that I had sent them in. I have a letter written by a gentleman in Saskatoon, named Mr. T. J. Peacock. I desire to read this letter:
As I seem to be one of the parties picked out for the goat on this income tax returns for 1918, I am writing you to see if anything can be done regarding this, and I suppose that it is only fair that you understand the facts of the case. About the 17th or 18th December I was summoned to appear at the Police Court at Saskatoon for neglecting to make return and pay inoome tax for the year 1918. Mr. D. Maclean appeared with me on the 2i7th December before Magistrate Brown and was fined $100 and costs. My sworn evidence showed I was not liable for tax and that there were at least two sets of forms mailed to me, one to my house address, and one to my office. I filled in the latter set, but did not fill in the former ones, as they were both the same, these were personally mailed, that was my defence, which was not contradicted. The argument put up by the prosecution was that they had mailed me a registered notice, asking for return, which I had heard nothing of although I found out later that this had been signed by one of my children when I was away from home, and also that they had called me by telephone at my house which was then rented by another party and no member of my family lived there. The Magistrate claimed the only case he had to go by was a decision handed down by some judge in Ontario who sa-id that the penalty was $100, and he admitted he was not clear about this himself, seeming to think that this amount should be imposed in every case not taking the circumstances into consideration whatever. The department would not swear that notices had not been received; the chief clerk went so far as to state to Mr. Maclean and myself after the case was over, that they had searched the office and were unable to locate them. Since that time I have known of different parties who have registered their returns to the office, and who have been asked to supply another set tvhich when traced through the Post Office to the Tax Office were found to have been delivered. I asked the girl in the office if it was customary to mail receipts after having received the returns, and her answer was No; also told me that because I did not receive a receipt would be no evidence that my returns had not been received at the office, neither would this be evidence that they were not in the office at the present time. I think that this covers the whole oase.
I know of a similar case, in regard to a man named S. Watson, of Saskatoon, and in neither instance was the man liable for income tax, although, of course, that did not excuse them from making out the returns. Both of these men, according to the sworn evidence, declared that they had made out their returns. I have laid the matter before Mr. Breadner, the Com-

missioner of Taxation, asking for a remission of the fine in the cases I have cited. I do not think it is at all fair that this man should have been fined, and I thought I would not let this opportunity pass without laying the matter before the Minister of Finance.


Mr. McCREA:: I find myself at variance with some hon. gentlemen on this question. I do not think that the regulations are very unreasonable. It is true that the penalties are somewhat stringent, but if you do, not make your regulations strong enough, you would have very much difficulty, in my opinion, in making your collections, for very many people, if there were no regulations, would not make any returns at all. As it is, even with the penalty, there are some people who do not bother to send in returns.


Jacques Bureau: We object to paying
interest before we pay our bill.


Francis N. McCrea: Well, I agree with you in that; I do not think you should have to pay such interest. I do not agree, however, with the suggestion that the regulations are too severe, or that there should be no regulations such as exist, because the Government cannot make their collections successfully unless they enforce strictly the regulations in regard to the non-rendering of accounts.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As a business man,
does my hon. friend not think that it would be better for the officers of the department to prepare these accounts than to leave it to the taxpayers?


Francis N. McCrea: No, I do not. We ate complaining just now that the Civil Service is over-manned, and over-burdened with employees, and if the department is to make up every man's returns, it will have to have double its force, and it is complained that it has already too many. It is true that there are some men who unfortunately are not scholars, and who therefore cannot make up these returns; but you will find in every community, in every village, many men who are willing to do this at a slight charge for those who are not themselves able to make up the returns. If I were not able to make up my returns, I could get a man close to me to do it, and, because he is on the spot, the work would be done more expeditiously than if one's books were all sent to Ottawa. I could call 3 p.m. in a competent accountant in whom I have confidence, and get him to make the returns.
[MV. J. R. Wilson ]


Jacques Bureau: You would not want to give your books to everybody.


Francis N. McCrea: If I had confidence ir. a man, I would trust him just as much as I would the department. I do not think there is any serious objection to leaving it to the taxpayer to make up his returns; you can always find somebody who can do this for you if you are not able to do it yourself. Now, can the minister tell me what percentage of taxpayers in Canada have made returns and paid the income tax, and what measures the department is taking to bring to time those who have not made any returns, and who apparently do not intend to?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite agree with my hon. friend that the really important thing is to compel absolute conformity with the law, and to see that everyone pays who ought to pay. We are constantly enlarging the field of ratepayers, and finding out all those who ought to pay. We are exhausting all competent sources of income in Canada. For example, we have exhausted the lists of all the shareholders in companies, the bondholders, and people of that sort, and we are getting information as to mortgagees. We are getting information as to the assessments, locally and municipally of everybody through the assessment roll, although you very often find that the income a man gets is actually a good deal in excess of the amount he pays on under the municipal income collection. Besides that, we follow up the inquiry by having regard to the manner in which the man is living, the size of the house in which he dwells, the club or clubs he may be a member of, and whether he has an automobile-in other words we inquire into everything that discloses any outward signs not only of wealth but of relative prosperity.


William Stevens Fielding: In this country the income tax is comparatively a new thing, but it is not new elsewhere throughout the world. Can my hon. friend tell me whether he has any precedent for the present method of collection in any country except the United States?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Speaking offhand I do not think so.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not mean to say we should adopt a thing merely because it is English, although even that fact is of some importance, because generally the thing that is English is probably right. Not for that reason, however, but because

of long years of experience on the part of the nation which has had most to do with income tax, I think my hon. friend should have more regard for the English example. Over there the income tax has been in vogue for many years and we may be sure that they have made all the efforts possible to discover what is the best course to pursue. If as the result of their great experience, running over a great many years, they have adopted a certain method, which is not in accordance with the course pursued by my hon. friend, I think he ought to have more consideration for the English example. I can acquit the hon. gentleman, from all I hear, of any negligence on the part of his collectors. I said at an earlier stage of the session that when this tax was first brought into operation perhaps there was some ground for complaint of neglect. Now, however, I have reason to believe, the officials of the department are most energetic and are trying to make everybody pay up. I think the public have made up their minds that they have got to pay-I will not say with enthusiasm, but practically with cheerfulness-and that is one great reason why the minister should try to use convenient methods of collection. He said a moment ago when I gave him the illustration of the municipal assessment-where when they levy taxes they will grant a discount if you make payment within a certain time-my hon. friend said it makes no difference whether you take it off or put it on. But if my hon. friend will study psychology a little closer he will realize that it does make a difference. Although as a matter of economics there may be no real difference as to which course you pursue, there is no question but that when a man pays an account promptly and receives a discount he feels that he has received something and made a good bargain. I think my hon. friend should adapt his methods to the convenience of the public to a larger extent than he is doing now. As to the question involved in the keeping of accounts, while we do not want to unduly increase the number of public servants, I would far rather increase the staff of the Finance Department than worry the whole of the people of Canada unduly. I am sure that many of the hon. gentlemen sitting around the Finance Minister will say that the present method is most inconvenient and most unsatisfactory. Men are willing to pay the income tax. They have come to the point where they do so cheerfully. Every
good Canadian should be willing to pay it. But it is only fair and right that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in any methods which he employs should make that payment as easy as possible.


Francis N. McCrea: While we are dealing
with this matter I wish to draw the attention of the Finance Minister and the House to a feature, in connection with the income tax, which I think is an injustice. In my opinion a tax upon a tax should not be imposed, and yet that is the system which is followed. The predecessor of the present Minister of Finance, Sir Thomas White, when he was putting through income tax legislation declared that it was his intention to avoid this in every case. Now, what are the facts? Take the income tax due for 1920. It is not rendered until 1921 and a man pays his income tax out of his earnings or income for 1921. But when it comes to making his statement for the year 1921 he is not allowed to deduct the payment he made for the taxes for 1920 although I claim that would be a legitimate deduction. Consequently, I say, it is a case of imposing a tax upon a tax, and in many cases it is a heavy burden.


Mr. GLASS:: There are a couple of
points I would like to have cleared up at this stage. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Wilson) brought up the cases of constituents of his who had no taxable income and did not render a statement but who, nevertheless, were fined because they had not made any returns. I had occasion, just before April 1, to inquire at the Taxation Department with respect to a firm who had been carrying on business and not only had no income but had incurred considerable loss this year. It was their first year in business and I asked what the duty of these men was in reference to making a return. The official to whom I spoke told me that it was not necessary for them to make a return if they had no income, and accordingly they did not send any in. Now, what I want to understand clearly is this:	in cases
where there is no taxable income at all, to say nothing of a positive loss, what is the responsibility of the individual as to making a return? That is one question. The second has reference to my own case. I omitted to include in my return the travelling expenses that were allowed to me to travel to Ottawa to discharge my parliamentary duties. It is only a small matter but there is really a principle involved. To my mind a commercial traveller might just as reasonably be called upon

to include in his income the travelling expenses allowed him by his firm, as for a member of Parliament to include in his income return the money which he disburses while on his way to discharge his public duties. I should like that cleared up.
SIR HENRY DRAYTON: In connection with the first question, the Act calls for returns only from people who have taxable incomes generally. Then, of course, there are people who have taxable incomes and do not make returns, and the only way you can find that out is by asking that returns should be made. In doing that it very often turns out that people whom you think have taxable incomes as a matter of fact have not. So it is merely providing that just so s6on as a man, no matter what his income may be, gets a demand from the department by registered letter requiring him to make a return he becomes liable to make that return.


Samuel Francis Glass: There is no responsibility unless a demand is made upon him?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Only when
the demand is made. In connection with the second question as to travelling expenses, the hon. gentleman says it is a very serious matter. Well, it is something that'has not come to me yet. The question of living expenses was discussed once last session, and some hon. members thought that such expenses should be deducted, but after a little discussion I think the whole idea was dropped as the indemnity was increased.


Samuel Francis Glass: The accountant of the
House makes a return to the taxation officers in every district of each member's indemnity plus travelling expenses. It is too small to worry about, but a principle is involved. I did not include my travelling expenses, about $28, and when I got notice from the taxation officer that I had made an incorrect return I was annoyed, for I did not think I was in error, nor do I think so now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will be pleased to look into that, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. CLARK (North Bruce) :: I quite agree with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's that the tax forms should be as simple as possible. At the same time I do not see how we can avoid asking the taxpayer to fill up this whole form. It is true that in respect to his municipal taxes he does not do it, but in that case he does not make his own assessment; the assessor

does it for him and advises him how much his taxes are. I do not see how we can follow the same principle in regard to income tax. I think the minister should hold to the practice which he started this year of making the taxpayer himself compute his income tax. I know it is difficult in a great many cases, but any man who paid his tax last year has his receipt before him, which tells how his tax has to be computed, and he can easily make it up for himself with the assistance, as my hon. friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) said, of a local book-keeper or accountant. While it may be vexatious, there are thousands of business men throughout the Dominion who by reason of having had to make up their own income tax returns and' compute the amount of tax payable by them know a thousand times more about their business to-day than they ever did before.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I think the Bill as
a whole is in the right direction. I cannot agree with my hon. friend who has just sat down that it is desirable we should make up our own bills. I have had a good many dealings with people in the course of my life and I have never yet been called upon to make out my own bill in payment of any purchase. In every municipality the taxes are computed by the assessor or the tax gatherer, and I cannot see why individuals should be compelled to worry about computing their income tax as I know a great many have done. Of course, there may be some who do not worry much and do not want to put in returns, but I know many honourable people have felt it a very great responsibility to be called upon to make up their own bills. They are told that they must not make them up too small or they will be fined heavily; they must make them big enough, and in doing that they may overtax themselves. It is desirable in all matters of taxation that absolute justice and fairness should be sought, and I believe the minister is desirous of . moving in that direction. It seems to me that there should certainly be no penalty if a man or woman fails to make out an absolutely correct return. I doubt if there are ten men in this House who can make up their returns and say absolutely: These are correct returns of my income this year. I certainly could not do it. I spend a great many days on my own return, and finally I referred it to one of the experts of the department in my city. My figures came very close to his, and I accepted the figures given me and paid on them


George Green Foster: Next year you will know exactly how to do it.


William Foster Cockshutt: No, I do not think
so, because my income may vary.


George Green Foster: You will know the principle.


William Foster Cockshutt: My income may
vary, some investments that I thought were good may turn out bad, and some that I thought were bad may turn out good. It is very difficult for a man who has an income from eight, ten, or twenty varieties of stocks, debentures, bonds, and so forth to make these computations. I know the minister is doing all he can in this measure to help those who have struggled in this regard. I have considerable sympathy With the contention made by my hon. friend from Sherbrooke. He is a good business man, and I think the point he has drawn attention to is one worthy of consideration by the minister, namely, that there should not be taxation levied upon taxation. But that is what is being done under the Bill now, as the member for Sherbrooke has pointed out. For instance, a man's municipal tax must not be deducted from the return made for income tax. Now, surely a man who is taxed upon his income $500, $600 or $1,000 by the municipality cannot count that as "income". His income is what is left after he has paid all his just debts and liabilities. On the one hand a man has a right to include all his outgoings, such as repairs, insurance, taxes, and so forth, and on the other hand all his revenule. The reply made to me was that this Government comes (first,, and therefore the municipality and the province must come in their order, so to speak. I think there is a good deal in the point raised by the member for Sherbrooke, and I hope the minister will give it consideration. I am pleased that he has seen fit to relieve the taxpayer to a large extent of the responsibility in connection with these income tax returns. A great many citizens in my own city were fined very heavily last year for faults which I do not think were theirs, although, I must say, the department when I brought the circumstances to their attention, reviewed those cases. But at the same time small fines were collected from many citizens who had sought to do right. In levying these taxes, which are certainly pretty heavy on a great many people, the Government should proceed in a spirit of fairness and justice. Every precaution should be taken against unfairly regarding a person as dishonest whose
return has not been quite accurately made up. I feel that the majority of the citizens of Canada are honestly anxious to make out their returns in accordance with the Act.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Glass) mentions the case of the commercial traveller, who is allowed his expenses, but I am inclined to think that there is this difference: the commercial traveller is allowed only those expenses which he actually pays out, but by the generosity of Parliament and the good Canadian people, members of Parliament are allowed to collect sums by way of expenses which they do not pay out. However, that is not the main point.


Mr. LALOR:: The commercial traveller's expenses are over and above his salary; they have nothing to do with his income.


William Stevens Fielding: I agree that they form no part of his salary, but he is not allowed anything for expenses unless he actually pays the money out of pocket. As I say, by the generosity of the Canadian Parliament and people, members of Parliament are allowed expenses which they do not pay, because they get free railway transportation.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not follow my hon. friend's reasoning. Does he contend that we are getting amounts from the public treasury for expenses which we do not incur?


William Stevens Fielding: What any individual gets, I do not know; that is not my business. But I say the law permits a member of this Parliament to get travelling expenses, so much a mile from his place of residence to Ottawa and back.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


William Stevens Fielding: Is it not so now?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, only actual expenses.


William Stevens Fielding: As I am resident in Ottawa I have no occasion to get travelling expenses and I am not familiar with the practice of recent years. But I had the impression that we all got free railway transportation and could also collect travelling expenses on the basis of mileage. However, if I am wrong in that respect I desire to withdraw the remark. That certainly was the practice.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Not now.


William Stevens Fielding: Then the law has been changed. Now, a question was raised some time ago by provincial ministers in Quebec

that neither their salary nor indemnity as members of the Quebec Government or Legislature was liable to taxation. I do not say that I agree with the point thus raised, but I see it stated in the press that the Department of Finance has given some qualified assent to that principle, so far as to permit the question to be raised in the courts. I should be glad if the minister would tell me just how that matter stands.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The position of the Quebec ministers is this: On advice of counsel they have refused to pay, and action in the matter has been taken in the Exchequer Court. I believe that the case was to come on for trial about the fourth of May; I do not think that judgment has yet been given. The procedure which has been taken is that contemplated by the Act, which provides the right of action in such cases or the submission of definite questions to the Exchequer Court. My own view is that the point is quite improperly taken, but some gentlemen of standing have very strong opinions with regard to it.


Mr. LANCTOT:: 
Samuel Francis Glass: I did not quite catch the question. Members of Parliament are allowed their travelling expenses. The railway transportation itself is no expense; "travelling expenses" include sleeping car, dining car, hotel expenses incurred on the way, transportation of baggage-for round trips during the session. It does not include tips. A member who comes from a place more than 400 miles distant from Ottawa gets an allowance of so much per diem, which covers these expenses. It would be very unfortunate if the impression should go abroad that members who have the privilege of free transportation are allowed to charge also on the basis of mileage, for that is not the case. My point was this: while I do not wish to avoid paying tax on any item which is income, it seems clear to me that amounts paid for actual travelling expenses do not constitute income.


William Stevens Fielding: Let me guard against any misapprehension with regard to my remark concerning the travelling expenses of members. I would not have any one think that what I said was intended in any way to be a reflection upon any member
[Mr. Fielding.;
of the House, or as a suggestion that members were paid anything to which they were not entitled under the law. But I had the impression that legally and properly under the process of law a member was entitled to travelling expenses on the basis of mileage while at the same time he was getting free transportation. If that practice has been changed, then what I said in that regard would not apply.


Roch Lanctôt: I must say that this is something new to me. I have been a member of this House for seventeen years, and I have never made out a bill of travelling expenses from my home to Ottawa, because I have always had a pass in my pocket and have used it. That being the case, I could not explain to my farmers how I could charge the country $5 or $6 as my expenses in coming to Ottawa. Now I understand that mileage is paid to members who live more than 400 miles from Ottawa. What is that mileage?


Arthur Meighen: No mileage.


Roch Lanctôt: How is it then, that they have such large expense bills?


George Green Foster: Perhaps they
are heavy eaters.


Mr. HARRISON:: For some time the
railroad men have been asking that the Income Tax Act be further amended so as to provide that in cases like theirs the balance of income after deducting personal expenses incurred when away from usual place of residence shall be considered as the net income for the purposes of the Act, returns for such expenses to he made under oath. This matter was placed before the Minister of Finance some time ago along with several other representations, and it is something to which the minister should give consideration. Take, for instance, the case of a crew of a passenger train running between Ottawa and Toronto. The members of the crew live in Toronto, and when their train comes to Ottawa they have to incur certain expenses for board and lodging in this city. The conductor may make $30 for the round trip, out of which he has to pay, perhaps, $5 for expenses, and the baggageman and brakeman may make $25 or $20 for the round trip and pay out $5 for expenses. When the Government send any of their salaried men out to do work in places other than their places of residence they are allowed expenses which are not included in their incomes for the purposes of taxation. The commercial

traveller gets a salary and his expenses, but the railroad man, who lives away from home the greatest part of his time, has to pay his expenses out of his income and gets no consideration whatever on that account. I suggest that the minister provide some amendment to take care of cases of this kind.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There have
been a number of requests for changes in the Act, as I have explained on previous occasions. We are not making any changes except as regards penalties. Amongst the points considered were the ones raised by the hon. member.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was stated at one time during the session that the minister would have the original Act with the various amendments consolidated. Has he taken any action in the matter? While, perhaps, this is not pertinent to the present Bill, I notice that some municipalities have adopted the income tax system, and they levy even on Victory bonds which are non-taxable. I am told that there is a case pending between the city of Ottawa and one of the taxpayers. Has the minister conferred with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) on the subject, and is his department represented on that litigation? May I express surprise that those Canadian bonds, which are declared by Act of Parliament to be non-taxable and which have been circulated amongst and purchased by the public under that solemn pledge, are being taxed by municipalities in disregard of that pledge? It would seem that when federal bonds are declared to be non-taxable, no Provincial Government nor municipal government could levy a tax on such bonds.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The work in connection with the consolidation of the Act is going on; in fact, it is practically completed. The reason that it has not been brought down is on account of the desire to close the session, and the further fact that delay would not do the slightest possible harm; the only thing that could do harm would be these penalties which have been reduced to a very large extent.
The provision as regards freedom from taxation under any law of the Dominion of Canada does not apply to municipal taxation. We are not parties to the litigation to which my hon. friend refers.


William Foster Cockshutt: Is it incumbent
upon a single person having an income of say $1,200, or a married person having an
income of, say $2,200, part of that being in both cases, deductable on account of Victory bonds that are non-taxable, thus bringing the income under $1,000 in the one ease and under $2,000 in the other, to make returns if he is not asked to do so?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My recollection is that it is not; that the test is whether they have taxable income or not. In the cases put by my hon. friend, they would not have taxable incomes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-notice of assessment.
Mr. CURRIE:: I want to point out to this committee that the Government must take into consideration the question of abolishing this income tax at an early date. There is no question in the world that the troubles of this country at the present moment, the lack of business and of any initiative of any kind, is due entirely to this income tax. I have not yet been able to find out how the minister could justify last year taking off the war tax of 7i per cent and imposing an income tax such as he imposed. The income tax last year brought in about $36,000,000, and we cannot expect to collect more than $36,000,000 a year from the income tax.


Jacques Bureau: We have $39,000,000 so far this year.


John Allister Currie: We have the double income tax this year which stops everybody building and everything else. I understand what is wrong with the country. It is all right for hon. gentlemen opposite, who have been fed up for years on the principle of an income tax; they cannot change their clothes now, and there is nobody left to speak for the abolition of this tax except a few old protectionists on this side. If the minister had retained the protective of 71 per cent what would have occurred? This country would have benefited to the tune of $75,000,000; that is the amount of additional money that the country would have received. If the question was whether the income tax or the protective tariff of 7i per cent should be abolished, the interest of this country demands that the income tax should be taken off. There is practically no country throughout the world that has not a breaking-down income tax on the people, and that is what is stopping business. If Canada had taken off the income tax and left on the

surtax what would have occurred? People throughout the world who have capital would have brought it into this country, and we need capital very much. There is not a single tax known to economists that we do not have in this country. There is no other country staggering under a sales tax or a greater income tax than Canada. It is all very well to say that an income tax is such a beautiful thing. An income tax was imposed in England in 1799, and what occurred? It was a war tax, and an income tax always is a war tax. They did not know so much about the customs tax as we know now, because they did not have it to the extent that we have it. In 1815 and 1818, the agitation against the income tax was so great that the British Government in 1816 was defeated on a motion to impose it again, and it was ordered in the British House of Commons that all documents and resolutions in connection with the income tax of Great Britain were to be burned by the official executioner. You can search the journals of that House and you will find this fact.
In this country we need capital and business, and if you are going to take the surplus capital of the people away; if you are going to take away 12 per cent of the earnings of the people annually, you are not going to have any business in this country. So long as I have a seat in this House, I am going to agitate against this income tax, because every economist of any consequence in Great Britain has denounced it. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) is always tahc-ing about the Liberal and Reform Parly in Great Britain and what they did to abolish the tariff and to impose the income tax. He forgets that Gladstone in 1861 went to the country on a proposal to wipe out the income tax.


Michael Clark: I am bound to forget that because he did not do it. He went to the country in 1874.


John Allister Currie: Well, 1874. I do not know that it was 1874. I think it was 1867, and that we are both wrong. He went to the country on that issue, and he made a promise to the people of Great Britain that, if elected to office, he would abolish the income tax. He again and again called on his successors to abolish it. He was not in favour of an income tax; I am not in favour of an income tax, and the time is coming when we will have to abolish it. Great Britain had to abolish the income tax after the Napoleonic wars.

The United States imposed an income tax when they had the Civil War, and they had to take it off inside of three or four years after the war. The moment they did that, the money of Great Britain and other countries began to flow into the United States and to establish businesses and to carry the business of the country on. I love my country; I know exactly what is injuring the country at the present moment, and I say that it is the unjust and drastic taxes that are put into our legislation. If the minister had strictly enforced the income tax of last year, we would have had to double the accommodation of the jails throughout the country. We need a war tax and this House is responsible for deciding whether it is going to impose the tax on the individual direct, or by way of a customs tax. If they had left on that customs tax last year, we would have derived_$75,OOO,O0O from it, and you could have wiped out the income tax and still been $30,000,000 to the good.


Jacques Bureau: That is bosh.


John Allister Currie: It is not bosh.


The CHAIRMAN:: I must remind my hon. friend that if this discussion continues the House will be plunged into another Budget debate.


John Allister Currie: I am not going to enter upon another Budget debate, but I think I have a perfect right to discuss all phases of the income tax under this Bill, which covers them all. I ask your ruling on that, Mr. Chairman.


Georges Henri Boivin: The ruling of the
Chair is that a discussion concerning the abolition of the income tax is not in order upon this Bill.


John Allister Currie: Then I will talk of some other business in connection with it. What did the abolition of this customs tax cost the province of Ontario last year? I wish to discuss this because people in this House do not realize how it is causing hard times in this country. I think it would be of very great interest to the House for me to show how it is causing hard times. I do not want to put on Hansard another discussion on the Budget, but I think it is only fair to the people of this country who are paying the income tax, and who do not believe in an income tax, that I should give the facts. I believe that if a referendum were held in this country on which tax was preferred, an income tax or a customs tax, the vote would be four to one in favour of

the customs tax. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem to realize that. The province of Ontario imported last year from the United States, leaving out coal, $500,000,000 worth of goods, which should have paid the 7i per cent tax, and the people of that province paid in exchange to the Americans $58,000,000.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must ask the hon. member to desist from that argument. I have so often interrupted other hon. members when they were discussing other matters which were not in order that I certainly cannot make an exception.


John Allister Currie: I always bow to your
ruling, Mr. Chairman. I notice that you always keep me pretty close to the mark, and I do not appreciate it very much, because you allow other people to wander all round the lot. I wish to place myself on record as being entirely opposed to the income tax.


Mr. ROBB:: I submit that the hon. member has no right to cast aspersions on the Chair.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Withdraw.


John Allister Currie: I have nothing to withdraw. I say that the Chairman keeps me pretty close to the mark, and he knows that. It is no disparagement of the Chairman for me to say that. It shows how impartial he is.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I hope he will continue to be so on this occasion.


John Allister Currie: I am going to repeat that this country last year lost $75,000,000 by the abolition of the 71 per cent tax. There is no justification for the income tax, and if hon. gentlemen opposite wish to go to the country on that, let them go. There will be others who will go to the country on the abolition of the tax, and we will see which will win.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I cannot understand how my good Scotch friend from North Simcoe can sit behind this Government and support such a blundering aggregation. He told us a few weeks ago that they lost $100,000,000 on the blunder they made in abolishing the Wheat Board, and now he tells -us they have lost $75,000,000 on the abolition of this customs tax. That makes $175,000,000.


Georges Henri Boivin: I was obliged to call the hon. member for North Simcoe to order, and I must certainly rule the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) out of order.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir George Foster (for the Prime Minister), Bill No. 222, to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-'provision respecting insurance and limits thereof amended:
William Duff: Before we proceed to the discussion of clause 1, I desire to add a clause to the Act which will be an amendment to section 2 of chapter 54 of the Act of 1920. I might say that the information which has caused me to move this amendment did not reach me in sufficient time for me to appear before the Pensions Committee and place my case before them.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds further, I would point out that the rule to be followed in the moving of amendments to add clauses to Acts is that the clauses printed in the Bill under consideration are first considered. After they have been adopted by the committee any hon. member has the right to move any additional clauses which do not alter the principle of the Bill. The hon. member may have some special reason for introducing his amendment at this stage, and if he has, I should be glad to ask for the unanimous consent of the committee that he be allowed to proceed.


William Duff: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I simply thought it would be better to bring the matter up now, as it refers to clauses of the original Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-provisions respecting death of a beneficiary during lifetime of insured amended:
Mr. POWER:: May I ask the chairman of the Pensions Committee in which portion of this Bill provision is made for the assignment of a portion of a pension towards the payment of insurance premiums? Is that provision in this Bill or in the amendment to the Pension Act? It was one of the recommendations of the special committee.


Mr. CRONYN:: As I recall it, the information we had on that point was that to give effect to the recommendation all that was required was a change in the regulations, and that that change would be made, so that hereafter a pensioner could assign a portion of his pension towards payment of premiums.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Was the hon. gentleman's information to the effect that such an assignment of what is, in effect, government moneys, or moneys to be derived from the Government, could he made by mere regulation of one department or another? It is generally admitted that an assignment, particularly of pensions, cannot be made. I think the general pension law states quite clearly that assignments of pensions will not be recognized, and I was wondering in what portion of this Bill or of the Pension Bill that provision is to be found.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka) :: Has the minister considered giving to returned soldiers who take out insurance the privilege of converting it in-to an annuity in case there are no beneficiaries?


Hume Cronyn: That question also came before the committee, and was considered together with a number of cognate suggestions, and in the view of the committee it was not deemed wise to make any recommendation on the point. This Bill gives the right to the assured to designate an alternative beneficiary in case he dies without a wife or children. That was as far as the committee thought it well to go.


Peter McGibbon: That might work a hardship to the insured, and I think it is acting as a detriment to the Insurance Act. People can get more favourable consideration from the ordinary insurance companies, and it is hardily fair that a man who pays into this insurance company for twenty or thirty years should not participate in the insurance himself, as of right, if he found himself in financial difficulties.


Hume Cronyn: If the insured becomes totally disabled, he certainly gets the full benefit of the insurance. If, however, he dies without beneficiaries, under the Act the insurance goes to his estate. The whole scheme of the insurance is one not to benefit the man himself, except in case of total disability, but to protect his dependents. If he has no dependents he is not supposed to derive any personal benefit from the scheme.


Peter McGibbon: I am
afraid the hon. member does not get the
fMr. Power.!
point. A man might not be totally disabled, and although he might have no beneficiaries, he might be hard up after fifteen or twenty years in which he had paid up the insurance, and under the law he cannot participate in it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I asked the chairman of the committee a question, and I hoped he would give me an answer. I think he understands the point I wish to make.


Hume Cronyn: I am not aware that the particular question which the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) asked came before the committee this year, as to the right of the pensioner to assign any part of his pension. As a matter of fact, the Insurance Act and the Pensions Act are administered under one department; there is no going from one department to another. So far as I can recall, the point raised by my hon. friend was not discussed this year.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think it was a recommendation of the committee.


Hume Cronyn: The point raised by my hon. frienid is as to the right of allowing the assignment of pensions; I do not recall that question having been raised this year. I know that when the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act was passed last year, it was the intention of the committee that, so far as pensioners are concerned, the premiums should naturally be paid from their pensions, as being the easiest and most economical method of administration. But that was not adopted for reasons set out by the Pension Commissioner. This year the committee recommends that it should be adopted, and the pensioners gfiven the power to assign their pensions. I understand that that can be done without any change in the Act.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There has been a recommendation of the committee to the effect that pensioners may assign their
4 p.m. pensions in order that they be attributed to their insurance. In what practical manner is it intended to put this recommendation into force? As I understand the Pension Act, it is not possible for a pensioner to assign his pension for any purpose. I want to be informed by the chairman of the committee whether, when they made this recommendation, they had gone into the practicability of such assignment, and decided to amend the law in order to permit the pensioner to make the assignment.


Arthur Meighen: What the hon. member (Mr. Cronyn) said was that, in so far as

the carrying out of the recommendation contained in the report is concerned, that can be done by regulation of the ^Pension Board, and that the reason there could be no assignment heretofore, to the extent recommended in the report, was that there was no regulation to provide for it. But there is no necessity to change the law to enable such assignment to the extent that the report recommends.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The Prime Minister will
find that in the Pension Act it is expressly forbidden to any pensioner to assign his pension for any purpose whatever; so that, in order to carry out the recommendation of the committee, it would be necessary to amend the Pension Act of 1920.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to speak too positively, but I assume this to be the fact-that there can be no assignment as from the pensioner, but as the same department administers both Acts, it would only require a regulation, with the assent of the pensioner, to provide that he should not receive the whole of his pension, but that the department should utilize part of it for the purposes of his insurance. That would be different from an assignment by the pensioner to some third party; it means that part of the pension may be retained for purposes of insurance, with the assent of the pensioner.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If the minister assures
me of that, I am quite satisfied; but I remember that, earlier in the session, I had a resolution on the Order Paper asking that that be provided, and the Prime Minister's objection was that assignments could not be made. However, if he has changed his mind, and now assures me that such assignments can be made, I am satisfied.


Arthur Meighen: I am informed that the evidence of the Chairman of the Pensions Board, Colonel Thompson, who is himself a lawyer, and a good one, was based on the assumption that there was no difficulty in that respect at all.


Peter McGibbon: I want to ask the minister again what really serious objections there are to the suggestion which I have made. I know that the present system is hampering the working of the Act, and I think it is an injustice.


Hume Cronyn: I can only repeat that
the committee had considered this proposal, along with others of a somewhat similar character, and decided against it.


Peter McGibbon: For what reason?


Arthur Meighen: I was not on the committee, but it seems to me that this proposal is rather outside of the purview of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. The object of that Act is not to protect or give further advantage to the man himself, but rather to provide something for his dependents in the event of his demise. What the hon. gentleman urges may have much in its favour, but it is not something that is within the four corners of the Act. It is rather a sort of old age or sickness insurance plan. Of course, there is insurance of that character in the commercial world; but the purpose of this was not to provide any old age pension or old age insurance, it was to provide something whereby a man should protect his own dependents chiefly and get special advantages in doing so because he was a returned man.


Mr. NESBITT:: I would like to point out that a clause providing for anything in the nature of old age insurance would involve greater cost. As to the question of disability, a man who is totally disabled can draw his insurance in instalments.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-commencement of Act.
William Duff: Before this clause passes I have a very important matter I would like to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister. Not being a lawyer I do not know whether I am adopting the right procedure or not, but at all events I may be permitted to state the facts. I would have brought the question before the special committee appointed to deal with pensions to soldiers and their civil re-establishment but I only received this information yesterday morning and consequently I could not take action at an earlier date. I am going to advance reasons showing why certain worthy citizens of Canada, who are at present excluded from the provisions of this Act, should be permitted to share in the benefits which it confers. Let me say before entering upon the statement which I desire to present that I mean no discourtesy to the Government in bringing up the matter at this time-my reason for doing so as I have already explained, is that I did not earlier receive the information Which I am about to impart.
Paragraph (g) of clause 2 of Chapter 54 of the statutes of 1920 reads as follows:
"returned soldier" means any person, male or female, who served as an officer or warrant officer or who enlisted or was enrolled or was drafted for service in the naval, military or
4S58


Georges Henri Boivin: I take it for granted that the hon. member is making a request to the Government


William Duff: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: -and not moving an amendment? Because, of course, any amendment to the Bill which would increase the charges upon the public treasury would have to be introduced by a minister, and by way of resolution approved by His Excellency the Governor General.


William Duff: If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I intended to bring this matter up yesterday when the resolution was before the House, but I had a very important appointment in one of the departments and when I came into the House the resolution had gone through.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: I
should like to be permitted to associate myself with the request of my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). There is no doubt that the country owes a debt of gratitude to the officers and seamen of the mercantile marine who served us so well during the war. They were really in a much worse position than the men of the navy. The latter were prepared for emergencies, it was their business to fight submarines or any other enemy they encountered; but the men of the mercantile marine were practically at the mercy of the submarines, as is evidenced by the fact that many of their ships were sunk and large numbers of seamen were drowned. No provision has been made by the Imperial authorities in regard to these cases, and it is one of the matters connected with the war where I think the Imperial Government altogether failed to do their duty. To my mind the men who manned the merchant ships during that period did their work so well and exhibited so much bravery that they should not now be forgotten. It is a remarkable fact that the Admiralty made no provision for those men. I know the case of the captain spoken of by my hon. friend from Lunenburg, because he was an employee of my own firm. The captain and his crew, after the sinking of their ship in the Mediterranean, were taken to a German prison and detained there until the armistice. On being released they came to London and were discharged, receiving only one month's wages. That was all the Admiralty gave them. The owners of the ship were not legally bound to pay them anything because they were in the employ of the Admiralty. Consequently the crew had no rights against any person for their wages and the support of their families during the eighteen months they were prisoners in Germany.
I have always thought the Government of Great Britain were very neglectful of these seamen. They should at least have the rights of the men who served us in the Canadian Navy, and I agree with my hon. friend from Lunenburg that this concession should be made to them. I do not think they are very numerous so far as Canada is concerned, because very few Canadian-owned vessels were torpedoed. I am fairly familiar with the shipping business on the Atlantic coast, and I think you will find the number of men affected would not throw any very great financial responsibility on the Government. I trust, therefore, that the request of my hon. friend from Lunenburg will be sympathetically received by the Prime Minister.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, to make it possible at this stage to consider the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lunenburg, of course it would have to form the subject of a new resolution. On the general subject I may say that the officers and men of the mercantile marine undoubtedly, as a class, did their duty well during the war and deserve every credit for it. The same can be said with equal, or almost equal, emphasis as regards many other classes. But this point must be borne in mind. A division along a line of principle must be laid down. It has been laid down in every country, and nowhere more generously than in Canada. Those who belonged to the Canadian Expeditionary Force, whether in military or naval service, were not in pursuit of gain and were not serving themselves; they were serving the country as the direct object of their work. Consequently those men are classed by themselves, and have become the subjects of gratuities, pensions, special insurance provisions, and reestablishment generally. But those beyond that line were in occupations, however dangerous, where they were gaining the most they could get in doing the work that came to their hands. It is true that they were in positions where there was

special danger, but we must regard that special danger as having been taken into account in the contract between the men and their employers fixing their remuneration.
It is said by the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Sinclair) that there are only a few of the class of persons for whom consideration is desired-that there are only a few in his constituency and only a few in the constituency of the hon. member for Lunenburg. That may be true, but once we accede to this principle how far is it going to take us? It is said that these men who suffered in a German prison were doing their duty, and were thereby serving their country. No doubt every man who did his duty served liis country; and no doubt, too, when he suffered in a German prison as a result of doing his duty he paid a special penalty. But he did not pay any greater penalty than did the man who went down in the Lusitania, and his family does not suffer as much, and if you are going to extend the principle to the cases of the officers and crews of ships sunk by German submarines I do not know where you would stop-in fact, there would be no stopping.


William Duff: There were no transport
ships sunk by German submarines.


Arthur Meighen: Not of ours, perhaps.


John Howard Sinclair: Does
not my hon. friend see the difference between men who were in the employ of the Government and those who were not?


Arthur Meighen: What men were in the employ of the Government?


Mr. McMASTER:: These boats were
taken over by the Admiralty.


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Duff: Yes, they were.


Arthur Meighen: They may have been
commandeered, but the officers and crew were paid just the same as those of ships that were not commandeered. It would never do for this Government to treat men in that position differently from those who were in other merchant ships that were not taken over by the Admiralty. They were not enlisted men, nor were they impressed into the service; they were simply there because that was the job that suited them best; they were suiting their own ends in going there. It may be that some were animated by a higher purpose, but we cannot assume that all were. There is no question that there is a very material

difference between that class and those who were impressed into the direct service of the country during the war whether on sea or on land. There is no difference at all between the class of men for whom this consideration is sought and others who suffered by reason of Germany's conduct of the war, whether they were on board the Lusitania or any other ship. I cannot see the point of difference. Furthermore this matter was thoroughly reviewed before the committee which sat this session and was doubtless before the committee in previous sessions. The committee having taken the evidence, weighed the consequences, measured just how far conceding this request would lead us, and reported their recommendation, surely it is the part of wisdom for us to accept their finding.


William Duff: Was this matter before the committee, may I ask the minister?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes, the chairman tells me it was.


John Howard Sinclair: I do
not think my right hon. friend understands my position with regard to this matter. The men to whom I refer were voluntarily serving their country in the Canadian Merchant Marine. They were not forced into the service; they were in the same position as members of the military forces, except that they were not under the jurisdiction of military officers. I submit that no fair distinctions can be made between these classes. The men who worked on the ships of the mercantile marine were volunteers like the others; they were working for the same purpose and to the same end, and they certainly have the same rights as the men who were serving in the Canadian navy.


Arthur Meighen: Could not the men in the mercantile marine leave that service any time they wished? Were they not there because that was the job they were best suited for? Were they bound to stay?


John Howard Sinclair: I think they were. The Admiralty made very careful inquiries about the men whom they took into the mercantile marine; they had to find out all about their pedigree, whether they were British subjects, and so on; they did not allow them to come and go just as they pleased. The men were bound to stay on their ships.


Arthur Meighen: The same precautions were taken in regard to men working in the Militia Department, but they did not have to stay there.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.

Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon,. Arthur Meighen (Prime Minister), Bill No. 223, to amend the Pension Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Steele in the Chair.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I desire at this stage to make a very brief statement with regard to the returned soldier problem as a whole, and with relation particularly to the report of the committee of this session on pensions, insurance and reestablishment. Three sessions ago the House adopted the policy of referring the general question of re-establishment of our returned men, in all its wide and varied phases, to a special committee composed of members respecting all parties. That committee has had the power and the duty of summoning before it advocates of every kind of assistance that has been urged upon us, of weighing the evidence adduced, gathering from the various departments and from every possible source all the information required for intelligent judgment, and of then reporting to the House what in all the many and difficult circumstances surrounding us should be recommended to Parliament for adoption. I am bound to say that if Parliament has ever been indebted to committees of one class more than another it has been to the special committees on re-establishment so appointed from session to session. The first committee, I believe, was under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). To that committee were assigned duties of extraordinary difficulty, because at that time we had not had the experience or the extent of information which later became available; and the problems that then confronted us, the difficulties that we had to surmount, were even greater then than they have been since. That committee's report became almost immediately embodied in the law of the land, and I think we owe to that committee, for the hard work done by its members and the devotion to duty that was manifested, a very deep and lasting debt of gratitude. The subsequent committees have been under the charge of the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn). I am sure I echo the sentiments of all hon. members when I say that these two committees have lived up to the examples shown them by the first; that having regard to the extent of the assistance they have
been able to give and the good judgment they have used, the House owes to these committees the same debt of gratitude that it does to the first. It is to the credit of members of the committee, coming as they did from the various parties in the House, that they have been able, after hearing the evidence on all sides, to agree as regards what could be done. Great service has been rendered to the country by these special committees, and it was a fortunate thing that that plan of dealing with this very complicated and delicate subject was adopted-fortunate for the returned men as well as for Parliament and the country generally.
The report of this session summarizes the efforts which have been made to assist those who served so faithfully in the war, and shows what has been accomplished in the very difficult task of re-establishment. That task has been even more difficult than we had anticipated. At this time, after all the efforts that have been made, after the vast expenditures that have been devoted to the purpose, and all the care that has been exercised to see that these expenditures were along right and proper lines and that value was obtained for the money spent,- after all that, we cannot say that we do not find very considerable unemployment; that we do not find many among even the most deserving of our returned men who are still in a condition not at all satisfactory. We know, however, no matter how perfect our work, no matter how devotedly we give ourselves to it, that these consequences are inevitable. Our duty is to reduce the measure of that condition to the narrowest limits possible, and, as years go by, only by persisting in the work, by seeking improvement, by an unflagging spirit of generosity and an increasing effort to put generosity into practice, can we hope to attain the end that all Canadians of every party and every race desire shall be attained as regards these men.
The report of this session, after summarizing what has been done and the lines of work in which we are now engaged, recommends that substantial extensions be made and very material expenditures still provided in order that we may perform our task. The first recommendation is to the effect that, commencing September next, the scale of increased pensions be paid, not only to those residing in this country, but also to those residing in other countries. That involves an expenditure of about $650,000 per annum beyond previous expenditures. There are two other recom-



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
mendations that involve an annual outlay of, I think, $31,100. The report also makes extensions in the application of certain laws now in force, which extensions will undoubtedly involve us in extra expenditure. Then it goes on to provide that we shall extend the housing programme or policy adopted some two years ago and lay more money at the disposal of the provinces for use in house construction. It has been deemed wise on the part of the Government to recommend to Parliament compliance, in toto, with the report of the committee in these respects. I am sure the recommendations of the Government, embodied as they are in the Bill that has just been passed, the Bill now under consideration, and another Bill having to do with disabled men and the public, that was before the House yesterday, and, reflected in the Estimates that are still to come before the Committee of the Whole-I am sure the recommendations of the Government, following the report of the committee, will be favourably received by the House generally and by the country.
I want to make reference just here to certain considerations that, I hope, will be kept in mind by the citizens of Canada generally, but particularly by the returned men themselves. They have to do especially with a very insistent demand that, for purposes of relief of unemployment, of giving work to men who are now out of work, this Government should engage directly in a programme of house construction throughout Canada. It was strongly urged before the committee that we should follow, in the matter of construction of houses the same policy as was followed in the matter of placing returned men on the land; that loans should be provided through a Settlement Board on a certain basis of security, and that $50,000,000 should be set aside in order to launch that enterprise. I want to draw this consideration to the attention of Parliament and particularly to that of the returned men. It is not strict economy; it is not reasonable assistance, bringing results commensurate with costs or anything like it, to enter upon programmes of construction merely or mainly for the sake of employment. To do so may relieve for a short time, but it only arrests the necessary process of deflation. It only artificially sustains a situation which, as long as it is sustained, merely postpones the sufferings incident to deflation, which, in some form or another, must come before normal conditions return. If we enter upon a programme of house construction directly under this Government, operating

thousands of miles from the centre, lending money for purposes of construction, then I apprehend the tendency will be, by that very act, to sustain a level of prices of commodities entering into building operations, which, in the end, will prevent building operations rather than encourage them at the hands of private enterprise. That that result would ensue, there can be no doubt whatever; and because building for the sake of use is bound to come in any event-because it will pay-and because the advocated building is for the sake of employment rather than for the sake of use, I think it would be bound to result in there being left upon the hands of the Government, later on, the houses thus constructed. They could not be paid for because of conditions that were only postponed, that were merely alleviated by the programme, but that inevitably had to come. Those conditions having come, the men would find themselves utterly unable to pay for the houses after they were built.
I lay these considerations before the committee for what they are worth. I do not think this plan would afford more than a palliative, if a programme were entered upon such as is urged upon us. We would not have a cure; we would have simply a palliative; a palliative that would soor be at an end, the evil remaining and probably more formidable than ever. It is true that there is need for more' houses in this country at the present time, and I do not think we should regret that fact. It indicates that our population is probably advancing, and that the census returns may show results not disappointing. That that condition is a fact, I do not dispute; but in carrying on work of the kind suggested, we must insist upon the principle of local responsibility in so far as this Government assists at all. So long as you insist upon a principle of local responsibility, you place that check upon the promotion of expenditure that is essential if expenditure is to be sanely and wisely made. While you have local responsibility which the provinces may insist upon; while, in a word, you adopt the principle of lending money to the provinces -and the provinces working through municipalities, the municipalities see to it that houses are built, not purely, even not mainly, for the sake of employment, but upon sound, sensible principles-because the houses are needed, because they will be used and paid for. Consequently, I think the committee has been wise in recommending, as it has done, that we proceed, not upon new lines, but upon

the lines that we have followed in years gone by. If the House sees fit to vote the money, we put at the disposal of the provinces certain further advances to be used by them for purposes of house construction.
Let me repeat. Under that system the provinces are enabled to secure the responsibility of municipalities, and such local supervision as necessarily results, and there is no reason to apprehend that under those conditions there will be anything in the way of foolish or unjustifiable expenditure. Consequently, in the Estimates for this year, there will be found the sum of $12,000,000 for this purpose. The committee will recall that the appropriation originally was $25,000,000. Of that, approximately $15,000,000 has been expended by the provinces, leaving a little over $10,000,000 unexpended. That $10,000,000 is now available, and the Government has decided to adopt the principle of adding 25 per cent to what may be obtained by any province in Canada over the amount allotted under the previous appropriation, and to put in the Estimates this year such amount as they deem might be required by the provinces for the purpose aforesaid; that is to say, while there will be made available $6,250,000, being 25 per cent of the $25,000,000 already appropriated, there will not be required this year the entire balance, the entire balance being $16,250,000, that is to say, the $10,000,000 odd that remains unexpended of the original appropriation and the $6,250,000, being 25 per cent, of the original appropriation. There will be required this year, we think, not more than $12,000,000. Consequently, in the Estimates will be found an item of $12,000,000 in order to implement the recommendation in that respect contained in the report of the special committee.
In this regard I feel I should call attention to the special work done by the Department of Labour,-pursuant to the report of a previous special committee, in re-establishment, and in co-operation with the provinces,-of employment offices throughout this country. Those employment offices have been able to find situations for very, very many returned men. They work in co-operation with the Reestablishment Department, and I believe that the number that they have actually placed in work now exceeds 200,000.
There has also been appointed under legislation a National Advisory Council,
and that council, conferring as it does with the Department of Labour, has assisted very materially in helping labour conditions throughout this country, and especially in providing for the movement from place to place of returned men as well as others, thereby enlarging the area of employment. That we have unemployment in this country to-day is doubtless true; that we have unemployment above the average in this country, and too far above the average, is doubtless true; and that there is suffering as a result no one can deny. But we cannot keep out of mind this fact; that under conditions of deflation, which necessarily follow any period of inflation, under conditions of returning to lower levels of values, there is bound to be, and always has been, unemployment. To-day it is a world-wide condition, by no means confined to this country, nor do I think there is any country in the world where the per capita unemployment is less than in Canada to-day. Certainly there was no country where it was anything like so small, proportionately to population, as it was in Canada last winter. In Great Britain at this time, aside entirely from the effects of the strike, the percentage of unemployment far exceeds ours; it must be at least three or four times what it is here. In the United States it has exceeded ours, and if it does not exceed it now, it at least is equal to it. Consequently, by comparison, we have no reason to feel that conditions in this country in that regard are worse than anywhere else. Indeed, J think they are better than they are in any other industrial country in the world.
Now the question comes as to what should be done as regards this problem. The Government adopted the course last winter of insisting on local responsibility as regards unemployment. We had been compelled during the war, and indeed, up to last winter, more or less to disregard that principle, but we thought the time had come to restore it; and consequently, against very great, indeed, against what one might almost call violent pressure, the Government did insist upon that principle once again. We decided on this course; that we would assist general unemployment only where the municipality primarily assumed the burden, put in organization, and itself assumed the duty of paying for the organization; and then, if the municipality took care of one-third of the cost, and the province in which the municipality was, took care of another third,
[Stage Direction]
the Dominion would provide its third, a third entirely irrespective of the cost and expenditure of organization-we paid a third only of what the unemployed actually received. Under that policy we have expended some ..301,000 up to date, and it will probably take $60,000 more to pay the unsettled accounts. But the Dominion did not stop at ;that. It was urged very strongly upon us that we had special responsibility as regards unemployed disabled men. We had, of course, already recognized, like every other country in the world, our responsibility in respect of disabled men, and the pension law of this country as it now exists is the result; it is ,the reflection of the determination of the people of Canada as regards the disabled men. But it was felt that we could not stop there; that the disabled men being more liable to unemployment than others-although that feature was taken into account or is claimed to have been taken into account in fixing the pension for disability-still, the very fact that disabled men were out of employment was the subject of a cry of great sincerity to the Government, a cry to which we thought we could not turn a deaf ear. As a result, it was determined that we should assume the care of disabled men in receipt of pensions above a very, very small amount -I forget just what it was-wholly as a federal responsibility. The administration of that charge was placed in the hands, naturally, of the Department of Civil Reestablishment, and the discharge of that responsibility has cost up to date the sum of $842,403. In addition to that, there are outstanding claims that it is estimated will amount to $600,000, the total will not likely be less than $1,250,000. So much for the treatment of unemployment last winter and up till the present. I may add that our contribution toward general unemployment continues as long as the municipalities hold upon their own shoulders their responsibility. While they do so, we continue ours; when they cease, we cease.
As regards the disabled, the help of the Department of Re-establishment has continued up till now. I know there are very grave objections to continuing it during such periods as last month, when climatic conditions were such as to render suffering of the worst kind not so likely, even if possible at all, but we have not felt justified in entirely ceasing that form of assistance. We hope that it will not be necessary to continue that much longer. We know that overdoing anything of that tMr. Meighen.]
kind has a tendency to increase rather than to mitigate the evil. But we cannot dismiss from our minds the probability that in the coming winter there will be a very considerable burden in this respect. There are many who prophesy, after a survey of unemployment conditions in other lands, that we will probably have more unemployment next winter than this. I earnestly hope that will not be the case. I have reason to feel it will not be the case. I do not know that my judgment is of any special value, but there are signs that the period through which we have been passing is nearing an end. It commenced here somewhat later than in the great republic to the south. They had very considerably worse employment conditions last winter than had we. As we followed them in that regard-and, I presume it is a sort of economic necessity that we do that, they being so much vaster, and their momentum so much greater than ours-so, when the opposite process sets in, we probably shall follow them too; and the best information I can get is to the effect that in the United States business conditions are gradually improving and that unemployment conditions are likewise becoming better. If that keeps on, and there is no reason to think that it will not, there is every hope that by next winter, instead of being, as regards unemployment, in a worse condition than last winter, we ought to be, if we follow right lines, in a somewhat better condition; and from time to time we shall have the burden of the country in this matter gradually relieved.
The attitude of the Government, I think, reflects the spirit of the Canadian people; it ought to reflect it^ I believe that the spirit of the Canadian people demands that we do not, in any sense whatever, abandon the care of the returned men. I know it is in their interests, as it is in the interests of the country; that the well and able man, who has no particular disability, ceases to regard himself as in a class apart, but that he consider himself once again a citizen like the rest of us, charged with the duty of battling his way in the world. But as respects him who is not in that class, who is in a more or less degree disabled, and who, although he may appear to be quite restored and just as good as other people, is nevertheless, on careful analysis, and after long experience, found to be really not so, it is the spirit of this country that we walk by his side from year to year, as we have done before, and that every possible inquiry and investigation shall be made in order

that we may be certain, as time goes on, that no injustice is being done him. That reflects the spirit of the Canadian people; it is intended to state the general attitude of the Government; and I believe that the attitude of the Government is the general attitude of Parliament. My authority for that statement is the tenor of the reports of the various committees that have deliberated upon, and all phases of opinion that have concerned themselves with, this problem. The Bill that is now before, the committee has to do with pensions, and pensions alone, and I am sure it will be received with the same sympathetic and favourable consideration as that with which other Bills to the same end have been received.
William Stevens Fielding: It may be that here and there, in the remarks of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) some points have been raised which will be regarded by some as matters of debate; but happily, in the main, what he has said we are able to concur' in very largely on this side. It is a gratifying fact, that so far as we have been able to go in our dealings with our returned men in the matters of pensions, the care of the sick, and so forth, there has been no division of opinion. All Canadians feel that everything that is possible should be done on behalf of these men and their dependents, and we share with the right hon. gentleman, in every respect, the desire he has expressed that they shall receive every possible consideration. I would particularly avail myself of the opportunity of renewing my expression of appreciation of the work that has been done by the committee which has handled this question for the last three years. It is a very pleasing fact that while, on many questions, we differ in Parliament, as is inevitable, in this matter there has been a unanimity of opinion from the beginning. Members on both sides of the House who have sat on the committee have vied with one another to do the best they could. We all know the obligations we owe to the committee of the present year, and it is no injustice to other members of the committee if we speak particularly of the services rendered by my hon. friend the member for London (Mr. Cronyn). He has given us the most valuable service, and I do not know of any other branch of the public service in which he could have rendered more useful assistance. The hon. member stated the other day that his constituency had been almost unrepresented because he had given so much of
his time to this particular work. I am sure the constituency will make due allowance for that, and will fully appreciate the good work he has done. If there be any difference at all, it will be that 5 p.m. some of the keenest friends of the returned men-and we all wish to be numbered among them-would wish that something further could be done for them. Well, we may all sympathize with that desire; but J believe that in the various provincial governments and local authorities, to which reference has been made, and even among the returned men themselves, there will be a feeling that, while all that the soldiers may desire may not have been done, all concerned, all have been willing to approach the question with consideration, as shown by the fact that this matter has been studied from year to year by competent members of the House who have served on the committee without any party end in view, and with the single desire to reach a sound conclusion. And though, in some respects, disappointment may be felt, I think there will be universal recognition that the House of Commons of Canada has endeavoured to deal with this matter in the right spirit; and, if all that some would desire has not been accomplished, nevertheless there will be appreciation of the spirit in which the work has been done and the good results that have been obtained.


Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: I have listened with a great deal of pleasure to the remarks of the Prime Minister in regard to the housing scheme, and also in regard to the share which the Provincial Government bears of the cost of taking care of the unemployed. While I am in accord with the Prime Minister as respects the housing scheme, I do not think it should be regarded as a plan to stimulate trade. In the first place, the Federal Government loans the money to the Provincial Government, which in turn loans it to the municipality, where it rests. The munic'nal government will then have to bear all the costs of depreciation, and depreciation may come in five years' time or sooner. This is a point which I wish the Prime Minister to consider; I think he should go a little further than he has gone. He tells us that the Federal Government carries one-third of the cost of taking care of the unemployed. I should like the Federal Government to do this in co-operation with the Provincial Government and the municipality. The Federal Government should bear one-third of the de-

preciation so that this will not all fall on the municipal government. I know for a fact that in several municipalities the scheme was not taken up because the municipal governments saw that it would throw the burden of depreciation altogether on them. This Government would be well advised seriously to consider approaching the Provincial Governments and the municipal governments if need be and proposing an arrangement all three governments would bear one-third each of the cost of depreciation.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would ask the chairman of the committee (Mr. Cronyn) to give some explanation of what is meant by the addition to clause 11 of the words "as such"? What is the meaning of the amendment?


Hume Cronyn: Section 11 of the original Act was amended at the last session of Parliament so as to read as follows:
The Commission sh; 11 award pensions to or in respect of members of the forces who have suffered disability in accordance with the rates set out in Schedule A of this Act, and in respect of members of the forces who have died in accordance with the rates set out in Schedule B of this Act, when the disability or death in respect of which the application for pension is made, was attributable to military service.
Upon the advice or recommendation of the Board of Pension Commissioners it is proposed to add to this provision the words "as such".


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Why military service "as such"? What is the distinction?


Hume Cronyn: I think my hon. friend
will recall the discussions we have had in earlier committees on that point. Our Pension Act, as distinct from the Acts of many other countries, was virtually an insurance to the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force-in other words; if those members, from almost any cause other than their wilful misconduct, were injured or killed during their period of service, they or their dependents received a pension. It was thought that since the cessation of the war that basis of pension should be narrowed, and that a pension should only be awarded, in respect of those who are still in the military or naval service of Canada, if the accident or death which occurred arose from military service as such.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In order to get a concrete example take the case of a man who was injured or killed at a militia camp by

falling olf a horse. Would that be attributable, in the mind of the chairman, to military service as such?


Hume Cronyn: To my mind, yes, without any doubt; but if that man went off to a race track, there got a mount and raced, and was killed I do not think-even though he was a member of the forces and was properly on leave-his dependent! would be pensioned.


John Howard Sinclair: Judging from the few cases which have come under my own observations I think the Pension Board sometimes give a very strict interpretation to the Act. I drew the attention of the chairman yesterday to the case of a young man who was serving in the military forces in Cape Breton. He was allowed out for a stroll and during his walk came across a live wire. He was unacquainted with the danger connected with electricity-he had been brought up on a farm thirty miles away from any electrical works, and had probably never heard of a live wire before. He lifted the wire with his hand, and in doing so was injured so seriously that his fingers had to be removed. Now the decision of the board was that he came to this accident through his own carelessness and was not entitled to any compensation whatever. The young man himself took the ground, and his father also, that if he had remained at home looking after matters on the farm he would not have suffered this injury; he was in the service of the country at the time, he was properly there, and it was owing to his inexperience that the accident happened. I do not know what view would be taken by the members of the committee in regard to a case of that kind, but it occurs to me that it was somewhat strict for the Pension Board to decide that owing to the fact that this accident happened through his own carelessness, as hey say, he was not entitled to anything in the way of remuneration. The chairman of the committee has said that the Pension Act is virtually an insurance. If it is a case of insurance it would be covered by the ordinary insurance law. For example if he was an employee of any industry and an accident of that nature happened to him, he would be entitled to compensation under the compensation law of any of the provinces. My question is therefore-why should the pension insurance be dealt with in a stricter sense than is usual in the case of any of our industries? I think the committee wifi

understand what I mean. If that young man had been in the employ of the Steel Works, or of a coal mining company, or any of these industries that come under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the fact that he grasped a wire with his hand would not disentitle him to the usual compensation. That used to be the old doctrine under the common law that a man was disentitled to any compensation if he was, in a measure, careless himself and contributed to the accident; but that is not the doctrine which prevails now under the compensation law as it exists in the various provinces. I think, therefore, that more generous treatment ought to be taken in cases of the kind.


Rodolphe Lemieux: While I do not wish to delay the committee, or to indulge in a rehash of old cases, I must say that in some instances, with all due regard to the Pension Board, I fear they adhere too closely to the letter of the Act instead of carrying out the law according to its spirit. I have two cases in mind which I brought to the attention of the special committee on Pensions without success. The first case was that of the Widow Martel whose son enlisted at the beginning of the war, was wounded overseas and decorated for his services, and came back with a 25 per cent disability. Unfortunately he was drowned after his return, because evidently he had not the vigour, owing to his disability, to resist the current or the tide at the place where he was bathing during the heat of the summer. Now his mother is left penniless. And one of her other children was badly injured last winter. The second case is that of Mrs. Etienne, of my own county, whose son also enlisted and was killed during the war, hut because she was not assigned the pay of her son at the time he left for France, she is held to he not entitled to anything, and she has to take care of the two or three children who are left. It is proven that she received a telegram and a letter at the time her son was leaving for the front to meet him at the railway station on the arrival of his train as he wanted to assign to her his pay. He happened to be separated from his wife. But we know how troop trains were run during the war, and how uncertain were their arrival and departure. She went to the station, but it was a special train and did not stop, and she saw her son just bidding her farewell from the car window as the train passed along. He died at the front. She has the care of the young children, and she
receives nothing. That is a case where, it seems to me, the spirit of the act should be followed rather than the letter. I must protest against the decision which has been rendered in this case, because I feel that it is not consonant with the principle upon which the country has provided liberally for returned soldiers and their dependents.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The first case mentioned by my hon. friend certainly does not come within the Act, because the dependents are not pensionable unless the death of the soldier is attributable to military service. Certainly if a man is drowned after being discharged healthy and fit, his death cannot be attributable to military service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But he lost his life on account of his wounds.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That would be very difficult to prove when he was discharged fit.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not fit; twenty-five per cent disability.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: A very small percentage. During last year and this year I have heard about five hundred cases-


Rodolphe Lemieux: - Too many for one man. That is how injustice is done.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There were three of us.
I have found both the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment Board and the Pension Board very generous in sizing up all these cases. We find that sometimes a man's trouble gets worse, and when his case is reviewed the board always grants a pension if it comes within the Act. As a matter of fact, we do give the Pension Board liberty under certain circumstances to use their discretion, but the committee, ever since 1916, have been averse to allowing the Pension Board to have too much discretion, and have drawn the Act as well as they possibly could to cover every conceivable case. I can only repeat that I have found the Pension Board and the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment very generous in all cases, and if they have erred at all they have erred in sympathy with the applicant.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not charging the board nor my hon. friend with any injustice. I am simply stating what I know to be the facts. The grandmother of those children received letters from the board, and I think she began to draw a pension herself. I have seen the originals of the telegram and letter sent by her unfortunate son to meet him at a certain point in Montreal or in the suburbs. She went there

with the little boy and girl, but the train did not stop and she could only wave farewell to her son. He went to France; he was killed; and now she is left with his children, and we are told: Well, there was no pay assigned to her. But that is the very thing her son wanted to do and intended to do, but he could not. My hon. friend says he has heard five hundred cases.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I said in the neighbourhood of that number.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not charging him with any injustice, but when a man takes a certain line of action he creates precedents, and abides by those precedents. In the present instance it is too unfortunate that this poor woman should be left penniless with these grandchildren; in fact, it is a case of cruelty to her.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Are the children pensioned?


Rodolphe Lemieux: A little; but she is entitled to something.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is not a little if
they get orphans' pensions.


Pius Michaud: I do not think this
is a time for technicalities. Here is a concrete case, and we should do what is just and right on behalf of the grandmother and these orphans. It seems to me that we should decide this particular case as well as general cases, and my hon. friend from Maisonneuve and Gaspe has submitted this particular case so plainly and convincingly to the committee that it seems to me it should appeal to the good sense and humanity of every member.


Rodolphe Lemieux: More than that, Mr. Chairman, I have asked my hon. friend the chairman of the committee, and some other members of the committee, to take up this case. I presented the papers to them and said: Here is the evidence. Now, would it not have been fairer to that grandmother to have notified her that on a certain date her case would be heard, and then to have listened to her own story. But it was not done. All I know is that the decision of the committee is against her. Well, it is not fair.


John Flaws Reid: I am sorry
that the right hon. Prime Minister has left the chamber, but I should like to press my idea a little further in regard to the housing plan. The Bill does not mention housing, but the Prime Minister introduced

the subject. I am in entire accord with all the good things that have been said about the hon. member who has had charge of this committee, and I should like to have an expression of opinion from him on this subject. I think if he will look into this matter he will admit that it is only fair that the three governments, municipal, provincial and federal, should each carry one-third of the cost of depreciation, whether the period be for three or five years. We all realize that there will be quite a depreciation in the cost of building in the very near future. I claim it is not fair to lay all the burden of this loss upon the municipality. As a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons why the Provincial Governments have not taken advantage of borrowing this money from the Federal Government-they did not consider it fair to put all the burden of depreciation upon the municipalities. As I said before, the Federal' Government adopted a similar principle in respect to the cost of looking after the unemployed. That is a good principle, and constitutes a precedent which the Federal Government should follow in regard to the housing problem and bear one-third of the cost of depreciation.


Hume Cronyn: I hardly think that this is a matter upon which the chairman of a committee which deals entirely with the affairs of soldiers should be asked to express an opinion. The point raised by the hon. member is with regard to the proper division of a possible loss as between the Dominion, the province and the municipality. That is surely a matter for the Government, who are considering the advancing of additional sums on this account, and I would not care offhand to express any opinion about it. I would say, however, that the Dominion does bear some part of the expense of this operation; as I am informed, the Dominion lends to the province at one per cent less than it costs the Dominion to borrow the money. That is quite a considerable item when you consider the large amount involved.


George Green Foster: I might also say to my hon. friend that this matter will come up again on the vote which is in the Estimates for the purpose, and if he will reserve his question for that time I will see that the Prime Minister has an answer for him.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-provision respecting pension to widowed mother amended.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: At the risk of having members of the House think that I have become a nuisance with regard to this subject, I must once more protest against the treatment meted out by the House of Commons and by the committee to the widowed mothers of our soldiers. I have on several occasions brought this matter to the attention of the House. When I present it in the form of a resolution I appear to get the almost unanimous support of members on both sides, but when it comes down to actual practical legislation I appear to be all alone. In this instance, therefore, I do not intend to submit an amendment-in the first place because I know, Mr. Chairman, your knowledge of the rules is such that you would promptly rule me out of order as you have already done on two occasions; and, in the second place, because the most enthusiastic supporter of the proposal which I have put forward is my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Peck), who, unfortunately, though he and I share the same opinion in this matter, is away and I am paired with him. So I am in the unfortunate position of not being able to put this matter before the committee in such form that it will be brought to a vote. But I would like to make my protest once more-perhaps fo" the last time, because this may be the last session of this parliament-and if only to keep my record clean in that at every session of this parliament I have protested against the treatment accorded to the widowed mother. In order to make my protest clear, Sir, and to show the anomalies of the Act, I wish to be permitted to read section 34 of the Act, subsection 1, which has reference to pensions to widowed mothers:
A parent or any person in the place ot a parent with respect of a member of the forces who has died shall be entitled to a pension when such member of the forces left no child, widow, or divorced wife who is entitled to a pension, or a woman awarded a pension under subsection three of section th! 'ty-three of this Act, and when such parent or person is in a dependent condition and was, at the time of the death of such member of the forces, wholly or to a substantial extent, maintained by him.
That is to say, the widowed mother of a soldier may obtain a pension when the soldier has left no child, no widow, no divorced wife under certain conditions, or a woman "awarded a pension under subsection 3 of section 33 of this Act." Now, let us see who the woman is who is thus preferred to the widowed mother of a
soldier. I quote from subsection 3 of section 33:
A woman who, although not married to the member of the forces, was living with him in Canada at the time he became a member of the forces and for a reasonable time previously thereto, and who, at such time, was publicly represented by him as his wife may, in the case of his death and in the discretion of the Commission, be awarded a pension equivalent to the pension she would have received had she been his legal widow. The Commission may also award a pension if, in its opinion, an injustice would be done by not recognizing a woman as the wife of a member of the forces although there is no evidence that she had been publicly represented by him as his wife.
I am not objecting to this section so far as it refers to what we have been pleased to call the " unmarried wife;" I am simply pointing out the anomalies of the Act as it exists. Under the law this woman, a man's mistress, his concubine, the prostitute with whom he has lived, will get a pension before his mother will get a pension. That is the state of the law as it exists to-day. I do not like to bring this matter before the committee, but I think it is fair that hon. members should know just what our Pension Act is. This country prides itself on its Christian spirit and on its morality, yet here we have in our statutes a provision which consecrates the principle that before the woman who bore the child shall get a pension on account of his death the woman with whom he lived in sin gets a pension. Sir, I think I have a right to protest against such a state of affairs. I do hope that if the matter cannot be remedied this year, the members of the committee and of the Government next year will see to it that this state of affairs no longer exists and that the mother that gave her boy to her country should at least get not inferior treatment to the person who, possibly, lived in open adultery with him.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-section giving additional allowance to widow and children repealed:
William Stevens Fielding: Will the chairman kindly explain the effect of this amendment in regard to deductions which were at one time made from a widow's pension? I believe that in that respect a change has been made in the right direction.


Hume Cronyn: Under the Act as it
stands to-day no deduction is made from the pension of a widowed mother if while resident in Canada she is in receipt of an independent income of not more than $20 a

month, or $240 a year-that is to say, she may receive her pension and, independently of that, $240 a year. No deduction has been made on account of her own earnings, no matter where she lived, or on account of her owning her own home or getting the benefit of free lodgings. But there was a deduction made if she had sons living with her who in the opinion of the Pensions Board were fitted to support her, or if she had other children who were actually contributing to her support. In each of these cases, I believe, a deduction of $10 a month for each such son was made. It was thought, perhaps, to be unfair that on one side there should be a widow who was entitled to an exempted income of $20 a month, and, on the other, a widowed mother whose sons' contributions, whether they were actual contributions or implied contributions, should be deducted from her pension. The effect of this amendment is to place the contributions from the children, express or implied, on the same basis as the independent income and to exempt them up to $20 a month.


Mr. CALDWELL:: As a member of the special committee, I do not feel like allowing this opportunity to pass without voicing jmy protest against one particular section of the report. I had not the privilege of attending the committee on the day that this was decided upon by the committee, but the fact that I opposed this clause last year gives me a right to oppose it this year. I refer to the deduction from a widow's pension on account of her children. It is making deductions from her pension on account of, not only contributions which have been made, but contributions which should have been made, whether they have i been made or not. I think, on a recent occasion, "imaginary letters" were ordered to be deleted from the records of this House. In this case we have the Pension Committee authorizing that imaginary contributions to a widowed mother's support will be deducted from her pension. If the one is illogical, the other is much worse. It is leaving it to the discretion of the Pension Commissioners to decide, not that contributions have been made, but whether they should be made or not. If actual contributions to the widowed mother's support were deducted, the matter would not be quite so bad; but in this recommendation, it is left to the discretion of somebody to say that these contributions should have been made. If they are not made, they are deducted from the widow's pension just the same as if they had been made. That 
is surely illogical. As I said, last year I opposed the deduction of $10 a month for each son who resided at home with the mother. This year the provision is made to include not only sons, but daughters. The word "children" is substituted for the word "sons", and the word "child" for the word "son". If this Widowed mother has children who reside at home or abroad, whether they are contributing or not, a deduction is made of $10 for each such son or daughter. It is a well established fact that we need more citizens in Canada, and surely a mother who raises a large family is more entitled to a pension than to be penalized by raising such a family, but under this Act, you penalize the widow who has raised a large family. The logical thing would be to give her an increased pension on account of having contributed to the population of Canada by raising that family.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: While we are on that
section, I wish to read sections 3 and 4 of the Bill together. If I understand clause 4, it adds to subsection 7 of section 34 by stating that any moneys contributed by children will not be included in the income of $240. If I am wrong, the chairman of the special committee will please correct me.


Hume Cronyn: Up to $20 a month.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Therefore, this $10
which the children are presumed to contribute really no longer exists.


Hume Cronyn: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would suggest to the
chairman of the committee that subsection 6, of section 34, be stricken from the Bill altogether, and then we would have no difficulty at all about the matter. There would be no trouble in interpreting it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: How does it read?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Subsection 6 is amended
by striking out the words "sons" and "son" and by substituting therefor the words "children" and "child" respectively. But I do not see the necessity for this subsection if we no longer take into consideration any contribution these children may make.


Hume Cronyn: Only up to $20 a month.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes, but supposing the
widowed mother has $15 and the son contributes $10; that would be $25. We will not count this $10 under the Act as I understand it. Is that not a fact?


Hume Cronyn: No.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Why not strike out the
whole of subsection 6? Would the chair-

man consider that? I think if he considers it, he will find that I am right in my contention.


Hume Cronyn: I think my hon. friend has not the facts quite correctly in his mind. The contributions, express or implied, from the children are exempt up to $20 a month. They are not wiped off the slate altogether. If we have a widowed mother with an independent income of $20 a month and two sons living with her who are contributing, or should contribute, to her support, either the independent income or the amount charged for the two sons is deducted from her pension.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Only the independent income would be deducted? You would not deduct the amount from the sons?


Hume Cronyn: If she has three, four or five children, then a certain amount would be deducted each month from her pension, and I think the section would have to stand.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I thought it was the intention of the committee to strike altogether from the law all question of support by the children to their widowed mother. That was my idea, and that is the idea conveyed to me by members of the committee, that from now on there would be no question on the part of the Board of Pension Commissioners of considering whether a son who was in Western Canada should be supporting somebody who is living, say, in Nova Scotia. If, however, it is not the intention of the committee to do that, we have not improved the state of the widowed mother to any appreciable degree.


Hume Cronyn: We have improved it to an estimated extent of $18,000 a year, which the widowed mothers will receive and which the country will pay.


John Flaws Reid: I should like to say a word or two in regard to the deduction of $10 a month from the widowed mother's pension, because she has a son staying at home with her who is supposed to contribute to her support. I suppose all the sons of Canada are good boys or, at least, presumed to be so; but I know of more than one case where, instead of a son being a help to his mother, the opposite is the case. It is absolutely unfair that a mother's pension should be reduced on account of the fact that she has a son who is supposed to support her, but over whom she has no control. This matter has not been given very serious consideration.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) speaks about a son residing at home with his mother. This amendment includes not only sons, but daughters whether they reside at home or abroad, if the commission consider that they should contribute to their mother's support. This does not mean children who are contributing, but children who, the commission consider, should be contributing, to the mother's support. I opposed the Act last year when it applied only to sons, but it is much worse now when it applies to daughters as well. Supposing a daughter of a widowed mother is doing housework at $5 or $6 a week, earning hardly enough to clothe herself. It is within the power of the commission to decide that that girl should be contributing $10 a month to her mother's support when she is not earning enough to support herself. It is a most iniquitous provision, and as a member of the special committee, I wish to put myself on record as being absolutely opposed to the clause. I move in amendment:
That subsection 6 of section VI of chapter 62 of the Acts of 1920 be struck out.
I wish to add my meed of praise of the very efficient manner in which the chairman of this Pension Committee has carried on his work, and also of the very harmonious relations of the members of that committee. I would not want to make it appear by these few remarks that I do not think the members of the committee were sincere. There was no evidence of partisanship in that committee, I am pleased to say, and I think that if we could carry the spirit of that committee into this House business would proceed much more rapidly, and we would have more of a fellow-feeling possibly when the session is over than we have under the method now prevailing. I wish most heartily to add my meed of praise to what has been said of the devotion and ability and fairness of the chairman of the committee, as well as the other members.


Hume Cronyn: I am afraid there is
seme confusion of mind over this matter. In the first place, if children living apart from the widowed mother do not contribute, no deduction is or can be made.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The Act specifically
states:
When a parent or person in the place of a parent has unmarried children residing with him or her who should, in the opinion of the

Commission, be earning an amount. . . . each such unmarried child shall be deemed to be contributing-
And so on.


Hume Cronyn: That is the point I am trying to make clear; we are getting the two things mixed. Where a child does not reside with the widowed mother, unless he makes a contribution to his mother, no deduction is or can be made. Now let us put that case aside, and take the case |of children residing with the mother. Undoubtedly there is under this section, given to the Board of Pension Commissioners, power and discretion to say whether that child, be the child boy or girl, is fitted to earn and is earning an amount sufficient to charge the mother's account up to $10 a month. By the amendments now before us we are exempting $20 a month of those supposed earnings, so that the widow would have to have more than two children who, in the opinion of the commissioners, should be contributing to her support before any reduction could be made. You have to leave it to the discretion of somebody, and it was strongly represented to the committee that public opinion took offence at a condition of affairs which allowed several strapping boys to be living with the mother and yet not held liable to contribute to her support. That, I think, was the expression of opinion given to the committee, and perhaps was the reason which caused the committee to pass this section some time ago. The course taken this year is to amelioriate the condition of the widowed mother in respect to that one particular.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: By an amount of $18,00C?


Hume Cronyn: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Out of $33,000,000. You made a good job of it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the meaning of the amendment, which reads:
such income being considered to include the contributions from children residing with or away from her whether such contributions have actually been made or are deemed by the Commissioners to have been made.
As I understand that, it means that the exemption of $20 a month takes into account what is supposed to have been contributed by the children, and no deductions are made even if she gets that contribution?


Hume Cronyn: Up to $20 a month.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It might be more than that. The wording is not very clear. To

my mind, it means that whatever contributions may have been made may be included in the exemption.


Hume Cronyn: If we read the section as it now stands, with the amendment proposed, perhaps the result will be more clear:
The pension of a widowed mother shall not be reduced on account of her having an income from other sources which does not exceed two hundred and forty dollars per annum, such income being considered to include the contributions from children residing with or away from her whether such contributions have actually been made or are deemed by the Commissioners to have been made.
The contributions which are deemed to have been made are those from the children living with the mother.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Or apart from her?


Hume Cronyn: No. In such an event they have to be actual contributions.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Supposing "such income" included contributions from three children living with the mother, $30 a month. That would not be taken into account under the Act?


Hume Cronyn: Yes, $10 a month would be taken off the pension.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not see how the hon. gentleman reads that here. It says "such income being considered to include the contributions-" it does not say two or three contributions, but- "the contributions from children residing with or away from her whether such contributions have actually been made or are deemed by the commissioners to have been made." I think that would include all contributions from children. I do not know what the intention of the committee was.


Hume Cronyn: This amendment was
drafted by the legal adviser of the board and was passed upon by Parliamentary Counsel. Let me read the original section once more.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is perfectly good, so far as I am concerned, but I think its effect will be that there are no deductions at all, if you leave it as it is.


Hume Cronyn: The pension of a widowed mother shall not be reduced on account of her having an income from other sources which does not exceed two hundred and forty dollars per annum, such income being considered to include the contributions from children_


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: All the contributions from children.


Hume Cronyn: So long as they do not exceed $240 per annum, they are exempt. If my hon, friend from North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) is satisfied as to the legal effect, I think we all ought to be.


John Flaws Reid: That was not the case last year.


Hume Cronyn: No, it was to correct just that very practice that we made this recommendation and are bringing in this amendment.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a point which I think the hon. member has made clear, but which I want him to confirm. In the case of the widowed mother having sons residing, not with her but in other parts of the country, who perhaps should contribute to her support but do not, I understand that no reduction is made?


Hume Cronyn: No.


William Stevens Fielding: So long as they do not actually contribute?


Peter McGibbon: What particular clause of the Act specifies that? It says here "such contributions have actually been made or are deemed by the commissioners to have been made."


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is to cover the
boys that live at home.


Peter McGibbon: it does not say so.


Mr. MORPHY:: I would like to know
whether or not the word "children" is intended to cover both male and female?


Hume Cronyn: Yes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It seems to me a hardship that a section of that kind should apply to the daughters of a widowed mother having no particular employment, but who are slaving to help the mother out.


Hume Cronyn: 
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In regard to pensions
paid to people outside of Canada, there is a provision somewhere in the Act that the pension is not to be diminished because of such residence outside of Canada. Does this apply to widowed mothers?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes..


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Then I would ask the
chairman of the committee to take steps to amend the original Act to make this clear. I think the Chairman understands me?


Hume Cronyn: I am afraid I do not.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The Act provides that
the pension of a widowed mother shall not be re'duced on account of earnings of personal employment, etc., so long as she resides in Canada.


Hume Cronyn: That point was not considered by the committee. The only change made with regard to residence outside of Canada was that the bonus of fifty per cent should be the same, whether the pensioner lived in Canada or outside.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: So that the widowed
mother does not benefit by that?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty, Bill No. 219 with regard to certain proceedings under Part IV of the Canada Temperance Act was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On clause 1-proclamation valid if it states prohibition shall go into force on day and date declared by Order in Council.
William Stevens Fielding: There are two sets- perhaps I should say two classes-of interests which may be affected by this Bill. First, of course, there is the public interest which must be paramount. There is also what I may call the private interest-the interests of parties now in court to which, while they are entirely subordinate, we still must give some consider-

ation. If the public interests are likely to be affected by the existing order of things I quite agree with the minister that he has a right to intervene. If, owing to a mistake made by the Government in drafting the Bill, or by this House in enacting it, or by any official of the Government in administering it, a situation has been created in which there is a probability, or even a possibility, of important public interests being set aside on a mere technicality, I quite agree that would be justification for the minister to intervene. The subject with which this Bill deals is the question of prohibition. The various provinces concerned have spoken in no uncertain manner. They have approved of the principle of prohibition and desire it to be enforced, and I am sure ^obody in this House would desire to interfere with the carrying out of the deliberate voice of the people. Certainly I have no desire to do so, and I quite concur in the view that no mere technicality should be permitted to override the deliberate voice of the people in this respect. But there remains the question of the private interests of persons who are already in court on the subject. In so far as my right hon. friend proposes to legislate that these technicalities shall not prevent effect being given to the deliberate voice of the people in these matters I desire to entirely concur With him; but I would like to receive an assurance from him that the interests of individuals who may be in court at present will not be at all adversely affected by this Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: To the extent that
persons are seeking to attain a result which obviously is opposed and injurious to the general public welfare-namely the setting aside of what the hon. gentleman has spoken of as the deliberate voice of the people; to the extent that those interests desire to have prohibition defeated; to the extent that private individuals may be seeking by reason of an alleged defect in form to defeat that voice of the people, they must necessarily be deprived of the opportunity of doing so by this legislation.


Mr FIELDING:: That is not the kind of private interest I mean.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot conceive what substantial interest there is that wishes to destroy the effect of the voice of the people by this technicality. If we say that because somebody might perhaps, if action were deferred-which is all that would come of it if we did not prevent the possible defeat of this law in the manner we

are proposing-lose some money, or be enabled to make some money because of this accidental, and perhaps fatal, omission, then possibly some interest might in that sense be affected and no doubt anybody in that position would be debarred from obtaining an advantage resulting from such omission. I do not know that anybody will be prevented from making money by reason of our curbing that accidental omission, but if there be anybody no doubt he will be affected to that extent. Against that, however, we have the great general public interest. In the first place it is highly important that the desire of the people so emphatically expressed should not be defeated by this merely accidental omission. In the next place there is the great, substantial, material public interest to be protected which consists in the fact that if all that has occurred in the past is declared nugatory, all the expense which has been incurred in connection with these different plebiscites will be wasted money, and the people will only be put in the position to have their voice prevail by the country being put to the same expense all over agin. Noiw, as I pointed out in introducing the Bill, there has already been incurred and actually paid in connection with these different plebiscites a sum exceeding half a million dollars. I am also informed by the Auditor General that so far as regards the expense incurred in connection with the plebiscite in Ontario, he estimates that not more than 20 per cent of that expense has been already paid, so that there remains a very large sum to be added to that half million. If it should happen that it should be found that there has been an omission, and that that omission is fatal to the validity of the proceedings that have taken place, that sum of money will be absolutely wasted in so far as the public of Canada are concerned, and the whole proceeding will have to be commenced all over again. We cannot anticipate that communities who have so emphatically expressed their desire that this law should become operative within the boundaries of their respective territories, will sit back and not make a second endeavour to have their wishes carried out. Now, it seems to me those circumstances make a case where the private interests involved must yield in the face of this paramount public interest. I am not disposed to dispute that as a general principle, legislation having a retroactive effect is not desirable legislation; but I think that if there be a case-and there are numerous

cases-where parliaments have considered the exercise of the power of enacting retroactive legislation as justified we are in the face of the typical case. It is a question of a private interest, because it sees some advantage to itself, seeking to defeat the public will by reason of a mere omission in the procedure enacted by the law.
Now, I desire to refrain from expressing any opinion or making any argument as to whether there does or does not exist under the law as it now stands an omission fatal to these proceedings. That is the question which is actually sub judice, and I do not think it would be proper for us to discuss it. I think it is proper to simply state these two circumstances: That the Court of Appeal of Alberta, composed of three judges, decided, with one judge dissenting, that there is no such fatal omission; and that the law officers of the Crown who are responsible for the preparation of the proclamation, at the time acted advisedly, being of opinion that it conformed to the requirements of the law, and they are still of that opinion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would that legislation
affect any existing cases?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It would affect the
pending case of the Gold Seal Company vs the Dominion Express Company, in which the question to be decided, as I understand, is whether the express company was justified in refusing a shipment from the Gold Seal company because of this law being in force. Nothing is involved directly in that case but that question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But there are damages accruing.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There was no adjudication of damages because the proceedings were dismissed. Nobody is entitled to recover damages unless he has been deprived
of some substantial right.


Mr. PROULX:: Has the case been heard by the Supreme Court of Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, but it has not yet been pronounced upon.


Mr. ETHIER:: Then why not wait for
the judgment of the Supreme Court?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If we had assurance
that judgment would be rendered before this House adjourns we might wait. But the position would not be altered if we did wait. It would become just as much our duty then to modify the law which the court declared a nullity upon this particular
ground. It is furthermore to be pointed out that there is perhaps this advantage in the matter being dealt with before the judgment is rendered. In that particular case this accidental omission is by no means the only, nor the principal, question raised; the whole issue of the constitutionality of the Canada Temperance Act legislation and of the provincial temperance legislation has all been fought out. A judgment that would dispose of the case upon this irregularity would simply leave the constitutional question undecided, and therefore if the will of the people is to be given effect to, you would have to begin all over again the plebiscite proceedings, and after doing that and getting what I think we may assume would be the same result, you would have to begin all over again the proceedings for determination of the constitutionality of the law.
Now, I think we are faced with a position where the intervention of Parliament is not only justified but is called for. We have a preponderant public interest to be protected by this legislation as against what is certainly an unimportant, if indeed there be any real, private interest that may be adversely affected. Principles are of great importance and are to be respected, but, after all, I think there are few principles that call for absolute adherence in the face of conditions and circumstances which make such absolute adherence work out to serious public detriment. If this matter turned upon this particular question, and should be decided in a sense adverse to the validity of the proceedings. I think it would be a case where you would find the most absolute justification for the application of the old adage that succeeding generations of lawyers, even those most profoundly imbued with respect for law, have recognized to be sound, namely, summum jus, summa injuria. Because of difference of opinion as to whether you sufficiently stated the day on which prohibition will come into effect by simply stating that it will be fixed in a proclamation specially provided by the statute, or whether it was essential that you should fix the actual particular date, and the setting aside of these entire proceedings on the ground of an error in that regard, would certainly seem to me to be a case where by the application of summum jus to an unimportant private interest you would produce this summa injuria to the general public interest.


William Stevens Fielding: If the right hon.
gentleman, an eminent lawyer, feels not

free to express any opinion on the merits of the case now in court, there are a thousand more reasons why no layman should dare do so, and so I have not the slightest thought of expressing any such opinion. Even if there were no question of expense, in view of the expressed will of the people of these various provinces in regard to prohibition, I would be heartily in accord with the right hon. gentlemen that whatever legislation is necessary should be enacted to make it clear that from this time forward, if it was not good law a month or two ago, it is good law now. There is really not very much difference between us. But there is the question f private interest. I do not happen to know anything about this particular case, but there are two parties to it, say Smith and Brown, and the case has been entered in the courts under the existing law. I am quite content that my right hon. friend shall make a correction or cure in the law as respects all future interests, but as respects the particular interest of Smith and Brown who are now in court, I do not think it .s fair that they should be legislated out of court. I draw a distinction between legitimate private interests and the interests of the country. I want the public interests to be protected, but it seems to me that a fair argument can be made that the people who have gone into court under the law as it now standi shall in respect to damages or costs, a>
expenses, not be legislated out of court and I hope my right hon. friend will takt that into consideration. I do not differ from him as to the form of legislation as; far as may be necessary to give effect t* the expressed will of the people in a',1 these things. The only question is whether he has given fair consideration to tins interests of private litigants who are no' -in court.


Jacques Bureau: To make my position
clear, Mr. Chairman, I wish to state that I am speaking for myself and not in the name of any other hon. members on my side of the House or of my party.
I was shown some despatches to-day which indicate that there has been an attempt to make political capital out of the fact that I objected to the introduction and first reading of the Bill the other day on the ground that proper notice had not been given. There is before the Supreme Court of Canada to-day a case in which the plaintiffs are proceeding on the ground that the Canada Temperance Act is not in force in the province of Alberta. The

matter was argued before the Supreme Court of Alberta, and as the Minister of Justice has said, two of the judges decided the proceedings were regular and one dissented. On the judgment rendered, Mr. Justice Harvey stated that the point raised with regard to the omission in the proclamation was an important one and that were it not for important considerations of public interest it might have had an effect upon the decision. Now, I want to be thoroughly understood: I strongly object to any legislation having retroactive effect, the more so when it affects a case pending before the courts. There is more involved in this case between the Gold Seal Company and the Dominion Express Company than the simple question of private interests. I admit that the majority must rule, but it must be remembered that there are people in Alberta who did not vote in favour of this temperance Act under Part 4 prohibiting the importation of liquor into that province. By Part 4 it was provided that upon petition from the legislature the Governor in Council might appoint a day by proclamation upon which the vote of the citizens of the province in question should be taken, and that in the proclamation should the vote be favourable the day on which the law would come into force should be mentioned. Well, in this case the Governor in Council is the Minister of Justice because he	is
the adviser of the Governor in Council. My hon. friend says that the officers of the Crown who prepared the proclamation are responsible for the omission and that in their view the omission is not fatal. But so far as we in this House are concerned the omission was made by the Minister of Justice, and it is not for him or for us in the House to pass upon the question whether or not the omission is fatal, having regard to the fact that a 3ase involving an interpretation of the Proclamation is pending before the courts. If we exempt pending cases from this legislation I do not see that Ontario, Manitoba or Saskatchewan will be adversely affected, because in those provinces no cases are pending in which the plebiscite is disputed; the only case I know of is that of the Gold Seal Company and the Dominion Express Company. This is, to say the least, restrictive legislation and comes pretty near to being penal legislation. When we restrict the liberty of the individual on account of a wave of feeling in favour of temperance or prohibition we should give him every

opportunity to defend his case and to bring before the courts any point which he may wish to establish as to the legality or otherwise of a proclamation issued under the law. I say that there is a principle involved here; it is an attempt to legislate persons out of court. If I go before a court basing my case on existing iaws and existing conditions and he who is responsible for an error involved in the case seeks to legislate me out of court, I say that such a course is immoral; it is worse than passing legislation and giving it retroactive effect when no cases before the courts bearing upon the matter are pending. If, therefore, we are to pass this legislation we ought to put a proviso in the Bill that it shall not affect pending cases. I do not want to bring about a vote on the question, but I do want to make it perfectly clear that I am absolutely against any legislation having retroactive effect, especially any legislation which will have the effect of putting out of court people who are rightly and legally before it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, it
will not be necessary for me to detain the committee at any length, but I do wish very briefly to emphasize the position taken by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). As regards giving legislative effect in its entirety to the expressed will of the provinces which have declared themselves in favour of prohibition, I for one am prepared to cure any defect if such there be in the present legislation. But there are litigants before the court, and they should not have any lights taken from them which they now have under the law. It is not merely a question of private interests; it is of public importance that people should have confidence in our courts, in the administration of justice, and in the parliamentary institutions of the nation. For Parliament to take away from a litigant a right which he otherwise under the law would possess is to undermine the very basis of our whole constitution. Now, the minister has practically admitted that in clause 3 of the Bill. Under that clause the court can decide concerning costs in such a way that the costs will not fall upon a party who fails by reason of the legislation that we are invited to pass to-night. I want this principle to be followed as regards not only the cost of the litigation, but the litigation itself. I want a proviso put in this Bill that it shall not affect pending litigation. I would not object to the Bill being retroactive inasmuch as it will take rights away from persons in these provinces if they have not asserted those rights before the courts. It is quite reasonable to consider that they did not wish to avail themselves of any rights they might have had, if they had not asserted these rights before the courts; but I would appeal as strongly as I know how to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) not to commit what I consider the injustice of passing retroactive legislation which will affect the position of litigants who are before the courts of this country. The question is not whether this will hurt the Gold Seal Company or the Dominion Express Company; the private interest involved fades into insignificance in comparison with the public interest, which is that retroactive legislation should be had recourse to only in the most extreme and desperate cases, only when some over-whelmning public interest demands it. There is not such a situation in this case. We wish to shut the doors-and I am quite wjlling that the doors should be shut- against any further litigation after this Bill is passed, but there are certain parties before the court now. Are we to pull the judge off the bench and to say to him: "You can no longer decide this question on one of the principles which have been urged before you. The only decision that you can make upon this point is a question of costs." This is most unwise. Nothing could be more calculated to destroy public confidence in courts and Parliament than to pass retroactive legislation in this manner.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I-confess that I do not know very much about law; but after listening to the observations of different members who have spoken on this subject. I certainly do not think that we, as a Parliament, should anticipate the decision of a court once a case has been taken to that court. I do not know what this law intends to cover. If the proclamation is wrong, surely the sentence should cease at the proclamation. Apparently, it goes on and intends to cover anything, on the earth or under the earth or on the sea, that might happen under the Act.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: I beg to suggest that we proceed to the consideration of the Bill, clause by clause. Apparently at the present stage there is no opposition to legislation confirming the proceedings referred to in the Act, but there is some opposition, well founded, I think, to cutting out the rights of litigants now before the



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
courts. When we reach clause 3, I think it should be expressly and clearly stated that proceedings now pending in any court of Canada, in which is involved the regularity of the proclamation in question, should not be affected by the first two clauses of the Bill. We would make progress if we considered the Bill clause by clause.
Jacques Bureau: If we spoke on the principle of the Bill, that was because there was no discussion on the second - reading. Perhaps my hon. friend was not in the House when it was agreed to by the Minister of Justice that the principle and the whole of the Bill could be discussed in committee.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not hear that.


Mr. MOWAT:: The best way to get over the difficulty here is to discuss the whole Bill at one time. Apparently, the feeling upon both sides of the House is that if we have made a technical error-and this is denied by the law officers-which will destroy the mam Act and the vote of the peoples in Alberta and other provinces, then it will be beneath the dignity of Parliament to allow that.
But the question arises: Shall we, by passing this legislation, interfere with the rights of private litigants? As I understand the matter, the whole case is that of the Gold Seal Liquor Company asking for a mandatory order against the refusal of the express company to carry the goods. That would mean that the only remedy that the Gold Seal Liquor Company would have had would be the costs if they were successful in getting that mandatory injunction. Therefore, the third clause of the Act, which allows the court to award costs in view of this legislation, should put them in exactly the same position as they were before they started their litigation. It is inconceivable to me that with a clause like clause 3 in force, the court, when advised of the passing of such legislation as this would not decree that all costs incurred by the Gold Seal Company, of which they would be deprived by reason of this Act, could not be reimbursed to them. My only trouble in connection with the clause is that it does not say by whom the costs are to be reimbursed. It would not be fair to ask the Dominion Express Company to reimburse the costs which the Gold Seal Liquor Company would obtain by litigation because no fault would lie with the express company. The clause might be re-* 
cast by in some way enacting that the costs should be othewise reimbursed. It would not be out of the way to suggest that the Dominion of Canada itself should reimburse any of the litigants for costs incurred in proceedings which are nullified by this legislation. I would suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) that he should add to the clause something to that effect.


Samuel William Jacobs: What are these proceedings which are now before the courts?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They are proceedings seeking to compel the Dominion Express Company to accept a shipment of liquor from the Gold Seal Liquor Company. In that connection, I might point out just two things; This Legislation does not legislate the Gold Seal Company out of Court. The Gold Seal Company invoked other grounds upon which it bases the action.


Jacques Bureau: This is one of them.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, they invoke a number of other grounds.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It legislates them out of court on this count.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It makes the question that they raise not open to them to raise. But when statements are made about depriving them of something that they had an acquired right to, when hon. gentlemen say that they have no objection to-that they support-the validation of the proceedings so that the law may have been in force from that date, let me point out that such validation is inconsistent with the preservation of a right to those people to have their goods shipped. If the effect of this validation is to make, that law valid at the time of these things happening-and that is the only thing that we can do, or let it alone-if there be an interest affected, we are in a position where we are called upon as I pointed out, even assuming that there is going to be some injury to a private interest, to determine, which is the preponderant interest that has to be considered.
As regards the question of damages to the party who was seeking to enforce a right that under this now validating proceeding he would not have, the extent to which that man is worse off because, unfortunately, he took this litigation, or to which he is affected by our present action as distinguished from other people who have not brought actions, depends upon whether he has incurred useless costs.

We are providing that the courts shall determine that question of costs just as though this legislation had not been passed. It can hardly be suggested that the court should make the Dominion Express Company, after this has been validated, carry a main's liquor.


Samuel William Jacobs: It seems to me that it is not the function of Parliament to invade the province of the courts. We have the legislative, the executive,'and the administrative functions, and we have always kept these jurisdictions apart and independent of each other as well as we could. It seems to me that Parliament ought not to interfere with the functions of the court. The court is organized for the purpose of determining whether these parties are right or wrong, and for Parliament to interfere and declare by a solemn Act what should or should not be done seems to me, firstly, a somewhat unsportsmanlike thing to do. The court is there for that purpose. The court is there to hold the balance in its hands, and to see that justice is properly administered, regardless of who the parties are. For Parliament to throw the weight of its influence into one side of the scale appears to me to be, to say the least, unmoral.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: I just wish to say a few words in regard to this case, and to put myself on record in regard to the position which the Government have taken in connection with if. I wish, however, before I give expression to my views to state that if this matter came to a vote in the Hjouse, I would not feel at liberty to vote on the question, as it is one in which I am personally interested.
I certainly am opposed to the general principle of the legislation which has been introduced by the Government. The case arises over a dispute between the Gold Seal Liquor Company, which is an incorporated company carrying on the business of wholesale liquor dealers in the western provinces, and the Dominion Express Company. Liquor was tendered by the Gold Seal Company to the Dominion Express Company for the purpose of transportation in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but the Dominion Express Company refused to carry the liquor on the ground that it would be in violation of the amendment to the Canada Temperance Act, and that they .would subject themselves to a heavy penalty for so doing.
278i


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask where the
Gold Seal Liquor Company are located and have their offices?


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: They have offices in the city of Vancouver, Calgary, and elsewhere, 1 believe.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This would be a shipment from Vancouver to Calgary, I suppose?


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: From Vancouver to
Calgary, and from Calgary to other provinces in which the plebiscite had been taken. It was agreed between the parties to the action that a case should be stated and submitted to the courts in the province of Alberta, and that was done. One of the admissions made was the proclamation which had been issued, which was really the foundation of the taking of the vote in that province. Objection was taken to the proclamation, because it did not contain the provisions which were expressly set out by the statute, one of these provisions being that the proclamation should set forth the date upon which prohibition should come into force in the event of the plebiscite being carried in favour of prohibition. When the whole thing was argued it was decided, as the Minister of Justice has said, by the Appeal Court of Alberta that that was not such a serious defect as would invalidate the election which had been held under the proclamation. The matter then came to the Supreme Court of Canada, and in view of the fact that it is being adjudicated upon by the highest tribunal we have in this country, I do not believe that this Government should at this date, or at any other date pending that action, submit any legislation to the House to ratify the proceedings which were taken in connection with it. It has been suggested that this is not a matter of paramount public interest, but that the interests which are affected are really those of private corporations-the Dominion Exf press Company and the Gold Seal Liquor Company. I would submit that that would be true to a very large extent were it not for the fact that the rights of other people in those four provinces which took the plebiscite are very materially affected, because other persons in those four provinces did not vote for the enactment coming into force. Only a very small percentage of the people in those four provinces when the plebiscite was taken voted for the prohibitory law in this country. In the three western provinces, I

suppose there are approximately 1,750,000 people. The number of people who are registered to vote in those provinces is, in Alberta, 195,000, in Saskatchewan, 278.-[DOT]000, and in Manitoba 218,000 odd, but all these people who were registered and had the right to vote did not vote. We find that in the province of Manitoba the number who voted for prohibition was 68,000, in Saskatchewan, 86,000, and in Alberta, 63,000. So there were approximately 200,000 people in these three western provinces, out of a population of 1,750,000, who voted for total prohibition of the importation of liquor into those provinces. It would not be fair to say that all those who were entitled to vote, and did not vote, would have voted for the importation of liquor if they had voted, or that the balance of the 1,750,000 were all entitled tc vote, but we find that a great majority of the people in these three western provinces did not vote on this question at all, and that only about one-eighth or one-ninth of the people cast their vote in favour of prohibition. The people who voted against prohibition in that province have some rights. The people who did not vote at all on the plebiscite have some rights, and the case which is now being determined by the courts of Alberta, and which is now under consideration by the Supreme Court of Canada, affects the rights of every person in the three western provinces and the province of Ontario. Those people who were opposed to prohibition have just as good a standing before the courts of this country as those people who voted for it I submit that when the courts have this question under adjudication, it is not the duty of this Parliament to interfere by means of legislation supporting either one side or the other side of the public, any rhore than we have any right to introduce legislation which would support the rights of either of the private parties to the case that is before the courts.
But I object to this legislation on a much broader ground than the plebiscite which was taken in that province. The nearest analogy that we have to this plebiscite for the introduction of prohibition in the provinces is a proceeding which is very often invoked, the proceeding of acquiring public domain by statutory authority, and there is a general principle of law-and I believe that no person in this House is more familiar with it than the Minister of Justice-which is to the effect that where you are depriving any man of his

rights by statute you shall be held to strict compliance with every letter of the statute if you wish to exercise the statutory authority which you have under if-These proceedings have come before the courts in this country many times in connection with election petitions, and everybody knows that many elections have been set aside, notwithstanding that the verdict in those elections may have reflected the will of the great majority of the people in the' constituencies concerned. Many such elections have been set aside on pure technicalities, and I do not believe that this House or any other legislative body in the country would consider introducing legislation to validate an election to the House of Commons or any other legislative body if it were (discovered that there had been a defect in the election proceedings.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The hon. member is forgetting the case in the Yukon.


Samuel William Jacobs: The exception proves the rule.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I do not say that there may not have been such a case, but the will of the people is not regarded when the legal rights of the parties before the court are in question, and no legislation can be introduced to validate defective proceedings. We find practically the same principle in connection with by-laws passed by municipalities, and also in connection with by-laws passed by corporations. If they wish to exercise any power which is delegated to them, they must assert their rights strictly under the authority or the law delegating that power to them. The House of Commons, in the amendment to this Act, has delegated certain power to the officers of the Crown for the holding of elections and taking the votes of the people, and in my opinion the officers should follow strictly the power delegated to them, and it should not be said, after people have exercised their rights: "Well, it was simply a technicality and we are going to brush it aside with further legislation." It is of the utmost importance to this country, as it is to any other, that, when rights are established by law, they shall be respected by the Parliament which creates them; and when you have a superior judicial body established for the purpose of determining the rights of parties under our laws, neither this Government nor any other should step in and validate something that was irregular in the proceedings. I submit that in the in-

terests of the general principles of law in this country we should do well if we bore with the mistake that has been made and began all over again, so that public officials would know that this is not an institution to remedy any errors they may have made.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-court may make order as to costs:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister
think that this section empowers the judge to make the Government liable for costs? If it does, I shall be perfectaly satisfied with the whole Bill. The express company has no right to be held liable in costs. They take for granted that the proclamation and all the proceedings of Parliament are correct, and in refusing to take the goods they were under the impression that they were obeying the law of the land. Suppose it turns out that they were wrong, that by reason of some defect the proceedings were not valid. They will be mulcted in costs by no fault of their own, but simply because they were standing by the Law which they thought was right. Why should they be put into a difficulty because of some irregularity on the part of the central authority? Should they not be protected, having stood by the law as it was? If there is a mistake, and they are to suffer in any way at the hands of the court, if the minister thinks that the judge has power to protect the defendant company by making the Crown pay the costs, I would have no objection to the Bill at all. I quite understand the principle which has been set forth by hon. gentlemen opposed to the Bill. We must not lose sight of the fact that there must be merits in a
9 p.m. case, and I am not impressed with any merits in this case at all. The plaintiff company must have believed that it was the intention of Parliament, and of the provinces as well, that this law should be enforced, and therefore they were taking great chances in proceeding on a mere technicality. I do not regard the case as having very much merit, but if they succeed they should get costs, and if they do not succeed, they are not entitled to consideration. But if the express company loses by reason of the fact that they stood by the law, then the costs should not be paid by them, but by the Government.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the Dominion Express Company were liable to be condemned to pay costs because this legislation had been passed, then I would quite agree that
it might be a proper thing to provide that the Dominion of Canada should pay the costs. The question as to the regularity of the proceedings will be decided so far as costs are concerned just ais though this legislation had never passed. The only case in Which the Dominion Express Company could be condemned in costs would be if it were declared that the prohibition proceedings were invalid, and therefore they were bound to take the shipment; but that position is not created in any way by this legislation. There is no action that we are taking now which renders it in any way more likely that the Dominion Express Company will be condemned in costs. As regards the costs, the litigation will be determined between these people, so far as this question is concerned, just on the law as it stood when they instituted their proceedings, and therefore I do not see how you could justify the Dominion of Canada paying the costs when it is not any action of the Dominion or of this Parliament that in any way affects the adjudication of the case in so far as such costs are concerned.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If this law was not properly brought before the people it is our fault; if our proclamation was incorrect, and it got a man into trouble who believed he was safe in acting under it, then we are responsible. It is our fault if our proclamation was bad, proclaiming to be in force a law which we did not bring into force properly. It is our trouble; it is our fault. It is not his fault; he has a right to believe that the law is valid and right. He says "I will not take your case because there is a law to prevent it. The Governor in Council has said so, and the Parliament of Canada has said so." But he finds when he goes to court depending upon that declaration of the Parliament of Canada that all these procedings were irregular, that the shelter he was putting up for himself is useless, and he has to pay the costs because he was depending upon the law being valid. For that reason I say we have a right to protect that man from any bad effect resulting to him by reason of the law we have passed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It would be a very
dangerous principle-


Michael Clark: I would request my right hon. friend the minister to save just a little of the energy he is expending upon the uplift of society for the uplifting of his voice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I flatter myself that
I will be able to do both. I was going to point out, in answer to what was said by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) that what he says involves our accepting the principle that wherever it may happen that this Parliament passes a law which may be found to be ineffective, it will become the duty of the Government of Canada to pay the costs in all the cases that may be instituted under that law. If that is a sound principle we should adopt it for general application. If lit is not a sound principle we should not apply it in this case. If the liability for costs was affected in any way by the passing of this Bill, and if somebody who would have his costs paid if this Bill had not been passed were deprived of those costs by the operation of this Bill, or if somebody who would not have had any costs to pay if this Bill had not been passed became liable in costs because of its passage, then I would say the suggestion of the hon. gentleman was perfectly proper and ought to be acted upon. But so long as in the matter of costs-and that is the effect of section 3-everybody is left in absolutely the same position as if this legislation had never been passed then, as I pointed out, we can only provide that the Dominion of Canada ought to pay the costs in this case if we were prepared to adopt as a principle that every time it happens, for one reason or another, a law of ours is found by the courts to be ineffective we will step in and pay the costs of the people who took the position-and mark you took the position because it was in their interests to do so-that our law was valid. I submit that is a principle to which this Parliament should not commit itself. I might, however, add this: If when this legislation is over it be made to appear that somebody has suffered prejudice in some special way in connection with this case, it will be open to him to lay his claim before the Government and before this Parliament, and if there is any inequity we can deal with it then; but I do earnestly submit that we should not by this Bill endeavour to create rights which do not arise in connection with or by reason of this legislation but are based on a different principle; and moreover that it is most undesirable that we should enable the court to pronounce judgment against the Government of Canada in a case to which that Government is not a party at all. But my main reason is that this Bill leaves absolutely untouched the question of costs in the pending litigation.
[Mr. M. Clark. 1


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If I understand the minister his reason for bringing in this legislation is to give full effect to the will of the people of three western provinces as expressed at the poll'. I for one have no intention of criticising the minister for this very laudable intention, but I would like to ask why he would not treat the people of Quebec in the same way? We in the city of Quebec have by a petition signed by an enormous majority


Rodolphe Lemieux: Nineteen thousand.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes, nineteen thousand, asked the Governor in Council to suspend the operation of the Canada Temperance Act. Not only is this true of the city of Quebec but, a large number of counties in the province have gone through the same procedure. Under the Canada Temperance Act the Governor in Council is empowered to suspend the operations of the Act. Under certain conditions provided, petitions have been duly signed and sent to the Minister of Justice, as I understand, by the people interested throughout the whole province, to suspend the operation of the Act in question, and though there has been to my knowledge-and I think to the knowledge of every member here-no contrary wish expressed by anybody or any society in the province, the minister has refused to accede to the request. I would like to ask him therefore why he is giving to the western provinces what they have asked for, by legislation which is of a more or less doubtful character, and why he is withholding from the city of Quebec similar legislation in order to free themselves from an Act which the people there have decided is not in the best interests of the province. I would ask the minister to tell us if there is any real reason why they should not be given legislation similar to that which is granted to the West.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would gladly answer the question that is put to me and discuss the position in Quebec city with regard bo suspending the Sciott Act at any time when it was pertinent or relevant to the business that we were concerned with, and I think it would be easy enough to make the opportunity. But that question, I submit with a good deal of confidence, has no relevancy to this particular Bill.-


Samuel William Jacobs: This is liquor legislation.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Will the minister pardon me? It is pertinent because this is a Bill to amend the Canada Temperance Act and we would like an amendment which would

permit us to have the Canada Temperance Act repealed so far as the city of Quebec is concerned.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I said I shall be quite prepared-if it be held that this is the proper time and place to discuss that question in connection with this Bill-to answer the question put to me, but I do submit-and I would be glad if the Chairman would give a ruling upon that point-[DOT] that the question now put is not relevant to anything contained in this Bill, nor is a discussion upon the question of the powers and duty of the Governor in Council with regard to the suggested suspension of the Scott Act in the city of Quebec pertinent at the present time.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I submit it is pertinent
to the discussion. We are now discussing, an amendment with regard to certain proceedings under part IV of the Canada Temperance Act. If I understood the Prime Minister yesterday, when we were discussing the question of two portions of an amendment to the Civil Service Act, and hon. gentlemen on this side of the House objected to certain resolutions being incorporated in the Bill, w\iich was then before the House, he stated that he did not wish to have two separate amendments to the one Act during the session, nor two individual Acts.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: It was the same with the bankruptcy legislation.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The Minister of Justice
should incorporate in this Bill, which is designed to amend the Canada Temperance Act, any other amendments which might be suggested to him by hon. members and which he might think fair. Now, I suggest that he give effect to the expressed will of the people of the city of Quebec and of the people of several counties in the province of Quebec-not only that, but that he give effect to the expressed wish of the government of that province. He might just as well do that for the province of Quebec as for the province of Alberta.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the subject introduced by the hon. gentleman would be relevant if this were the second reading of the Bill, but we are discussing clause 3, and I submit that the discussion is not pertinent to this particular clause.


Georges Henri Boivin: The point of order
taken by the hon. member for Annapolis
would certainly be well taken if we were following in committee the rules of procedure which should be followed. When the second reading was called from the Chair, it was understood between the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Three Rivers that there would be no discussion of the principle of the Bill then but that it would take place in committee. It is absolutely impossible for the Chair to decide when discussion of the principle ceases and of the clauses begins. Therefore under the circumstance's I do not think that I can very well call the hon. member for Quebec to order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I simply want to
have a ruling upon this question, not on the ground of adherence to a particular section but whether or not this is the proper time to enter into a discussion as to whether the Governor in Council should or should not have suspended the Scott Act in the city of Quebec. We have this Bill before us in its entirety. I am quite prepared to deal with it if in your judgment that is a question which we should discuss as being germane to the principle of this Bill. All I desire, and this is the view that occurs to me, is that we should proceed in some method that will be regular and will lead us somewhere. Might I point out to the hon. gentleman that the amendment he has suggested should not be proposed until we have first dealt with the clauses of this Bill? It would have to be an addition to this Bill, and I think it is at least a little premature to discuss it before we have disposed of these clauses, even if then it be a proper matter for amendment.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am simply suggesting,
perhaps at an inopportune time, but before the Bill is ultimately carried, that the minister bring down an amendment to the Canada Temperance Act which will permit the people of the city of Quebec to obtain that for which they have expressed a wish, and which is the overwhelming desire of themselves and their representatives. I am sure the minister could draw up an amendment in a very short time that would give effect to the will of the people of Quebec.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Chairman, the first two clauses having been passed, there is only one issue left to be determined by the committee, and that is as to the treatment which shall be meted out to the pending litigation, and I think we can determine it very quickly. I propose moving an amendment that clause 3 be

struck out and the following be substituted, if I can get a seconder. Before reading the amendment, let me say that I think we should not consider this Bill, having in mind the litigation before the Supreme Court of Canada or other litigation pending in any other courts. It seems to me that it is better to close our eyes to such facts. Nor do I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Parkdale practicable at the present time.
I think the Minister of Justice is perfectly right in declining to accept that suggestion. My amendment is:
That clause 3 in the present Bill be stricken therefrom and replaced by the following:
3. Any proceeding pending in any court in Canada at the coming into force of this Act in which the validity of any proclamation referred to in section one of the present Act is questioned shall not be affected by the provisions of this Act hut shall be determined in the same manner as though this legislation had not been enacted.


Edmond Proulx: Does my hon. friend
think that this might have the effect of nullifying the vote taken last fall in Alberta?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would not think so.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It certainly will.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is too
large a question to express an opinion on here, but I would not th-iink so.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think if the hon. gentleman reflects for a moment he will realize that the effect of the amendment will be this:	That if there be any defect in the
proclamation the whole plebiscite of Alberta will be set aside and count for naught; and I may tell him that the same thing will be true in regard to Manitoba, because though I am not aware how far the proceedings in that province have advanced there are proceedings pending there. The effect of the amendment is to defeat the purpose of this legislation as regards those two provinces.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But sections 1 and 2 of the Bill validate all the proceedings. The amendment is intended only to preserve the right of existing litigants, as to costs.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But the right that
existing litigants are urging is the right to have all these proceedings declared invalid. If we declare them valid and say, nevertheless, that our declaration of their validity shall not affect any pending pro-

ceedings; if in those proceedings the court is asked to declare, contrary to our statute, that they are valid-if we tell the court that it is to decide that question just as it would have decided it if this legislation had not been passed, then we make this legislation entirely inapplicable as regards the plebiscites held in Alberta and Manitoba. One of the principal purposes of this Bill is to validate the proceedings as regards those provinces as well as provinces in which suits have not as yet been instituted -Ontario, for instance. Now, what would be the effect of our doing that? We would make a discrimination as between citizens. The hon. member for Calgary spoke of the rights of the people who had voted against the prohibitory legislation. Those rights, whatever they may he, are just the same in a province where the suit has not yet been instituted as in a province where a suit has been instituted, and the man who instituted the suit in Alberta has no greater rights than every other man in Alberta who would have been entitled to have liquor shipped if he had asked for it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not
object to the passage of clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, which seek to validate certain proceedings. The amendment I propose does not seek to disturb anything enacted in clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. If judgment is given it will be inoperative, but the proposed amendment will affect costs. If the amendment is not properly drafted my right hon. friend might cure that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
does not want to affect the judgment to be rendered under the clause, or to prevent the application of the two previous clauses to the Alberta plebiscite. If he does not want to do that and if theydo apply, then as regards this formality the question remains before the court to be decided, so far^ as costs are concerned, .by the law as it stood irrespective of this legislation. So that interpreting his amendment as I understand him to interpret it, that is to say, as saving the rights as to costs and providing that they will be decided just as if the law had not been changed-the present section 3 confers that power upon the court and is, I think, the usual section drafted for precisely that purpose-should the court arrive at the conclusion that if it were not for this legislation the prohibition would have been invalid, it will then be free to adjudicate the cosfs in favour of the party who brought the suit. It is for that purpose that this section is included, but the suggested amendment

of the hon. gentleman entirely overshoots the mark and produces the result that not only as to costs but as to ithe merits or substance itself the court would have to he guided not by this law, which we are passing to guide it, but by the law as it stood irrespective of this legislation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not object to the Bill in itself; it would be unfortunate, I think, if after the expense of a plebiscite in a given province it should become necessary, on account of some technical omission in a proclamation, to hold another plebiscite. But as has been pointed out, litigants in pending cases are supposed to be proceeding in good faith, and with the passing of this legislation there must he a decision by the court as to which party shall pay the costs. It would seem upon a reading of the third section of the Bill that it simply gives discretion to the judge with regard to costs and that the parties may be sent back without having the question of costs determined. On the other hand, having cured whatever defect there was in the proclamation, will the Supreme Court, if an appeal is inscribed in that court, care to adjudicate as to costs in a purely hypothetical case? If I remember rightly, some three or four years ago a hypothetical case was submitted by the Government to the Supreme Court of Canada and the court refused to adjudicate upon it. With the passing of this legislation there remains only the question of costs, and as neither party would win I do not know how the court would deal with that phase of the matter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think that
Parliament should impose an obligation on the court to decide the costs in a particular way. The purpose of this section is to obviate any suggestion that because this Act might make one party lose who otherwise would have won the court is called upon to give casts to the party winning. It is to emphasize the fact that the costs remain in the discretion of the court, and that it may give the costs to the party who lost, supposing that he lost by reason of this legislation. I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me that it is a general principle that costs are in the discretion of the court. No doubt it is a sound discretion for the court to exercise to give the costs to the winning party, and that is the rule. But hon. gentlemen will recollect, I have no doubt, numerous cases in which the court has said:	"Yes, this plaintiff
is right on the abstract law, and I have to give him a judgment, but there are circumstances connected with Ms conduct in Connection with this case which make me feel that he should not be entitled to his costs." That is one instance. Take tMs particular case and see what might happen.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Each party paying his own costs.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That might be so. Take this particular case. As I mentioned, this alleged irregularity is only one ground upon which this matter is contested. There are several other questions of much greater importance, questions involving the constitutionality of the Temperance Act, and the constitutionality of the provincial legislation. It would be perfectly proper for the court to consider, supposing it arrived at the conclusion that, under the law as it stood without this amendment, the plaintiff was right on this particular question, but was wrong on all the other issues raised, that the exercise of a sound discretion would be to divide the costs or to deal with them otherwise than to condemn a man, who was right on, say four or five of the questions raised, but wrong on this minor question, to pay all of the costs. I would very much regret if this Parliament felt it to be its duty to take away from the court any discretion with regard to these costs. What we are doing makes a perfectly safe position for any party who would have won without this legislation. The court will not deprive him of his costs if it would otherwise have given them to him had it not been for this legislation. That is what we want to secure. I think I am quite safe in saying that this is the clause in practice adapted to produce exactly that result. It was drawn up by the deputy minister, and I might add that the only observation that the deputy minister made when I suggested it was that it was not a necessary clause because, by laiw, costs are in the discretion of the court. I thought, and I still think it is a wise clause, because I want to make it clear to the courts that they shall he at perfect liberty to give costs even to the man whose case may fail by reason of this amendment, but who would have been right if it were not for this amendment.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does my
right hon. friend not think that clause 3 in the Bill will absolutely prevent courts from granting costs to the party who fails to prove that the proclamation was valid. The discretion is given to the court to give costs, but then the sentence ends with the following words:

Having in view the provisions of this Act.
The provisions of this Act are that the proclamation and other proceedings are valid. It looks like a deliberate enactment to prevent-
M. DOHERTY: I am quite willing to strike out those words, if they are thought to-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think my
amendment is the better way of bringing about that end.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member's
amendment goes too far.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It seems that there is a clearer-cut and shorter way of arriving at the destination which both the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) and myself, and, I believe, a number of the members of this House desire to reach, namely, that people who are asserting rights which they had acquired prior to the introduction or the passing of this legislation should not have those rights taken away from them. My suggestion-and I make it by way of suggestion-will be that clause 3 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
This Act shall not affect pending cases.


Arthur Meighen: I certainly do not want to prolong this discussion if I can avoid doing so. I should like to say something that would have the effect of shortening it if I could. I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), and also the suggestion of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) respecting the Bill, if enacted would utterly destroy the effect of the Bill as regards Alberta and Manitoba. It would mean simply that the judges should not have regard to this Bill at all in deliberating on those cases. Consequently, if the Bench should find that, on all the main subjects that were before them, the case went against the applicant, that is against the plaintiff, but on the plea that there was some irregularity in the proclamation they were compelled to find in his favour; or if they said: "We will not bother with the main subjects at all; we will deal only with this latter, because that is all that we need deal with, and we find in favour of the plaintiff on that"-if that should be the judgment of the court, then the judgment will be just the same as if no Bill at all passes, because the court would have to say as regards these cases: "There is no Bill, therefore, we hold that because of the

irregularity, the whole plebiscite goes by the board in Alberta and Manitoba."


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is not
new legislation. You will find it in the British statutes; you will find it in the statutes of all the provinces. It has only the effect of rendering the whole or part of the judgment ineffective, but it leaves the question of costs free.


Arthur Meighen: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is my right hon. friend satisfied that the clause as it

will remain after striking out the words "having in view the provisions of this Act" will accomplish his purpose? It does not seem very clear, at least.


Arthur Meighen: I think the words
"having in view the provisions of this Act" makes it rather clearer. It simply says to the court: This is an Act passed while the case was sub judice. Now having in view that fact, we vest in you full discretion as to costs; keep that fact in mind in allotting costs. That is what it says. I think it says the same, though perhaps not quite so clearly, if those words are left out. That is surely all that is at issue.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We are
trying to accomplish the same purpose, and it is just a question of the best possible way of doing it.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Costs against whom?


Arthur Meighen: Had there been no such Bill and the court had found that on account of the irregularity the plaintiff would succeed, then against whom would the costs be? As against the defendant, of course. Why should this Bill relieve the defendant of costs? No reason in the world. The court would say: Had the Bill not been passed the defendant would have been mulcted in costs. The passing of the Bill should leave him as to costs just where he would have been if the Bill had not been passed. Therefore the defendant should pay the costs. Why should he not?


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: In case of the decision being against the appellants there is no provision in the third clause whereby the Crown can be charged, by order of the court, with the costs.


Arthur Meighen: There should not be any. The appellant was the plaintiff in the first case, I understand. Very well. Had this Bill not been passed it is the defendant, as between him and the plaintiff, who would have been mulcted in costs. Would he not? Well, the defendant is in no better position in the litigation because this Bill passes. It is no credit to him that this Bill passes; he should not receive anything because it passes. If he was wrong in the first place, in law, he should be mulcted in costs. This Bill enables the judge so to decide; that is all.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is
only one way of determining properly who shall pay the costs in any given piece of litigation, and that is the determination of the legal issue involved. If you cut that
out I do not see how a court can exercise jurisdiction in the mater. I am not impressed with the point that my right hon. friend and the Minister of Justice makes that the amendment which I propose will destroy the whole purpose of this Bill. Surely, sections 1 and 2 remain effective and they nullify the judgment of the court upon the issue before the court. The only thing that is not affected would be the costs.


Arthur Meighen: The costs do not follow the event as a matter of course. They do not in our province. I have conducted litigation where I have succeeded and have had to pay the costs of the other man besides.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is what drove you out of law.


Arthur Meighen: I would rather be inclined to think that even without this clause-I do not speak positively, because I never reached the Supreme Court in my practice, I was confined within more modest limits-the Supreme Court would have power, were the plaintiff to be defeated because of this Bill, to give him costs. This makes it absolutely clear, and, indeed, is an indication that in the disposition of costs the fact that this Bill has passed will have no effect whatever.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does not the question of damages arise also? We seem to have been discussing the matter wholly from the point of view of costs.


Arthur Meighen: The question of damages was discussed, and the committee came to the conclusion that there were only costs involved in so far as there were rights of defendent or plaintiff, and that that was all we need consider so far as this Bill is concerned. There are really no damages. It is really a case based not on a claim for damages, but put forward only for the purpose of testing the validity of the law.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That must have been a very bad case that the Prime Minister mentioned, where he won and had to pay the costs. It reminds me of the dictum of a very venerable Chief Justice we had in the province of Nova Scotia. I heard him deliver a judgment once in which he said that the case was wrongfully brought badly advised, and badly conducted, and he had much pleasure in dismissing it with costs. Perhaps it was a case of that kind my right hon. friend had.
The right hon. Minister of Justice is putting me in wrong, in a way, by saying

I am defending the principle that if ever a statute is found to be defective, or that it does not accomplish its purpose, the Government must pay the costs of the defendant. If I stated anything of that kind, that was certainly not my intention. Let us suppose we pass an Act of Parliament. It passes this House and the Senate, but through some inadvertence it does not receive the assent of the Crown through the Governor General. In that condition it finds its way to the statute book, and goes out to the world as a statute that has passed Parliament and received the assent of the King, although it never had. That is clearly a mistake. The statute in that shape is a mere empty piece of paper. We will suppose that a litigant takes advantage of that statute, thinking it to be all right, and when the case comes to court it turns out that the statute never received the assent of the Crown, and that it was therefore invalid. That clearly would be a mistake on the part of some executive officer, and no fault of the litigant at all. It clearly being the fault of the parties in charge, namely, the Crown, the party who thought that the statute wa3 all right should not be mulcted in costs or damages because he was innocently led into thinking that the statute was perfectly valid. That is the case here. This express company had a right to expect that the proclamation was all right, and they are standing by it. I am told that the Government did not do all that was necessary under the statute in connection with the proclamation, and that consequently we are rushing to put that right. Now the man who thought the proclamation was all right, and put that up at his defence should not suffer any damages. That is the position I take. There was clearly a default on the part of the authorities in putting the proclamation into force. Amendment negatived.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Wigmore (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue) Bil' No. 211, respecting the Department of Customs and Excise, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On Section 2-department constituted.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is some reference in this section to a preventive ser-IMr. McKenzie.]
vice. I have had some communications *with the commissioner of the department in regard to a case in my county, in the northern part of Victoria, where complaints are being made about the illicit distillation of liquor. In previous years there were a couple of officers in that part of the country, but a few years ago the Department of Inland Revenue dispensed with the outside officer. The official at Bay St. Lawrence and McLellan was dispensed with, and since then, I am informed, there has been considerable illicit distillation of liquor in that part of the country. I have been requesting the department either to appoint a man or send one down there to look after the business. Only a couple of days ago I had a letter from a respectable clergyman saying that no one had been sent to the district and that this illicit traffic is creating quite an annoyance to himself and others. Is it the intention of the Government to appoint an officer there permanently? It is exceedingly difficult to send a man down there off and on, and it would be much less expensive to have an official on the spot permanently. In winter time, at any rate, it is practically impossible for a man to get there; the place is 125 miles from a railway, and it would be a physical impossibility for a man to get through the large accumulations of snow. There should be an officer on the spot as there used to be; if there were, there would be no trouble of this sort.


Mr. WIGMORE:: Since this matter was called to the attention of the department, a man has been sent down there. He returned a couple of days ago and reported to the dep|rtment. The department is now considering the advisability of appointing a man permanently rather than sending one from time to time. An officer would have been sent before now but for the impassable state of the roads and the adverse weather conditions. We realize that this illicit traffic is increasing, and a closer watch will have to be kept.


Samuel William Jacobs: I notice that the deputy of the department is referred to as Commissioner of Customs. Why is he not designated deputy, as in other departments?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: He is the deputy, but he is also chairman of the Board of Customs Commissioners, and that is why he is called Commissioner of Customs.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On Section 3-Minister's duties, powers and functions.
Samuel William Jacobs: What is the reason for this section?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: It is the usual constituting clause which appears in all Acts.


Samuel William Jacobs: I thought it was a reflection on the present minister, and I wanted to remove it.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 6-Entry not perfect unless invoice produced, and on foreign shipments of $100 or more bears a certificate of trade or consular officer.
William Stevens Fielding: We have already discussed the general question whether or not there should be trade agents in the United States. I do not want to repeat
10 p.m. the debate on that question, but this clause contemplates allowing these officials to collect fees and keep them. There may be exceptional circumstances to justify that, but, speaking generally, the practice is not a sound one of allowing officials to collect and keep fees. The wiser policy, wherever you authorize a public official to collect fees, would be to make him account for them and let him receive whatever salary is fixed. I want the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), whose department is affected by that clause, to consider the suggestion.


George Green Foster: The suggestion is a very proper one, and it is not at all the intention to do other than turn in to the general fund the fees that are collected; and they shall be accounted for. But as in similar cases in other countries, there are sometimes men who are appointed as subagents or sub-commissioners who are at some outport or place that is not very important. They get a certain allowance and they have to account for the fees. But instead of, for instance, remitting to a far country a small amount and having a cheque sent back, or adopting some method of payment which involves transmission for a long distance and also expense, an arrangement can be made with any bank which is close at hand so that these fees can be paid into that bank and checked out again.


William Stevens Fielding: The practice my hon. friend proposes is that regulations may be made to determine what proportion of these fees, if any, shall be retained. I quite
agree that fees should be paid into a bank and checked out whether that may be possible, but in this case the department is not doing anything of the kind. What it proposes will lead to confusion and is not, I think, in accordance with sound business.


George Green Foster: There may be some instances where it will be difficult to make use of a bank. This simply gives a discretionary power, and that power will not be used except where it is practically impossible to carry on transactions through a neighbouring bank.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We were
informed the other day, when the resolution upon which the present Bill was founded was before the House, that the clause in question was inserted at the suggestion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and therefore I shall direct my remarks to him. I am going to move that this clause be struck out and I hope the committee will unanimously support my proposal. But if hon. gentlemen should make a mistake in judgment and not support my amendment, I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce will not proceed with the enactment of the clause without at least giving himself the opportunity of a further study of it and providing that it will not go into effect except upon proclamation. I want to say to the minister that this clause will not carry the judgment of anybody in this country who has given to it any study or reflection whatever. I venture to say there is not a business man in Canada who will accord it his approval, if he considers it for ten minutes. Somebody made the astounding statement the other night that the clause is calculated to extend Canadian trade in the United States. Well, trade is usually extended by consuls, vice-consuls, or even by trade commissioners. I admit that the sending of a special trade commissioner, possessed of special qualifications, to a foreign country to study a special trade-for example, the extent of cotton production in India-might be of great advantage to people engaged in that particular industry. I also agree that a trade commissioner, designated to study trade conditions in foreign countries, with directions to report to his home country might do some good, although I have some doubts even as to tjiat. If my right hon. friend were to go to the most advanced industrial countries in the world, that have the most experienced trade representatives abroad, I think he would find them giving it as their judgment that

they did not believe their trade was substantially increased by having trade agents. Trade can only be increased by reason of the operations of the law of demand and supply. There must be a buyer and there must be a seller. Well, does my right hon. friend mean to say that he is going to extend trade and commerce by having trade agents who are to be paid $2.50 in respect of each invoice? The contention was made here a few days ago that the United States does exactly the same thing, and in this country. Well, the United States is not an exemplar to us in all things. They make mistakes just as we do. They made mistakes in years gone by, and have perpetuated them, and persisted in them, just as we and other people do, therefore, the practice of one country cannot be presented to the people of another country as a safe guide always. Now I have made inquiries of the American consular agents in Canada and I am informed that while theoretically they are supposed to do what they can, along with their other duties, in extending American trade, yet, practically, and as a matter of fact, they pay no attention to it whatever. In my own province I know several of the persons appointed as consular agents who grant these certificates to Canadian exporters to the United States, and I know as a matter of fact that during the whole period in which they served in such capacity they never did anything to extend American trade in my province-they never thought of it. You canot extend trade through the influence of a man who is paid a small fee of $2.50, on invoices accompanying the exports to another country, which individual has, in all cases, other duties and other work to perform.
I would rather have my right hon. friend approach the United States and inquire if- as between Canada and that country- some formula could not be worked out by which-so far as Canada and the- United States are concerned-this practice of exacting a fee upon the invoices, known as "the consular agency fee" should be abolished. I believe that if my right hon. friend approached the United States with a proposal of this kind he might possibly succeed. He should direct his efforts to bringing this about rather than adopt the foolish absurd, ' and irritating practice which the United States follow. Now people who are engaged in business know how inconvenient and irritating the practice is of requiring the payment of a fee and an 
invoice upon exports from Canada to the United. States. In many cases men are obliged to travel from twenty-five to fifty miles in order to secure certificates, and from time to time to overcome this inconvenience requests are made by Canadian business men to appoint further United States consular agents at points here, there, and everywhere. I suppose that within the last twenty-five years the United States Government have had twenty-five hundred applications, at the rate of one hundred a year, to appoint consular agents in order to meet the requirements and convenience of Canadian exporters. Now -how could you possibly get a sufficient number of persons appointed in the United States that would meet the requirements of American exporters to this country? I see that my right hon. friend -has a vote of $100,000 in. the Estimates this session for this purpose. It will not commence to meet what I think will be the legitimate demand which will be made upon this service if it is created in the United States. I think you Will find that in many cases Americans will refuse to accept the orders of Canadians if they are obliged to go twenty-five or one hundred miles in order to secure this certificate, or if they are obliged even to send a letter a distance of fifty or one hundred miles and be exposed to the delay consequent thereon.
Now, at this late hour I do not wish to detain the committee unduly, but I simply put my views before the minister with the hope that he will abandon this proposal. It will not extend Canadian trade to the amount of one dollar. I venture to make the statement that he cannot find in the United States any business man who believes that American trade has been extended in Canada by reason of the appointment of consular agents and the exaction of this fee on the granting of export certificates. The United States is doing business in this country by reason of the fact that we want some of their productions, and that their commercial travellers are in Canada every day meeting their customers. And the way to build up trade between Canada and the United States is to have the Canadian exporter send his commercial agent or representative across to the United States and meet at first hand prospective purchasers of his productions. Why waste $100,000 cr more hoping to extend trade in this way when the Canadian exporter and the American importer can be brought to-

gebher almost within forty-eight hours? I regard the whole proposition as directly inimical bo the business interests of this country. I say that it should not be accepted by Parliament, and I trust my rigtht bon. friend will agree to abandon it altogether. But if he remains adamant,
I hope he will at least insert somewhere in the Bill a proviso that this clause shall only come into effect by proclamation, so that in the meantime he will have adequate opportunity of canvassing Canadian business opinion on the matter.
Further, I would urge upon my right hon. friend that instead of endeavouring to repeat what I think is a mistake on the part of the United States, he should approach the Government of that country with a view of entering into some arrangement whereby the requirement of a certificate upon export invoices and the exaction of this fee of $2.50-which, after all, is almost petty graft in the eyes of the business men of that country-will be abandoned.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: May I ask the hon. member for Halifax a question? In exporting to the United States all exporters for any amount over $100 must get a consular certificate and pay a fee of $2.50 or $3, I forget which.


William Duff: 


Francis Ramsey Lalor: That fee we must invariably pay. Now, what is the judgment of the member for Halifax as to shipments coming this way? Will the American pay that fee, or will they make Canadians pay it, or will we be able to take the same position as the Americans do? If we are able to take the same position, then I do not see any reason why Americans should not pay a fee on their exports into Canada. I must say that I hardly realize what our position would he, whether we would be compelled to pay or not, because we are obliged to import from the United States cotton, coal and so many other commodities that we cannot get along without. Whether we can make them pay that consular fee or not is a question, hut if we can I would be glad to make them pay it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think
that in our case Canadians would pay that fee. There is no way of determining the exact proportions in which the Canadian importer would pay, hut our position is different from the United States in that respect, and practically in all cases ve would pay this fee. But I go further than
that, I say the United States should not have that regulation.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: But they have it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They do not claim that it is a factor in the promotion of their trade with Canada. It Was adopted many years ago and has been continued. They are not proud of it as a matter of principle.


John Allister Currie: How much does it amount to annually?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Figures
were presented the other night, and the hon. member for Simeoe and other hon. gentlemen were proceeding upon the assumption that the United States trade in Canada was developed by reason of the fact that they exacted this small fee.


John Allister Currie: Excuse me, I never said that; I knew better.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon.
friend left that impression upon my mind, and I am very glad indeed to find I was mistaken. I do not know that I can say anything further, Mr. Chairman. I see no merit in this proposal, and I think it'should be abandoned.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Mr. Chairman, I have very great pleasure in endorsing absolutely the position so well taken by the member for Halifax, a position that is indisputable. The member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) has stated that he is in doubt as to who would pay this imposition of $2.50 for certifying export invoices. Who pays the salaries of his employees, his light and heat and all the other expenses of conducting his business? Why, of course, to ask the question is to answer it. It is the consumer who in the last analysis pays these expenses. It will he the consumer, and the consumer alone, who will pay that imposition, whether it be the consumer in Canada, the United States or elsewhere. Some hon. members have urged the position that because it is an exaction by the United States and has been in force there for years we should follow suit. Whoever heard of two wrongs making a right? I never have. And if it is a mistake on the part of the United States to exact that fee, why should we follow the same course?


John Allister Currie: Let me ask the hon. gentleman a question. Supposing I ship a carload of wheat to the United States, I have to pay a consular fee of $2.50. The ultimate consumer is in the United States. Can the hon. gentleman tell me some

method by which I can make the ultimate consumer pay that fee?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: It is positively absurd in this day and generation to ask a question of that kind. The same rule applies in that case as in the case I have cited already in respect to the member for Hal-dimand-the consumer absolutely pays everything. You charge that much more for your wheat, and that additional cost is included in the cost of producing your wheat.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I was merely asking the judgment of the hon. member for Halifax, as to who would pay it; that is all.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I might perhaps in
reply ask the member for Haldimand what is his opinion on the question?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: If I thought the Canadian had to pay it I do not think I would feel like supporting the proposal. I would be in hopes that the American would pay it.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The member for North Simcoe has stated time and again on the floor of this House that he has even slept with Adam Smith. If he will consult him again before he takes another nap he will find that Adam Smith will set him right on the question who pays the cost of production.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman has not answered my question. He says that the ultimate consumer pays. Well, the consumer of the car of wheat is in the United States; does he pay that $2.50? Can I add that $2.50 to the cost of delivering over there or must I take the Chicago price and absorb the $2.50 myself? My hon, friend is very well versed in economics; he might explain that to the committee.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I thank the hon. membssr for the compliment that he pays me in assuming that I am well posted in economics. It is a very large subject, and I must say that I understand only the fringe of it. If I live as long as my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce hopes to live, say another hundred years, I shall still have something to learn on that subject. But to answer the question put by the hon. member for Simcoe, there is no question but that the consumer pays all the costs, plus the profits. The Minister of Trade and Commerce informed us to-night that he hoped to obtain a revenue of about $500,000 through the imposition of this system. Now, who pays that $500,000? The Cana-

dian consumer, plus customs duties and the profit on top of that. All proposals of this kind have only one purpose in view, that of retarding and hampering and interfering with trade and commerce. It is not possible to extend your import trade by certifying invoices of exports. To have American consuls in this country certify to invoices of Canadian merchandise going to the United States does not help the export trade of the United States, and to have Canadian consular agents in the United States certify to invoices of goods shipped from that country to Canada does not help our export trade. Merely to state the proposition is to show its absurdity. I have asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce just what he expects to gain by this imposition; I put the question to him a few nights ago, and I am still without a straight, definite answer. I am sure that the minister does not intend to be evasive, but certainly he has not given a direct answer to that question.
I want to criticise another feature of this clause. It provides that the fee to be charged is to be determined by the Governor in Council. Why not embody it in the Bill so that importers may know what is expected of them? Then, the last part of the clause is, to my mind, the worst feature of the whole situation. It is similar to some other legislation that is at present in force; it provides that officials of the Inland Revenue Department, detectives who go round the country for that department, may obtain part of the fine in cases where conviction is secured. I submit that all laws of that kind have an immoral tendency and a bad effect on the individual and on the department. If the department must have officials of this kind scattered all over the world, by all means pay them salaries; let there be no inducement for the imposition of undue fees of this kind. If the minister insists on this clause being carried I would hope that at least this feature of it would be remedied, but I agree with the member for Halifax that it would be much better if this clause were entirely dropped from the Bill. It can serve no good purpose; it certainly will not help to increase the export trade of Canada.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I hope that the minister, as has been suggested by the member for Halifax, will give very serious consideration to this provision before he puts it into effect. As a matter of fact, American consuls in this country who sign these certificates are of no benefit to the trade of

439a
the United States; they do not solicit business. The Americans send their travellers in here just as we send our travellers there. Those travellers know their own goods and can talk their own goods. You could not possibly appoint a consular agent or trade commissioner who was capable of talking all kinds of goods. Everybody who knows anything about manufacturing or about commercial life knows that you have to train men in handling the particular goods they represent so that they will be able to talk the goods. I do not believe, therefore, that we would increase our trade by appointing these so-called trade commissioners. If a man lived in Buffalo, and there was no trade commissioner there and he had to send to Washington to have his invoice certified, that would be worse than a nuisance. The member for Halifax is quite right as to the nuisance brought about by the United States provisions along this line. I agree with the hon. gentleman that the minister might engage his time very profitably by trying to induce the United States to do away with that silly arrangement-because it is silly and it does not help their trade a bit. Now, it has been asked who is going to pay for this. Do you think the United States Steel Corporation, for instance, would not pass on to the customer any charge of that kind? If you do, you have another think coming. The reason is simply that these people sell at rock bottom prices. When you buy at rock bottom prices you have to pay brokerage charges. Take the cotton market; if the manufacturer of cotton buys from the growers or from the Cotton Exchange, he buys through a broker. Do you mean to tell me that that broker pays the $2.50 on these certificates? By no means; he charges it to the customer. In the case of goods bought from England, if there is any wharfage or any other charge of that kind, it is included in the invoice, and so it is with any of these things that we buy. Think of the enormous quantity of coal that we bring into this country, on invoices, maybe, of trainloads, but more frequently of carloads, and those merchants have to send off to some trade commissioner or a British consul to have those invoices certified to. Do hon. members think that the men who are selling the coal are going to pay the cost of having that done? If they do, they have another think and a good long think coming.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: $2.50 on a car will not
break them.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It does not matter what the amount is; they will pass it on to the consumer, as anybody knows who knows anything about buying coal or other goods at rock-bottom prices. If a manufacturer is making certain goods on which he makes enough profit to pay for this trouble and the fee, he will pay it, and so will we.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This broker, whom the hon. member instances, might have to despatch a clerk 25 miles away to procure the certificate, and that would add to the cost.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Very likely, and you
may be sure that if you have to buy your goods "right", you will have to pay that.


John Allister Currie: It is not done in that way.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is done in that way.


John Allister Currie: I have put hundreds
and thousands of invoices through and I know better.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: So have I and I know
better too. I have put through cotton and you have not. I am telling you what I think, and I have just as much right to say what I think as you have to say what you think.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind the
hon. member that the chairman has been very silent.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, but why do you not correct my hon. friend? I hope my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) will do what the hon. member for Halifax has asked him to do-give the subject very serious consideration before he undertakes this expense. I assure him that it is an expense that will not be paid by any manufacturer in the United States. As regards foreign countries, I have nothing to say. I believe our trade agents there do remarkably good work, but they do that by putting us in touch with the trade that we want to get in touch with; they do not do it by selling the goods directly to the people themselves. As regards trade agents in the United States, the matter is quite different. The United States lies right beside us. We send our agents there if we want to sell goods, and we will not use any trade agent who may be appointed, because, if it is worth our while selling our goods on the other side of the line, we will see that our representatives go there and sell the goods. If we want to buy and buy "right", I may tell my right hon. friend that we will pay the charges.



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS I

George Green Foster: We had a pretty long discussion on this subject when the resolutions' were before the House. That, of course, does not preclude another discussion to-night when the Bill is before the committee. Whether we shall get much farther in enlightenment from the continuance of the discussion, I do not know, but every man has his right to speak. I never intended, because that would be an impossibility and an impracticability, to place a section in this Bill with the idea that it should come into force when the Governor General signed the Bill. It has always been my intention to add to that clause or to add a clause to the Bill that it should not come into force until it was proclaimed by the Governor in Council. It would be an impossibility to put it into force directly because we have not the staff in the United States nor in other countries of the world. It is impossible to put it into effect with regard to the United States unless you, at the same time, put it into effect in all foreign countries. To do otherwise would be an act of discrimination. This requires time, and I think, when we were discussing the resolutions, in respect to some point that was raised by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) I told him that I thought I would be able to get this into force within six months, and we had a little bit of persiflage between ourselves Whether he should live long enough to see it in force, or whether I should live long enough to compare notes with him some years hereafter. But it goes as a matter of arrangement that we shall put in, as I always intended we should, a clause that this should be brought into force only on proclamation by the Governor in Council. That gives opportunity for laying your plans, for more consideration. I 'do not say that I have given this matter all the consideration that it demands. It was not very long ago that I had much the same opinion as the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), that we lay so close to the United States of America, it was so easy passing over from one side of the line to the other, that trade commissioners were not so necessary, if they were necessary at all in the United States. Since I have looked into the matter a little more, I have come to the conclusion that that argument cannot be pressed too far, and that there are large possibilities in the United States of America for increasing the exports of Canadian products, if we had any trade commissioners-we have none now-in various sections of the 
United States. Under the legislation and under the vote of a preceding year, we have a representative in New York, and this is being continued. I had a conference with him not long ago in New York city,. He is a live man, and he pointed out to me where, by personal visitation, by keeping his eyes open to opportunities, he had been able to put Canadian manufacturers and producers in touch with large and profitable transactions in the United States. I am at one with my hon. friend and other hon. gentlemen in this House, in believing that no trade commissioners can do the particular work of the manufacturer, or the selling itself. Individual representation is absolutely necessary to the best condition of foreign trade, and unless we follow up what the Canadian trade commissioners do in the way of bringing information to light, of making suggestions and, as it were, of putting out leads for our exporters to follow in various ways, we shall not get the maximum benefit. But I do not share with my Ihon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) the view that trade commissioners are not necessary in this age; that they are not a benefit to the export trade of this country. I cannot take that opinion, because I have been living with trade commissioners more or less intimately for the last twenty-five years, and I know what they have done.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I beg to
correct my right hon. friend. I did not quite say that.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend was so close to it that I could not take his statement in any other way, but I do not want to bind him down to that assertion if he did not mean to make it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was debating the clause; I deliberately stated that, in certain instances, trade commissioners might be of great value in the extension of the trade of one's country, but you are not going to do that by this clause.


George Green Foster: That is a difference of opinion between my hon. friend and myself. He is cocksure that we cannot do it in this way. My hon. and genial friend from Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) is just as sure that this business cannot be carried out to the profit of Canada. I think it can. I believe that by this method, if I have an opportunity to work it out, I can place within a year's time Canadian representatives and commissioners to a very large extent in the outside foreign world, who

will not only give the leads which may be followed up by the producers and manufacturers of this country with the result of a large extension of our foreign trade, but who will also open up actual avenues of communication which could not, and will not, be opened up by representatives of our different exporting concerns themselves. Look at the mass of export interest which we have in this country and total up, if you can, the number of actual representatives they have in the foreign markets of the world. Some have their representatives in many countries, but a great majority of those in this country who manufacture for export have few, and most of them no representatives in foreign countries, though occasionally a man may be sent. But if you can multiply your trade commissioners, and they are of the right kind, efficient, wide-awake men, you can greatly extend the export trade of this country abroad. My hon. friend seems to argue on this line and this line only: What benefit is it to the trade of Canada to have a man take a pen and sign an invoice certificate? He says that that will bring no trade to this country. I do not say that it will. That is only an incident in the work of the trade commissioner and of the trade representative. He signs the certificate on the invoice and forwards it as directed, but that is only an incident in his work. His main work is to promote the extension of the trade of Canada to find the sources on the other side of the line afnd in other countries that bid fair to beckon and call, and where, ultimately, our manufacturers and producers may find a market for the surplus they have to sell. That is what the trade commissioner is there for. The signing of the certificate and the collection of the fee is but an incident in his work. The signing of the certificate or the collection of $2 or $2.50 for the fee will not promote trade to any great extent, but if by the doing of that you can put one hundred or more active trade commissioners in the foreign field, working along the lines along which our trade commissioners have worked in the past, you will do just that much more for the extension of the foreign trade of Canada, then you are doing to-day. That is what we shall get out of the invoice certification and the small fee that is charged therefore.
My hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) cites certain methods of carrying on trade whereby the broker will
eventually charge that $2 or $2.50. That may be so. But there are a great many and divers kinds of trade carried on. Take the gentlemen sitting here who have been exporting to the United States for the last number of years, and who have been obliged to have a certificate signed, and to pay for that certificate. I will call them to witness whether or not they have charged that fee to the ultimate consumer, whether there are not hundreds of instances in which you cannot charge it to the ultimate consumer. There may be some cases in which you can charge it to the ultimate consumer, but there are more in which you cannot. A man on the other side of the line is filling an order for 500, 1,000, or
2,000	tons of coal. Before that coal conies to this country there has to be an invoice certification fee paid of $2,00 or $2.50. Now whoever pays that; how much does it amount to on a large invoice?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Little drops of water.


George Green Foster: Little drops of water and little grains of sand have their effective good in the end. The effective good in that respect is that while the drop is not felt by the individual who pays it, in the aggregate you have a fund out of which you can carry on your trade commissioner work in foreign countries on a scale that it would be impossible to ask Parliament to provide the necessary funds for now.
My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) says that we would be better employed if we went to the United States and got them to take their fee off. We have had experience with reference to what the United States will take off, and what it will not. This method of trade invoice certification and payment therefor has been followed by the United States for many years, and instead of going back upon that form of doing business they are perfecting it and extending it. Only last year they added to the fees that they charge. And what are they doing? They are paying out of the fees they collect their entire diplomatic expenditure, but not all out of the invoice certification fees, because their agents, their consuls and viceconsuls also charge fees for other things, but the trade invoice certification fees make up the bulk of the fund that they gather. They have through all parts of the world a system of trade representatives which they are perfecting every year, and which is better now than it ever was before, with a better class of men, and a larger distribution throughout foreign countries. These

men are the fore-runners and exponents of the resources of the United States. They are bidding for trade and opening up the sources of trade continually from year to year. We are in competition with them. My hon. friend faid: Why follow the example of the United States? Because the United States does it, you need not do it. It is a fact that the United States does it, but we are not doing it simply because the United States does it. We are doing it for the purpose I have set forth, and my conviction, from the study I have given to the matter, is that if we get this authority from Parliament and put the system into execution after thorough preparation, we shall lay the foundation for a system of trade representatives that will do great things for Canada in the future. Not only the United States has that system, but, as I said before, there are few countries in the world that have not such a system and that do not charge a fee for certification of invoices. All the countries of South America, with the exception of perhaps one or two small countries, and most of the countries in Europe have the very same system. It is the European practice as well as the practice of the South American continent. Only a few months ago France raised the fees for her consular service. Great Britain also has her consular charges. Her consular charges are made for certificates of origin. I am not sure that Great Britain charges on simple commercial invoices, but she charges on certificates of origin. They have to be signed by her consuls, and there is a rather stiff consular fee for that.
Now as to inconvenience. During the last ten years we have been sending to the United States on an average $500,000,000 or $600,000,000 of goods a year. Every invoice that has gone with those goods to the United States of America has paid the certification fee. This country extends for 3,500 miles east and west, and for a long distance north and south. There are not more than eighty or ninety signers of United States certificates in Canada, and yet this business of export up to $500,000,000 and $600,000,000 has been going on every year and we have not heard a whimper as to its being impracticable or impossible to carry it out. You do not have to put on the snowshoes to travel to the nearest consular officer to get the certificate signed; there are mails and mail carriers, and the thing is done by correspondence. Men slip into the practice so easily that it is very little trouble to

them and our business men have grown used to it. The people in the United States have done the same, and I do not see any particular prospect of success in my going to Washington and trying to get the United States to abolish a great system which they have built up during the last ten or 'fifteen years, making it stronger and more effective every year. I do not think there is the least chance in the world of doing that. Now, all I want is that we should take this into consideration; we must try to do everything possihle for the extension of our trade. I say to the committee that the matter will be very carefully considered before it is put into operation. I am convinced that it can be put into operation and be made a great success in the extension of our foreign trade, and I should like to have an opportunity to try it. I am not going to take up more time in the matter, because I think I have said enough to show the importance of it.


Michael Clark: I think, for the first time, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has failed to convey his exact opinion in regard to the subject under discussion. Will this measure of collecting fees-which is what we are discussing, by the way, under this clause-have the effect, in the first place, of increasing imports from the United States, and, in the second place, of increasing our export trade to the United States?


George Green Foster: As I said before, the mere getting of an officer, or any number of officers, to sign an invoice and charge a fee for it, will not draw trade either one way or the other; but if by that you accumulate a fund and get a set of Canadian trade commissioners, in the near future, whose whole business it will be to look for sources of trade, to get information and send it back to this country, and open up in that way communication and send it back to this country, and open up in that way communication between our own people and the markets in the United States, in the long run you will multiply the amount that we shall buy from the United States along certain lines that we do not buy now, but you will multiply greatly what we may sell to the United States that we do not sell now. New York is a very live commercial city, and just a little before my visit there, our man in New York, by carefully noting things, and keeping himself au fait with what 'was going on, was able to get into communica-

tion with a man who' wanted a large quantity of a certain Canadian product. He was trying to buy this article in New York, but he got into communication with our representative there and, for the first time, was informed that there was anybody in Canada supplying the same article of a superior quality. Within a week's time our man had brought these two parties into communication and was instrumental in selling many thousands of dollars' worth of that product to a new man in a new market that was not used before. This is the benefit of having a live man who keeps on the job and hunts up in the papers for new sources of trade. By personal communication he gets into touch
11 p.m. with men, imparts information, and puts buyer and seller into communication with each other, thus promoting trade.


Michael Clark: My right hon. friend's answer was longer than the question, but I understand it in spite of its length. He has committed himself to the view that this step, which he asks to be allowed to take in this clause, will increase both exports and imports in our trade with the United States-" in the long run ", as he adds. I do not wonder that my hon. friend the member for Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) was anxious to know what the object of the Government is in this clause. Without going into the details of the matter, we now know that the object is to increase the trade of the country; my right hon. friend believes that this clause will do that. I am a little surprised that the minister should want to bring about that increase, and I wish that the Government would get some composite views on the advantages of trading with the United States. We had a debate on reciprocity a little while ago in this House, and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), speaking in that debate, took the position, almost in the first words he uttered, that we did not want any more trade with the United States. He said:	Have we not enough trade
with the United States now?	Now,
that is a small point, but after all the Government, in regard to the very important matter of our trading with the United States, should not be divided as between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Trade and Commerce declaring that we want more trade with the United States, and the Minister of Finance
expressing the view that we have too much. Have we not been hearing, during the whole of the Budget debate, that our imports from the United States are too numerous? That is the general attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite. I have now furnished, I think, a sufficient ground why this clause should be dropped. Before another session, the Minister of Finance and my right hon. friend can get together and settle for the Government, perhaps, whether or not we really want an increased trade with the United States. When they settle that question, they will be in a much better position to choose the methods by which to promote that trade. If the ministers are working at cross purposes, however, we shall find ourselves in a peculiar position under a Government that governs in that way.


George Green Foster: Will my hon. friend allow me a moment?


Michael Clark: Not to make a speech.


George Green Foster: Well, finish
then.


Michael Clark: I am scared of my right hon. friend. If I allowed him a moment, he might take half an hour, and I do want to facilitate things so that we may prorogue on Saturday night. I desire to make just a few remarks on the clause. I hope I am not mistaken in thinking that the clause has purely to do with the collection of fees. These fees are to be collected by a Canadian trade commissioner, the British consul, or other duly accredited officer. I am afraid of that phrase "other duly accredited officer". Are officers to be appointed in addition to the two specifically mentioned? I see in that phrase, in the hands of the minister, who seems to be very much enthused over this method of promoting trade, the possibility of an immense increase in the expenses of Government, at a time when, I think, every one in this House agrees that the Government ought to look well into every item of increased expenditure which they sanetion. I see the opening of a door there for more officials for a purpose which I think is a very doubtful one. I agree emphatically with my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) that trade between the United States and this country will be best promoted by the individuals whose business it is to trade; it will be best promoted by the Government if they take down certain obstacles to the trade, Now with regard to this particular pro-

pcsal, my first objection to it is that I fear the door is opened to the appointment of officials who are not needed, who will increase the expenses of the country at this moment and will not give any compensating advantage. I have put that point as clearly as I know how, and I pass on to another.
This is not the time to undertake fresh expenditure unless we know precisely what it is for, and we are sure the Government is going to get the benefit of such expenditure. My right hon. friend, I am certain, will agree with me on the general principle. Now, as to the effect of this method that my right hon. friend is so strong in recommending, I have very clear views. It amounts, as my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) pointed out the last time we were debating it, to an increase of the tariff. I do not care how small the amount involved is; that is what it is. In its practical operation it amounts to an increase of tariff, and in my judgment it will increase the cost of the articles which we import to the consumer of those articles. I could have understood its being strongly recommended by the Minister of Finance, because he thinks we have plenty of trade with the United States. Indeed, if I interpreted his words correctly, he thinks there is rather much coming this way. I could understand him strongly recommending my right hon. friend's proposition; indeed I am not sure that he has not a Mephistophelian purpose in his mind. At the present moment, I believe, he is quietly patting my right hon. friend on the back because he sees he is going to reduce the imports from the United States, while the Minister of Trade and Commerce-poor simple man!-thinks he is going to increase them. That is a point I should like them to settle between themselves. Personally I am with the Minister of Finance upon the subject as to how it would act-I believe its tendency must inevitably be to decrease trade. Then it will increase the price of everything that does carry the certificate. Any obstacle to trade decreases trade. It must do so, it cannot act in any other way. That is all I want to say about this proposition.
I have due regard to the lateness of the session, but I want to agree with my hon. friend from Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) in the general expression of opinion which he gave, that all these restrictions upon trade are in the long last harmful. They do not promote trade-they decrease it. They do
CMr. M. Clark.]
increase the cost of living-they do work harmfully to the country. That is my opinion. I want to go on record as having offered to my right hon. friend a warning that he is only adding one more restriction to trade when we need to trade. When our trade is falling, in my judgment he is taking steps to make it fall further; and I should not be doing my duty to my own convictions and to the country at this time if I did not point out that it is a bad way to remedy a falling trade to decrease it. It is a bad way to remedy the high cost of living to increase the cost of living. It is because I believe the proposal is helping towards both those steps that I wish my hon. friend from Halifax would stand strongly upon the position that this clause should be withdrawn, and if he proposes an amendment along that line I shall certainly vote for it.


George Green Foster: There is no
necessity for my hon. friend to advise the Minister of Finance and myself to try to get together on the trade question and not to pull in different directions. In order to make that appear to the House, my hon. friend had to commence with a statement that the Minister of Finance was opposed to having more trade in the United States. I have listened carefully to what the Minister of Finance has said, and I have never heard him take that ground. I have heard him state that the disparity of imports and exports between the two countries was a thing to be deplored and a thing to be remedied. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance and myself are at one. I am in favour of more trade between the United States and Canada hut not of an unfair proportionment of that trade. I want to see more imports into the United States from Canada to balance the too large preponderance and the disparity which now exists between exports and imports. Now, as far as our trade is concerned my hon. friend makes an argument upon premises which are not sound, and his premises were not sound when he represented either the Minister of Finance or the Government as being opposed to trade with the United States. We are not opposed to trade with the United States, but we do want to see a larger amount going out from our country to the adjoining republic in order to balance the overlarge amount which shows against us in the trade figures. My hon. friend must take one of two horns of the dilemma in another case. In the first place he must

take back the statement that if we put this into operation we will add immensely to the expenses of the country by the payments to the trade commissioners and agents that are to be employed.


Michael Clark: My hon.
friend must not be unfair. He will see when he reads Hansard that I never used the word " immensely".


George Green Foster: Then we will say " largely".


Michael Clark: Do not use
anything except what I said.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend gave me the impression, and I think he gave the impression to the committee, that he was against this because it would add to our expenditure.


Michael Clark: It depends
entirely on the number of people employed.


George Green Foster: Exactly, then we are at one on that. He opposed this proposition because it will add largely to the expenses of Canada, and therefore we shall have larger demands upon trie treasury which is not overfull at the present time-I am not mis-stating his position there. Then he goes on to state, alongside of that, what brings him to this conclusion. Well, he cannot have both things; he cannot have his cake and eat it at the same time. If there comes in from the United States of America five hundred, six hundred, or seven hundred millions of imports and we place a fee of $2, or $2.50 on each invoice it will make a sum of money as a fund out of which the expenses of these trade commissioners may be met. He argues on the other side that that will be so much added to what the consumers in this country will have to pay. But my hon. friend cannot argue both ways. Therefore if we put an invoice fee upon the certification, and the exports from the United States are even, or nearly even, with what they are to-day we shall have a fund which will pay these expenses without any draft upon the Canadian treasury. Both those things, I think, are worth considering, but I do not think they sustain the position of my hon. friend.


William Duff: Can the right hon. gentleman tell us from statistics how many entries passed through the customs house during 1920 bn invoices of over $100? Then on a $2.50 basis we can figure how much revenue we may expect to get on goods imported from the United States.


George Green Foster: We have no
figures of that, but the customs authorities have within the last two months been keeping track of the number of invoices that have come in monthly.


William Duff: That is what I want.


George Green Foster: And the number of invoices month by month that are coming in are fairly well proportioned,
I should think, to the number of invoices which would come in under the new scheme. If the United States takes out of Canada so many million dollars worth of goods, and the fees amount on a certain number of invoices to the gross sum of over $400,000, as it did last year, you can pretty accurately estimate that the return invoices on the other list would average about the same in number. So that the investigation which is being carried on by the Customs Department at the present time, bearing in mind the parity of volume of goods which pass between the two countries during the year leads to the conclusion that there will be a gain to us of revenue equivalent to what the United States gains through her consular fees, and that revenue will be quite sufficient to pay all the expenses of our trade commissioners. I have no hesitation in saying that so far as I can see it now there will not be a single dollar of expense to be put upon the Canadian treasury in carrying out this system.


Mr. HAROLD:: Mr. Chairman, this is
one of the most important questions that has come up this session, and I feel that we should give dt thorough discussion. It seems to me that as a method of raising revenue it is the most expensive that was ever devised. We would have to appoint hundreds of men throughout the United States who would have no interest whatever in Canada shipping goods in to that country; the sympathies of many would in all likelihood be more towards encouraging trade from the United States to Canada, because we could not get Canadian citizens to represent us in many of the points in the United States where required.
Now, it seems to me that there might be a way devised of collecting this revenue without so much expense. For instance, a special stamp could be provided by the Government, which a shipper could purchase and keep in his office, so that without paying part to anybody he could put the stamp on his invoice and thus avoid delay in shipping whereas, if the fee is collected by these brokers or others that you might select in the United States, the same as

the United States do in this country, they naturally would retain a very large proportion of that revenue. The United States check up their certified invoices at the point of shipment: our method is to check them at point of destination, and we have a very large number of customs houses scattered throughout the country to protect us in that respect, buit the United States is not so well equipped. Therefore, we might effect a better way of collecting revenue from these shipments than by copying the methods of the United States.
It seems to me that the amount involved in the fee of $2.50 on each shipment is not the important thing to consider. The important factor in my opinion is the way in which this is going to interfere with legitimate business between the two countries and put upon both Canadian and American business men unnecessary restrictions. It would mean delay in shipments. As any one knows who has ever tried to ship goods from this side, the railway people will not accept the shipment until you get the consular certificate. If you wanted a shipment in from the United States by express-and thousands of such shipments come through-it might be delayed some days until they get this certificate signed; whereas if it is just a matter of putting a stamp on, the shipment could go forward without any delay. In my own experience it has been most exasperating to attempt to ship goods into the United States, and it seemed to me that their system was most unsatisfactory. I would consider it a great misfortune if this country should copy it; in fact, I am so convinced of this that I should like to advise, the Government to go very slowly with this legislation, because they might get partially started to find it so annoying that they would have to retrace their steps.


Michael Clark: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might be permitted to clear up a point regarding the difference of opinion that arose between my hon. friend and myself. I want to establish my character for accuracy when I quote members of the Government. In the debate to which I referred what the Minister of Finance said was this:
Are we not trading enough with the United States? Our trade with the United States is constantly increasing.
That, I think, justified the statement I made When I referred to an expressed opinion by the Minister of Finance this session, and it justifies my view that he 
did not think it necessary to take the steps which my right hon. friend on the other hand contends would increase that trade. I submit again that the difference of opinion between the two ministers is a sufficient reason why this clause should not be pressed. We are dealing with a Government that does not know its own policy. My right hon. friend may laugh, but it is not a thing to laugh at. There should be Cabinet responsibility and coherence on a matter of this grave importance.
The other point made by my right hon. friend I am not sure I understood. He said that I could not eat my cake and have it. That is an old proverb and of course is true. But I like a proverb reduced to a little more practical shape. What did my right hon. friend mean in applying that to my statement that this thing meant expense to the people of this country? It is the people I am concerned about. As I said when discussing this subject previously, the people are my only concern. They supply all the expenses of the Government of this country, and it does not matter if you take the money in the first instance by certificates in the United States, the money that pays for those certificates eventually finds its way on to the cost of the articles to the Canadian consumer, and thus the total cost of the increase of government in that particular falls upon the people of Canada. That is my contention in a sentence, and I do not need to go one step further. There was no want of logic in my position. 1 contend that it is an increase of the expenses of government without a good purpose, and that that increase will come on to the shoulders of the Canadian consumer simply in the way that I have indicated.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: There seems to be a great difference of opinion as to the measure which is before the committee, and that difference of opinion does not prevail on only one side of the House; it is very strongly marked, I observe, in the Agrarian group. The two leaders of the Agrarian group, the member for Marquette and the member for Red Deer, should hold a little conference with a view to seeing that their opinions are somewhat alike upon the great trade questions that come before this House. I hold in my hand a copy of Hansard of February 26, 1921, page 285, in which I find an expression of the views of the Agrarian leader, who said-


Michael Clark: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and I must point out to my hon. friend that we are not responsible for the government of the country. There is more freedom of opinion in an opposition than there is in a government. There is no Cabinet coherence required here; we are the freest niggers on the North American continent.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I believe that the member for Red Deer read from Hansard of this session.


Michael Clark: To correct a positive contradiction on the part of the minister.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I am rising, then, to correct your own impression as to your own party.


Michael Clark: On the point of order, I say that there is no justification for breaking the rule in this case. I must have a ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not think the hon. member for Haldimand will read from a previous debate. The Chair has often ruled that no reference can be made to a previous debate of the same session. It is true that an exception was made in the case of two Bills of the same nature, where an hon. member quoted from a debate on a previous Bill which might be considered as a former stage of the Bill which he was discussing, but any quotation from the Budget debate or the debate on the Address would be quite out of order.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Mr. Chairman, I must
bow to your ruling. I was merely going to make the statement that I heard an address delivered by an hon. member in this House in which views were expressed entirely opposite to, those expressed by the member for Red Deer to-night. Without mentioning any names, I may say that in the address to which I refer great fault was found with the Minister of Trade and Commerce for not making an attempt to expand the trade of the country and for not employing trade commissioners in the United States. He went on to tell how many trade commissioners were employed in Canada and to argue that this same system should be employed by Canada in the United States with a view to expanding our trade. A few nights ago the hon. member for Red Deer was making a statement in the House, and realizing that I might not quote the address of the member for Marquette I took it over to the whip of the
Agrarian party and asked him to read his leader's views upon the question which the member for Red Deer was discussing-and I may tell you that they were quite different from the views which were being expressed by the member for Red Deer and from the views which that hon. gentleman evidently holds in connection with the matter now under discussion.


Michael Clark: It is extremely flattering, I am sure, to my hon. friend from Marquette to find out that he has become so influential a person in this country that he actually dictates the policy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this Government. Coming events cast their shadows before, and the time evidently is approaching when the member for Marquette will be elevated to a position in this country of less freedom and more responsibility. But at present he enjoys his freedom-the freedom of being in Opposition- and so do I. As to his opinions, I have no doubt he is able to support them in his own way. If they do not commend themselves to my reason, I shall take exactly the liberty that the Minister of Finance takes in a much more responsible position of differing from a colleague. But I want to point out to the hon. member for Haldimand that cabinet responsibility requires that the members of a cabinet on important questions of policy should think alike. I never heard that principle laid down in regard to the members of an opposition.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: There is an old saying that a prophet is without honour in his own country. Perhaps I may express the hope that the prophecy of my hon. friend from Red Deer as to new Cabinet ministers may not be wholly fulfilled. I am glad that he has complimented the Government for accepting the advice which was given them by his leader with regard to the advantage to be gained from the appointment of trade commissioners.


William Foster Cockshutt: In order that the county of Brant may not be wrong on this question I think that it is necessary that I should say a few words in support of the minister's resolution. I am surprised to find the member for Halifax showing so much heat on a subject in connection with which it may be presumed that he has not had very much experience. He makes the statement that this proposal cannot promote trade, and he attacks violently the principle upon which the (minister is proceeding. I want to tell him that one of

the largest associations of business men in Canada have requested that this mode of procedure be adopted. I presume that the member for Halifax would take the view of the Halifax Bar Association in preference to that of 2,500 or 3,000 of the brightest men in manufacturing and commercial circles in the city of Toronto. Doe's he think that the view of these men should carry no weight?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would not take their judgment at all; I do not think it should carry weight in this country or in any other country if they stated that clause 3 would have the effect of extending Canadian trade.


William Foster Cockshutt: Well, there may be a difference of opinion on that point. I prefer to take the opinions of the business men rather than those of the legal men, who seem to think that they understand not only law but every other subject in creation, although they may have had no experience whatever in trade matters.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will my
hon. friend allow me-


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. gentleman has had his say; I would like him to let me express my views with regard to this matter.	.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will my hon. friend allow me a short, simple question? Have 2,500 of the business men of Canada requested this legislation?


William Foster Cockshutt: My information is that the Board of Trade of the city of Toronto, which comprises more than the number mentioned, has asked for this legislation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I thought you were speaking for the nation.


William Foster Cockshutt: I was not speaking for the nation. I said that an organization of business men had expressed a view as against that held, perhaps, by a few lawyers down east. The hon. member denied that he had decried the power of trade commissioners to increase trade, but if he refers to Hansard to-morrow he will find that that is what he said. He may not have meant it, but he did say it and many men on this side heard him say it. If it is not corrected in Hansard I think he will find that he said that trade commissioners could not and would not increase trade.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I went out of my way to admit that in special cir-
cumstances and in some countries they might do a great deal. But the question whether we should or should not have trade commissioners is not involved in this section, and I want to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that most of the speakers have been out of order.


William Foster Cockshutt: You have been more out of order than anybody else.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; I kept well within the rules.


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. gentleman has had a pretty full say, and as I have the floor at present I think I should be allowed to finish my remarks with regard to a subject that I know something about. I have had experience as an importer and as an exporter. I have paid this fee of $2.50 for many years on all exports to the United States, and I have gone through all the formalities necessary before those goods could be passed through. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) tells us that in the long run the consumer pays the duty, and that the consumer will pay this charge. But he does not tell us which consumer. He took very good care not to say that. Is it the American consumer or the Canadian consumer? That is the important point. He cannot show that they are going to pay both ways.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Mr. Chairman, I desire to answer the hon member.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for Brantford has the floor. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) will certainly have a right to take the floor and answer the question when the hon. member for Brantford has concluded his remarks.


William Foster Cockshutt: I am pointing out that the hon. member for South Renfrew, who thinks he is so very clear and lucid on all questions, said that the consumer would pay the charge on these invoices, but he did not tell the committee whether it was the American consumer or the Canadian consumer. He must take one or the other.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Does the hon. member want an answer or not?


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. member
can answer afterwards.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Does the hon. member want an answer?


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not want an answer right now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Foster Cockshutt: I did not ask the hon. member a question. He rose himself to ask the question. I am pointing out the defect in his argument. As regards the express parcels mentioned by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Harold), let me point out to him that this does not apply to small invoices. Express parcels rarely exceed $100 in value, and they would not require this certificate, as I understand the matter.


George Green Foster: That is right.


William Foster Cockshutt: The minister says
that is right, so that all parcels of a value less than $100 do not require this certificate. Therefore, there will not he the delay nor the charge. The value of an export must be $100 or more before this certificate is asked for, and the percentage is a very small one. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has a good idea; he is trying to put it into force at no expense to the country, and that is where the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) makes the mistake. If the policy of the minister is sound-and I believe it is- he proposes to collect from American exporters to Canada all the money that will be required to pay for 75 or 100 trade commissioners in the United States. That is the policy. It has been made to work in one direction. Why should it not work in the other? This is not applied only to the United States; it is intended to be applied to all the countries of the world. Why then should we confine the argument only to [DOT]the United States? I think this item shows that Canadian trade commissioners are required and that those trade commissioners will be able to increase trade; I mean now trade in the direction from Canada to the United States by the sale of Canadian products to United States firms, for the reason that they will be able to show where, certain goods can be got and how they can be got to the best advantage. That will be a marked help to Canadian exporters. Hon. gentlemen opposite, who have not had much experience in export trade, talk very glibly of sending experts to foreign countries to develop the trade of a single firm. I can tell them something about the cost of a single representative for a single year. How much would it be? I am giving a very moderate estimate when I say that it would cost an individual firm from $10,000 to $15,000, including the salary of the expert traveller and of his travelling and hotel expenses. Unless a firm expects to do business amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars per annum, it cannot afford to send a representative of its own. Firms from Brantford have had representatives in Australia for years, and I believe the average cost is above $10,000 per annum. You have to do a big business in order to pay the salary of a man to work up a foreign trade. The minister proposes to have a few trade agents scattered about the various countries so as to take the place partially, if not wholly, of personal representatives. They will take the place of representatives who will draw the attention of those countries to Canadian goods, where and how they can be got most effectively and cheaply. I believe the policy is a sound one and the business men of Canada will be in favour of it to a large extent, in spite of the opinion of lawyers and other men who have had no experience in importing or exporting goods, but who import and export opinions, and who often express opinions that are not wanted on trade questions about which they know comparatively little. I would advise the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), who has given so much strong advice to the minister, to study trade questions a hit himself. He would be a great deal more guarded than he has been to-night in attacking a measure that has been devised with the best intention, and that will probably result in a vast increase in Canadian trade.


William Duff: We seem to have wandered a great distance from the subject under discussion. It seems to me that we have no right to discuss the question of trade commissioners or whether the consumer or somebody else pays the fee. But since other speakers have dealt with these trade commissioners and the question whether the consumer or somebody else pays the fee, I presume I shall be allowed to say a few words regarding this matter. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) wanted to know from the hon. member from South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) whether the Canadian consumer or the American consumer paid the fee. To my mind that was a most foolish question to ask, because the American consumer would not pay the fee on goods coming into Canada; it would be the Canadian consumer, if anybody, who would certainly have to pay. There is only one consumer in the case of goods exported from the United States to Canada. The hon. member for Brantford also objected to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) speaking on this question because the latter was a lawyer. I happen to be a sea lawyer, but

I am going to talk about this question just as much as I like, and the hon. member for Brantford is not going to criticise me or I am going to answer back and criticise him.


William Foster Cockshutt: Go ahead.


William Duff: We can very well understand why the hon. member for Brantford wants this legislation to go through. Anything that will prevent goods coming from the United States into Canada, whereby thd plain people will get goods cheaper and the cost of living will be reduced, is against the principles of the hon. member for Brantford. That is no doubt the reason why he wants this legislation to go through. Another reason why he wants this legislation to pass is that exporters of goods from foreign countries will pay a certain fee so that he and others like him will not have to pay commercial travellers to go to foreign countries to sell their goods. He wants people in this country or in foreign lands, through this fee, to pay that expense. If a business man in this country wants to sell goods, he should be prepared to pay his own commercial travellers to do this work for him, and not ask people in Canada or foreign countries to pay it for him.
The only argument that the minister put up in defence of this clause referred to something that has nothing to do with the question. He stated that, by passing this clause and collecting this fee, he was going to establish trade agents throughout the world. I am absolutely in favour of trade agents; I believe we should have trade agents in every country in the world where we can afford to send them in order to get business for Canada; but the trade agents whom the minister may appoint will have nothing to do with this at all. Take for instance the Atlantic seaboard in the United States. I think hon. members will agree with me that, if this is feasible at all, we shall have to have trade commissioners in Calais, Maine, Perth Amboy, Boston, New York, Newport, Jacksonville, and in several ports in the Mexican gulf, because wherever there is an export town or city where goods are exported from the United States to Canada, it would be necessary under this clause for the exporter to get consular invoices stamped by somebody. Under this clause if the exporters have to get consular invoices for everything, it will be necessary to have a trade agent in every place. I asked the minister a few moments ago how many invoices came through the custom house of this country last year, but 
he could not tell me. It seems to me that as Minister of Trade and Commerce, and as a businessman, before he asks this committee to pass this clause he should be able to give that information. It is all nonsense for him to say that he is going to collect $500,000 or $800,000 in fees when he does not know how many invoices pass through the custom house in a year. There is no comparison at all between the invoices which go from Canada to the United States and those which come from the United States to Canada. Every business man will agree with me that even if we send just as many invoices to the United States as they do to us, the amount of their invoices is very much larger than ours.
Let me go a little further as to the inconvenience of this system. I agree absolutely with the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Harold). Like him, I have had a little experience, but not so much, of course, in this matter, and I say that the present system under which business men in Canada have to go to United States consuls and have their papers stamped and signed is a nuisance. I agree absolutely with what my hon. friend from Brant has said along that line. I think I am right in saying that my town passes more entries of Canadian goods going to the United States than any other town on the Atlantic seaboard. What have we got as American consul in that town? What is the inconvenience to which we are subject? Half the time we cannot find him. He has an office in a dwelling house which is about a mile back of the town, and every time that I or any other man has goods to ship to the United States, or a vessel to clear with goods to Porto Rico, which is a dependency of the United States, and we want a bill of health so that we can clear, we have to look around all day for the American consul. That is the inconvenience to which we are put in my town, and we ship more goods to the United States than any other town on the Atlantic coast. I say the system is impracticable. It is useless for the minister to say that he is going to get a large revenue from this source when he does not know how many invoices come through the ports I have mentioned. Outside of New York and Boston he would have twenty consular invoices issued in those other ports in a year. That would be $55. Yet the minister would have a consular agent at Jacksonville, Port Arthur, New Orleans, and several other ports in the Mexican gulf, and another at Perth Amboy, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston and so on. What's the use of him

talking when he cannot come forward with a proper business proposition and tell us exactly how many invoices come through the diiferent ports I have mentioned in a year. I say this is a foolish proposition. Take the Argentine Republic. How many invoices come from Buenos Aires in a year? The minister has a trade commissioner there who has cost us some $20,000. I do not suppose there will be twenty invoices passing through there to Canada in a year. What about Rio de Janeiro, Santos, Bahia, Pernambuco, or any of these other foreign ports? Does the minister expect that they would collect sufficient fees to pay their expenses? It is impossible. I say that when the minister comes before this committee and tries to tell us that the fees collected ' will pay for maintaining these trade commissioners, he does not know what he is talking about. He has no right to try and tell the members on this side of the House that we do not know much about business. In fairness to the committee, I think that this section should be dropped unless the minister can give the committee proper information with regard to the matters I have mentioned.


Mr. STEWART (Lanark) :: As a member of the bar, I hesitate to take part in the discussion after it has been entirely disposed of by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). I should just like to say, however, so far as the development of Canadian business in the foreign market is concerned, that I think my hon. friend's suggestion is not profound. I will presume also to say that sending a personal representative to develop any ordinary Canadian business in foreign markets is the proper way not to do it. I have had some experience in foreign trade myself, and if this were the proper place to discuss the matter, I think I could tell the hon. member for Brantford how to develop foreign trade.


William Foster Cockshutt: Go ahead.


John Alexander Stewart: This is not the place or the hour.


William Foster Cockshutt: You cannot tell me anything about it.


John Alexander Stewart: Well let it go at that.


William Foster Cockshutt: I have done more foreign trade than you have.


John Alexander Stewart: I rose for the purpose of suggesting to the minister that
all the words after the word "therefor" on the third last line of the section should be dropped. If we send trade agents to the United States or any other country with the idea that they are going to promote Canadian trade, they are either going to promote Canada's export trade or its import trade. Now if the balance of trade as between Canada and the United States is to be equalized, and the adverse balance against this country wiped out, it is to be accomplished by promoting Canada's export trade, by creating a condition in the United States whereby large quantities of Canadian goods will be purchased. I therefore think it is wise that the words in this section to which I have referred should be left out for the reason that their inclusion will tend to encourage, not our export trade, but our import trade. If we are going to pay the trade agents whom we send out by permitting them to retain the fees they charge, the only fees they get would be on the trade they create in the foreign country on invoices of goods which are to come into Canada. If we wish to wipe out the present adverse trade balance against us, our trade should be moving in exactly the opposite direction. So it seems to me that any agents we send out should be paid a straight salary, and that the commission feature should be dropped altogether.
I am quite willing to defer to the minister's opinion as to the possibilities of this system of developing trade, although personally I have my doubts. I have no doubt, however, that the department and the Government have carried on an investigation, and I am quite willing to defer to their views, but I do not think that the real development of our foreign trade is bound to come through the manufacturer doing it himself. It is unnecessary, under conditions as they exist to-day, for a Canadian manufacturer to send his own personal representatives to the Far East, for instance. A business with which I am connected has built up a large trade in India and the Far East, and notwithstanding the depreciated currency of these Far Eastern countries, we have been able to maintain that trade, and we have not found it necessary to send exclusive agents there as suggested by the hon. member for Brantford. I therefore suggest to the minister that all the words after "therefor" in line four on page 3 of the Bill to the end of the section be struck out. If they were struck out it would do away with the commission fees and put the representative on a

straight salary basis. It would not create the selfish interest that would exist in promoting trade into Canada rather than export trade from Canada; and if we are to get rid of our adverse balance, it must be by creating export trade rather than encouraging imports into Canada.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am heartily in accord with the remarks of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart). In fact, although he sits on the other side, I find that whenever he rises to express an opinion, he appears to be exactly in accord with the members on this side. Why he sits opposite, therefore, I cannot understand. The hon. gentleman reminds me of a Biblical character who was sent on one occasion to curse the Israelites, but who blessed them when' he opened his mouth. I do not wish to press the comparison any further, but some of the members who make a specialty of reading the Bible will know the character to whom I refer.


George Green Foster: Was it the
rider or the animal?


Samuel William Jacobs: It was the rider, not the ridee. It is very refreshing to find members on the other side of the House with the independence of the hon. member for Lanark. He happens to be a member of the bar, and is also a very successful business man. I must say that I resent in the very strongest terms the remarks which from time to time are directed against the members of the bar, and particularly do I resent them from the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). The member for Brantford represents very ably the district from which he comes, but he also represents certain particular interests, and it seems to me that it comes with very poor grace from that gentleman to hurl accusations against members of the bar. They have no axe to grind here; first they are on one side, and then on the other. They act for the party who pays them. When they are in the House, they are paid by no one, so that they must be more or less independent; they express their own views. But when the member for Brantford, who represents an important manufacturing interest, gets up, he usually talks for the manufacturing interests, I find, and never against them. The member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) is a member of the bar, and a very distinguished member, and, when he is here, he leaves his legal proclivities in the city of Halifax and speaks as a member of Parliament. I repeat, therefore, that it comes with very poor grace from the member for Brantford to 
speak derogatorily of that profession, to which myself and others, the member for Halifax included, happen to belong. If he carries that condemnation a little further, he will have to read the Prime Minister out of Parliament. That right hon. gentleman made a position for himself as a member of the bar before he thought of Parliament, and I can go on and recite the case of Sir John Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and practically nine-tenths of the important men who have sat in this House.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Minister of
Justice.


Samuel William Jacobs: The Minister of Justice was at one time a member of the bar.


Charles Joseph Doherty: And still is.


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes, still is; and after the next election he will be practising in Montreal as before. Now, with regard to this clause to which objection has been taken, I cannot understand how you can expect to have a responsible and important Canadian trade commissioner, who is supposed to be able to do something for Canadian trade, in the person of a man receiving $2.50 for passing entries and giving a certificate. To my mind, the thing is incongruous. I have in mind, as an ideal trade commissioner, a man of the type of Lloyd Harris, or Sir Charles Gordon, or such people who bulk largely in the eye of the public. Do you think these people would be willing to accept the position of trade commissioner and live off $2.50 per invoice which they would receive under this clause? It is absurd. They belong to an entirely different class. If you want to maintain men on $2.50 per invoice, you must look for men who are receiving now, perhaps $2.25, and who want to improve their position by getting the extra quar-
12 m. ter; but they are not the kind of men who will promote trade for this country. We want big men who are able to divert business into this country. The minister would be well advised, in the light of the discussion which this clause has had, and the strenuous objection which has been raised to it, to withdraw the obnoxious portion to which exception has been taken. I understand that my hon. friend from Halifax has moved an amendment, and I shall be glad to support it.


George Green Foster: I had already prepared an amendment along the line I explained to the committee a little while ago, and possibly, had I read it earlier, we should have been deprived of the

charming persiflage with which my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Jacobs) has entertained us.


Samuel William Jacobs: I thank you for the kind words.


George Green Foster: But we must not have too much persiflage; we must get some business done, and I therefore move that there be added to Section 6 the following:
This section shall come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council.
With reference to the suggestion made by my hon. friend (Mr. Stewart), another lawyer who presumed to get into the discussion with a representative of the manufacturers, it is not a vital part of the subject that the words to which he referred, and which were never meant to be applied generally, should be retained. As I explained to the committee, they might be useful in the way of ensuring payment st some rather unimportant and out of the way places where you might want to have a man to whom you would not be able to give a large salary. However, the absence of those words does not militate against the principle of the clause, nor does it add to the difficulty of carrying it out. Therefore, if any hon. members think they should be struck out, I am willing to delete those words.


John Allister Currie: I understand that the clause is necessary so that money can be placed to the credit of, say, the com-ihissioner in Brazil. What is the use of sending it back and paying exchange to Canada?


George Green Foster: The clause as amended will read, after the preliminary portion of it:
Who may also prescribe the fee to be charged therefor;
That will be the end of the clause, leaving out the words following. Then I move to add after the deletion, these words:
This section shall come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council.	f


Mr. CAHILL:: Will the minister agree to consult each member of the committee before putting the proclamation into effect?


William Duff: The amendment is not
satisfactory; it does not go to the root of the matter. The Governor in Council can issue a proclamation this day week and put the clause into effect. That part of the
amendment is absolutely useless; I would not trust this Government until to-morrow morning, let alone next week. Consequently, if we accept the amendment the minister may go to his colleagues next week and say he wants to appoint 173 trade agents to issue one consular invoice a month, and they may be apt to do it at great expense to this country. Therefore I cannot accept that part of the amendment-it is absolutely useless as far as regards the obnoxious feature of this clause of which we complain.
Now with regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart) it certainly improves the wording of the clause, but it does not get at the root of the matter at all. I also agree, with the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Harold) bearing in mind my own experience, that the thing is nonsense and quite unnecessary. There is no need for it at all. For instance, every business man knows that when a shipment of goods comes in from the United States, or from any other part of the country, that shipment must be accompanied by three copies of the invoice, and the Canadian business man, when he takes those invoices to the custom house, has to make an affidavit declaring that it is a true statement of the contents, and that the prices and the amount are correct. He has to fill out certain forms and endorse the name of his firm across the invoices themselves. It seems to me that should be sufficient for any purpose which is considered necessary in regard to the importation of goods into Canada. I say that the business man in the United States should not be subjected to the same difficulties which the Canadian business man encumbers with regard to shipments to the United States. Every time you ship goods to the United States, or to Porto Rico, or other foreign port, you have to go to a consular agent first and make out four copies of the American consular paper. You have to make out certificates and go to him and get those filled out. Then you have to fill out entries for the custom house, and other papers as well, and if the shipment comes by railway you have to produce all these papers and in many cases the goods arrive at their destination before the invoices are received. The American consul in a small town, who perhaps is not much of a business man, keeps the consular invoices in his desk for four or five days before mailing them, and sometimes the goods reach their destination be-

fore the consular invoices arrive. I say the whole thing is nonsense and quite unnecessary, and we should not subject American business, or business men in other foreign countries to the same inconvenience that Canadian business men are put to. In my opinion, therefore, the hon. member for Halifax is quite justified in asking that this clause be struck out.


John Allister Currie: The principal reason for this legislation is to enable us to establish commercial agencies all over the world which we do not have at the present time. It is the boast of the United States that they have the finest commercial agencies in existence, that they are represented by their own men in every port, and that the countries in which those men are stationed pay the salaries of those officers and that after all expenses are met, there is a profit left. Now we are confronted with a situation which has to be faced. If you had asked me a year ago whether it would be possible for us to adopt this course, I confess I would have taken a position very similar to that of some hon. gentlemen on this side who have offered opposition to the measure; but the world has been moving, and business conditions have changed, making it absolutely essential for us that we take immediate steps to place our agents in almost every commercial centre in the world with which we do business. It has been said that this is an objectionable way of proceeding. It is a little difficult but nevertheless that difficulty can be surmounted. I have knowledge of the facts. I am associated with concerns that ship possibly five or six cars of stuff a day, a lot of which goes to the United States. The consular agent is one hundred miles away from the point of shipment, but the invoices are made out and they are mailed to him. Notwithstanding that, everything goes through smoothly and there is no hitch. It is not a fact that the goods can get to the United States in advance of the invoices, because until the consular invoice is signed the cars cannot pass the frontier. This is a method that the Americans have adopted in order to develop their trade, it is a method of peaceful penetration, and when we are up against all kinds of competition we must accept the best method in vogue in other countries in order to meet that condition. Now what is the change in conditions that have taken place? Anybody who reads the Government reports must know that our trade is falling off at the 
present time, and what is the reason for that? I am going to try and place the situation as fairly as possible before hon. members. After the war began we had agents of foreign countries in Canada buying up all the goods they possibly could get. Such supplies as they could not obtain in Germany, or France, or Russia, or other countries, they bought in Canada, and they shipped them out to foreign countries and displaced German and other foreign trade to the extent of millions of dollars. Our trade in recent years has grown to a far greater extent than that of any other country of our size. Now what has occurred within a recent period? In the last six months the commission agents to whom I referred have left Canada. In many instances they have established themselves in Germany and they are offering to Canada to-day the very same goods which a year and a half ago they were purchasing in this country. Unfortunately manufacturers in Canada entrusted their business to these foreign commission agents, most of them British or American, and allowed them to sell our g'oods in China, in South America, in Australia, and other countries and to carry on our business for us. Now we are face to face with the fact that we have no trade agencies in those countries to carry on our business, and that is the very reason why our trade has been falling off for the last six or eight months. I believe that the Agrarian group, and the Opposition as well, are just as anxious to see Canada carry on a successful business abroad as are hon. gentlemen on this side. To establish these consular agents and government representatives abroad to the extent that is necessary would require six or eight months because those representatives must be good men. We must act right away; I am satisfied of that. If we are going to hold our own in the foreign markets of the world with the competition which prevails to-day it is absolutely necessary for us to have these trade agents and to appoint them without the slightest^delay. Are we going to carry the burden of maintaining trade agents in all those foreign ports? Is it not easier for us to adopt the method pursued by such a great commercial nation as the United States? One hon. gentleman from the district of Montreal declared, "Fancy men like Mr. Harris taking a fee of $2.50 in a foreign country." That is absolute nonsense. The agent of the United States Government in this very city is very glad

to see $2.50 come in with a consular invoice. He readily performs whatever duties are required in that connection. In order to enlarge our trade in foreign countries we must not only have these agents, but the manufacturers and business men of Canada must also appoint representatives in order to develop trade for us. One concern, of which I am a member, last week put fourteen salesmen into South America where they hope to do business. I would like to see trade agents in every country, because we can compete with other nations in manufactures. But you must not shackle us with high freight rates and you must give us representatives in those foreign countries that will look up business for us. In speaking as I do I speak from personal knowledge. I know that the trade of Canada with China, South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand has been doubled, yes, trebled, through the efforts of the trade agents appointed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I know that personally. Now we must increase that representation, and the easiest and simplest way for us to do it, is to make these foreign countries pay a share of the expense just as the American trade agents make us pay for the agencies in Canada. The United States used to have far more consular agencies in Canada than they now have. I think they have cut the number down by about one-half; but the United States plan of having consular agents or representatives in foreign countries is one that has been commended everywhere and we cannot go wrong in following their example. For that reason I think the 'House is amply justified in supporting this proposal. The suggestion that a man has to go several miles to have an invoice signed is absurd. The mails are available, and the business is one through the mails. To any one who does business in this country, no valid argument has been advance against the passage of this Bill. Therefore I hope those who are interested in our national trade will support it rather than find trifling objections to certain small details.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I should like to express
my views on the amendments suggested by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. At the outset I want to assure both these gentlemen that neither go far enough to suit my views. Once more I express my firm conviction in the correctness of the position taken by the hon. member for Halifax that this section should be deleted entirely. In my judgment it will not serve any good purpose, but will increase the present restrictions on trade. It is just one other item to supplement the long list of items that have been already added this session to the protection wall that surrounds commerce both coming into and going out of this country. For example, there is the exchange adjustment on invoices-a huge stone in the wall of protection against importations; there is the Branding Act, which will add further cost to importations; now there is this additional item of cost, small in itself, but in the aggregate very considerable. We were told when this item was under discussion before that the minister expected-I do not know by what method of arithmetic he arrived at it, because he cannot tell us the number of invoices on goods coming into this country in the year-to realize annually the sum of $500,000. He has told us of the great success of this system in the United States, and that the entire cost there is financed out of the fees collected by its consular agents in different parts of the world. I am sorry that his information is not quite correct. Within the past week I have read in a trade journal published in New York that there is to-day before Congress an appropriation of $500,000 to be added to the amount needed for the extension of trade and commerce along this line,-a sum similar to the amount that is expected to be raised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce through the collection of these fees. Now, if the United States with its 110,000,000 people think that is a sufficient sum to spend in one year for the extension of the country's trade, I contend Mr. Chairman, that an equal amount collected from our 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 people is altogether out of proportion.
During his remarks the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) asked a question which he declined to have answered immediately. I intend to answer that question now, although I have already answered a similar question put to me by the hon. member for North Simcoe. The hon. member for Brantford has asked the direct question:	Who pays the fee on exportations from Canada to the United States or on exportations from the United States to Canada. It is a foolish question to ask. Of course, in either case the consumer pays the cost. I ask the hon. member for Brantford, as I have asked the hon. member for North Simcoe: Who pays the cost of the conduct of his business, in the form of



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
fuel, light, insurance and so on? That cost, of course, represents the expenses of his business, and naturally this fee will be another item added to that cost and will be taken into account in figuring the sale price of his commodity.
I do not wish the House for one moment to think that I am entirely opposed to trade agents, but we must remember that this is a large country with a small population, and therefore we must proceed carefully. I find that we have already quite an extensive array of trade agents in various parts of the world. If it was not so late I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to give us some information on this point. For instance, we have a trade agent at Auckland, and that agency cost the Dominion last year, according to the Auditor General's report, $9,000 odd. How much business did Canada do with New Zealand last year? I find also that in Yokohama we have an agent, and the expenses of that agency last year were $10,000. How much business did that agent secure for this country? This would be pertinent information to put before the committee in order to help us intelligently consider this proposition.
I was very pleased to hear the member for Lanark express his views on this proposal, and I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that we do not hear from him more often. It has already been stated by one hon. gentle-mon thac long ago he came to the conclusion that the hon. member' for Lanark should be on this side of the House. I am sorry that environment has apparently overcome his better judgment in the matter of proper location, for I am confident that from his public expression of opinion that he is not at all comfortable in his present surroundings.
The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr'. Currie) as usual was very frank in his expression of opinion to-night. He said that the principal reason for this measure is to enable Canada to establish consular agents all over the world. What is the other reason in his mind? Perhaps I could suggest it by reading an extract from a letter I received a few days ago from one of the largest wholesale concerns in Montreal.
John Allister Currie: An importing firm?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Yes.


John Allister Currie: Agents for foreigners.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The writer is referring
to this particular item and to the other item of branding merchandise, and so on.

The letter is fairly lengthy, and therefore I shall read only the paragraph that bears more particularly on the subject under discussion. The letter is here for the perusal of any hon. member who may wish to read the whole of it; I shall quote only the following extract from it:
All these minor hindrances to importing, such as labelling, increased sales tax on importations, the question of charging duty on adverse exchange, etc., etc., is really giving as much extra protection to Canadian manufacturers as if the tariff had been increased, satisfying the Canadian manufacturer, and not raising the ire of the class of consumers who are outspoken for a tariff even lower than the existing one.
This firm was kind enough to say:
We entirely agree with your attitude in relation to ''branding and labelling imports". It looks on the surface as if the Government did not want to go on record as increasing the tariff, at the same time wanted to satisfy the Canadian manufacturers in protecting them from the competition of imports, by making the importation of merchandise as difficult as possible.
Now, there is the key to the whole situation. I have another letter from a Toronto firm, and the reading of a short extract from it will emphasize the claim which I have made and which is supported by the hon. member for Halifax and the hon. member for Red Deer. It says:
A certificate might be necessary where suspicions are aroused about importations, but speaking in a general way, are the customs authorities not going a little too far in the number of certificates that they require of a man importing a small bill of goods?
Now, these letters are, I think, from friends of the Government.


John Allister Currie: What has that to do with this question?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think it is more in line with the subject under consideration than a good deal I have listened to from hon. members on the Government side. The member for Simcoe says that trade is falling off. Why is trade falling off? Many large factories are declining business and yet their plants are lying idle. Do these manufacturers require trade agents in the United States to sell their products when they have a market at their own door and yet prefer to let their plants remain idle and their workingmen walk the streets? Mr. Chairman, I would urge strongly upon the minister the advisability of delaying this item for further consideration.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I shall gladly give the floor to the member for Simcoe if he wishes

to address the committee, but I do not wish to be interrupted in that way while I am discussing this matter. I support most heartily the motion of the hon. member for Halifax, Which has been so ably supported by other hon. members. The amendment which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has submitted really makes matters worse. Uncertainty is one of the worst things that can happen to the manufacturers and retailers of this country; we must have something definite to work on. If the clause passes as amended this provision may be brought into force by Order in Council to-morrow or the next day or any day-nobody knows when it may come into force. Let us have something definite. If the minister insists upon making this provision law, let him do so, but I appeal to him once more not to press this measure through.


Georges Henri Boivin: The question before the committee is the adoption of clause 6. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) is, of course, out of order, as being a negative motion. The question is on the amendment moved by Sir George Foster. All those who think that the amendment will improve the clause should of course, vote for the amendment, reserving their right to vote against the clause if they so desire when the question is put on the main motion.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 7-valuation for duty at not less than wholesale price.
William Stevens Fielding: When this clause was before the committee at an earlier stage I pointed out what I thought were well-grounded objections to it. The clause provides that in valuing the goods there must be taken into consideration the cost of production in the country of origin, plus reasonable profit. I pointed out that the minister has no machinery for establishing the cost of production in a foreign country. The minister claimed that they had some machinery for doing that. Now, I have in my hand an article from the Montreal Gazette which deals with that question. I need not remind the committee that the Montreal Gazette is a strong protectionist paper and is thoroughly consistent in that respect. It does not object to any duty on the ground that it is too high; you could hardly make it so high that the Gazette would object to it. It has always been a protectionist paper,
280i
and I suppose they would not object to my saying that it will likely continue to be so. The Gazette is edited by a gentleman of large commercial experience; it is generally understood that he was the collector of customs in Montreal for many years, and in that capacity-a most excellent and capable collector he was, 1 do not hesitate to say-he obtained a large knowledge of what is practicable in the administration of customs laws. In article 7 he recognizes a tendency to increased protection and to that extent he commends it. He goes on to say:
The intent of the amendment is commendable. There will, however, be difficulty in giving1 it effect. "Actual cost of production" of goods in a foreign country at specified dates is not easy to ascertain, because the authority of Canadian Customs officers does not extend beyond this country, and only by detaining suspected importations until the exporter voluntarily establishes production cost at date of shipment can the case be disposed of. There is also the question of what constitutes "a reasonable profit" on goods suspected to have been dumped, the decision being committed solely to the Minister of Customs, a question liable to lead to conflict and controversy.
Now, that is the opinion of a gentleman who, I think it is no impropriety to say, was a most capable and experienced customs official, and everything I said the other day against this clause is confirmed by the views here expressed. The Minister of Customs has no machinery by which he can establish the cost of production in a foreign country. He has machinery by which he may establish the fair market value, but he cannot successfully ascertain the cost of production. Then comes, as the writer points out, the question of what is a reasonable profit. I think I must again urge upon the Minister of Customs that this clause is not workable.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: It is quite true that we had a lengthy discussion on this matter when the resolution was introduced; but further discussion will, perhaps, throw a little more light on the subject. I realize quite well that the working out of this will probably be quite a difficult matter; but, as I stated before-and I repeat it now- we have at the present time certain machinery whereby this can be worked out. We have our own officers in certain parts of the United States to-day, and if it were not possible for them to put this machinery into operation, we could send some of our expert officers from Canada. There is no question, of course, that some delay would be caused. But during the last year large quantities of goods have been shipped into Canada at a cost to the merchant in this

country very much below the cost of manufacture in the United States and very much below what the goods could be manufactured for in Canada. I think this is a Bill that should be passed. We have been working under this Act for some time.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no such Act.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: We had the same power under sections 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, I think. It is a protection to our Canadian manufacturers and merchants, and I see no reason why it cannot be worked out satisfactorily.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no doubt, as my hon. friend says, it is protection. It is additional protection and the misfortune is that it is not openly avowed as such. Ir is an attempt to correct a valuation and to give a new valuation which is not the real valuation at all.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: It is a great protection to our Canadian labour against those goods being shipped into Canada and competing with Canadian manufactured goods.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has the Dumping Act to do that. By that Act he has ample machinery to give him all the protection that Parliament has ever intended to give.


John Allister Currie: There is on the docks in Boston, New York and other places a vast quantity of goods that are being put up for auction by the banks and sold at whatever they will bring. Under the law as it stands, the price at which the goods se.l is the fair market price, although it may be only half the cost of the goods. Does the hon. gentleman think it fair that the law should be so construed as to admit goods of that kind into Canada? That is largely what is causing factories throughout this country to close. Fair market values can be established by the sales of these goods in the auctioneer's hands. The banks have seized consignments of goods that are not taken abroad, and they have' been dumped into Canada. I think the Customs Act should be changed so as 11 say that not only the fair market value but the cost of production should rule; that is to say, if we are going to give any protection to our working men, and surely we do not want to starve our working men.


William Stevens Fielding: The question of fair market value is one which the Customs Department of Canada has been dealing with for fifty years, and I am not aware that there is any trouble. The Dumping
[Mr. Wigmore.l
Act applies when goods are sold at other than the fair market value in the country of production. If events, no matter what they may be, cheapen the fair market value in the country of production, we have a right to share in that cheapness, so long as the price at which we buy them is the same price as that charged at home.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The remarks of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Currie) show with what dread the protectionist mind regards cheapness. That goods should be abundant and cheap is abhorrent to the protectionist mind. That is, however, not what I wish to insist upon to-night. This section is of a -most vicious character; it practically puts in the hands of the- Minister of Customs the right to raise a tariff whenever he likes. We know what protection is. Protection is a matter of -principle; it is a matter of appetite, and the Minister of Customs is put in a position, under this Act, whereby if sufficient pressure is brought to bear upon him by people of strong acquisitive appetites, with the desire to shut out entirely goods from abroad, the minister, if he wishes to give way to that pressure, is the so.e judge of how the tariff is to be raised. I protest against this legislation. It is protectionism run mad. It is such protectionism as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), in the days when he was Minister of Finance in this country, would have been ashamed to be responsible for.


Mr. DAVIS:: I have no hope whatever of convincing such a protectionist as the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Currie), but I think it might shed a little light and, perhaps, give a new point of view if I were to quote from " English Bankers on Trade Restrictions ". This appears in the Economist of the 14th May, and is signed by such economists as Hon. R. H. Brand, Hon. Reginald McKenna, Lord Inchcape and Lord Avebury, and, therefore, should command some respect:
The policy of trying to exclude the productions of other countries, with the well-meant design of encouraging our own, cannot increase the volume of commerce or the total volume of employment here. But it may well compel the consumers, who form the bulk of our population, to submit to privations in the quality or quantity of the goods they buy. The importation of foreign goods does not diminish the activities of our people, because such goods can only be paid for by the produce of British capital and labour. The advocates of a restrictive system are too apt to lose sight of the elementary fact that nations, or rather individual members of nations, buy foreign goods

because they need them, not to benefit others, but to benefit themselves, and pay for them by producing goods which the foreigner in his turn requires.
The greatest disadvantage that this clause has is that trade does not know what it is going to meet. These regulations are changed from time to time; they are uncertain, and with all the uncertainties that there are at present, with changing markets, changes in the direction of trade, changes in the value of money and then changes in the Government regulations on top of that, it leads me to think of what was said by Sir Alfred Mond the other day in discussing the situation, and, indeed, in supporting what was done in the British House when he referred to business as being a Bedlam at present, and further saying that some of its doctors should certainly be put in padded cells. I would commend that to the attention of some of the members of the Cabinet who are at present advising such legislation as this, to restrict and condemn to further difficulties, trade. Lest it should provoke the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) to rise again, who seems to have that exalted notion of a business man, which we have heard him express to-night and which we have seen ad nauseum in trade magazines, I may say that I am a lawyer, but that I tried to understand questions of this sort in some measure and that this question of trade restriction is only bothering and increasing the difficulties of keeping our trade on a fair and sound basis. We all know to-day that we are seeking markets with avidity and anxiety for the produce of our farms. We do not know where we are going to get a market for our wheat the coming year, if we have a large crop. We know that with German exchange as it is to-day, it would cost them $23, $25 or $26 a bushel to buy our wheat. How can we expect to sell them wheat at that price? Owing to the exchange situation in Italy also, our wheat would be at a prohibitive price there. The idea seems to be that these countries are at a very great advantage as compared with us through printing notes, but exactly the opposite is the case, and by this measure we are only adding to the very great difficulties that we are facing at the present time. I can see no defence whatever for this. It is impracticable, as I pointed out in a previous debate, for the minister to determine the actual cost of production in a foreign country or what would be a fair profit upon the goods, and if he does not admit that, we shall have to take it for stubbornness and for his recognition of the
impracticable position in which he is. He can produce no information to support his position. I have two journals before me which have been seeking to get hold of the cost of production of goods in Germany. The Mining Journal has been inquiring into the rates of wages, and the way in which their exchange is changing the cost of goods. I have also before me the London Economist, which has been making an investigation of these matters, and it shows that within the course of a year there has been a change of 400 per cent in the wholesale index price of German goods. How in the face of these facts the minister is going to keep track of the price of goods ordered to-day and coming forward to us six or twelve months from now, I leave it for him to say. I know that it is impracticable. Any man in this House with any practical sense at all knows that it is impossible.


John Alexander Stewart: As I understand the position taken by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's to-night, and also when the resolution with reference to this matter was before the House, it was that the dumping clause was never intended to prevent the Canadian people from getting cheap goods so long as the price at which they were sold in this country was the price charged to the people in the country from which those goods came.


William Stevens Fielding: Correct.


John Alexander Stewart: But the position taken by the hon. member when this question of dumping was before the House in the session of 1906-1907, as reported in Hansard of that session, page 1010, was hardly the same as the position he has taken to-night. I quote from the debate in 1906-1907:
Mr. Lake: There is another question I wish to ask, a question which I have heard argued, and X only ask for information. If I go into the United States on a bargain day and buy a certain article over the counter at a bargain, at very much less than its proper or ordinary valuation in that country, and if I bring that article into Canada, supposing it is an umbrella, for instance, will I have to pay both the duty on the customs valuation of that article, and also the difference between what I paid and the tariff valuation?
Mr. Fielding: I think in a small transaction like that it is not likely the question would be raised. But in the case of large shipments, the test would have to be, not what was the bargain day price, but what was the ordinary selling price.


William Stevens Fielding: Hear, hear.
But I do not imagine any collector of cus toms would raise trouble over any small pur-

chase of that kind. In large transactions certainly they would have to ascertain, not the bargain day price, but the ordinary selling price.


William Stevens Fielding: Surely.


John Alexander Stewart: In that particular case there would be no doubt that the price that would be paid on a bargain day in the United States by a purchaser in Canada would be precisely the same price as that being charged the people in the country in which the bargain day was being held. Now, if the basis of valuation for the purposes of import is to be the ordinary selling price, surely that must mean precisely what the section in the Bill means, because the ordinary selling price of any commodity must surely be based upon the cost price at the time of sale plus a fair profit.


William Stevens Fielding: Not necessarily.


John Alexander Stewart: The ordinary selling price in any business cannot be based on any other principle, or you could not continue in business. Now if the bargain day price is not to be accepted, surely this section as it now stands is in perfect accord with the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's in 1906-1907.
I want to refer for a moment to another matter that I think might very well be taken into consideration by the minister as an additional precaution again dumping. Take the regulations that obtain in the United States governing imports. Take, for instance, imports that go into that country from Canada, and the condition that obtains with reference to us is the same with reference to every other country. When a shipper in this country desires to ship to the United States he is obliged to go to the consular agent and have his invoice certified. In that certification the consular agent designates the port of entry through which the shipment must go to the United States. A shipment going today from the same place in Canada to the same place in the United States as one which went yesterday might not enter the United States through the same port. If my information is correct, and I think it is, the number of ports through which goods from Canada can enter the United States is only about thirty, while goods coming from the United States into Canada can enter through more than five hundred different ports. The point I want to make is this. The United States, by reason of

having only about thirty ports of entry, are able to have at those ports a competent appraisal board composed of men competent to appraise the value of goods of every possible description, while with us, with five hundred ports of entry through which goods can be shipped into Canada, it is impossible to have a proper appraisal. We would be able to enforce the conditions of section 7 as to the cost of the goods very much better if we had a proper appraisal, and I suggest this matter as an additional way of working out the provisions set out in section 7.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has quoted my remarks in 1906, and I am glad to know that what I said to-day, after all these years, is absolutely consistent with what I said then. My hon. friend speaks of bargain days. Bargain days only occur, as a rule, in the retail trade; it is a term that is not known in the wholesale trade. In 1906 the case was cited of a man who goes to some American city and buys an umbrella at a bargain price. I said, very properly, that a small transaction of that kind would not be taken seriously. But there are no bargain days of that kind in the wholesale trade. My hon. friend says that the ordinary selling value must be the cost of production, plus profit. I do not agree with him at all. There are times when you cannot recover cost of production, plus profit. There are times when for one cause or another goods fall in price, and a man has to sell his goods at the ordinary selling value, which is perhaps much less than what it cost to produce the goods, irrespective of profit. The very essence of the dumping clause was to prevent false prices being fixed for the sake of getting goods into Canada and creating a market to the disadvantage of the home manufacturer. The whole question is: Do you sell at that price to your consumer at home? If, under present conditions of business, whatever the cost may be, you sell to the American consumer any article at current value, that is the fair market value for us when the goods come to Canada. Any other interpretation would be another way of putting on a fictitious value and thereby increasing the price to the Canadian consumer.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I cannot agree with my hon. friend that there are no bargain days in the wholesale trade in the United States. As a matter of fact, the manufacturers of boots and shoes in the United States very frequently have a certain amount of goods

on hand. They have to keep their'factories running and they have a certain amount of goods that are bound to be left on their hands, and when that happens, they scoot over to Canada and dump them here.


Michael Clark: We do the
same in the United States.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, we have not an opportunity, because they are filled up. I do not agree with the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) that the American manufacturer does not cut prices for the purpose of supplying the trade of Canada. If he cuts his prices, he cuts them here; he does not cut them at home.


William Stevens Fielding: Then he pays the
dumping duty.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, he does not; he avoids the dumping duty by swearing his invoices.


William Stevens Fielding: Then that is fraud.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not think that
there is anything objectionable in the clause as it is drawn. The Customs Department should have some means of finding out the practical cost of manufacturing any goods, and a reasonable man could easily add what would be a fair profit for overhead. So that I do not think we should be particularly anxious about this clause; I think it is very well drawn. The old dumping clause did not carry out what it was supposed to carry out. This year especially we have had a great deal of trouble with goods cheapened on the other side. They did not want to cheapen them too much because it would affect their own trade, but we have had a great deal of trouble with dumping into Canada of goods overmanufactured and standing on the shelves of the manufacturers in the United States, and it is absolutely necessary to have something tc assist the trade of this country in stopping that class of business. The old dumping clause did not prevent it.


William Stevens Fielding: With regard to the question of bargain days, I have seen a great many American advertisements, and the term "bargain day" governs
1 a.m. retail transactions; I have never seen any bargain day advertised in conection with wholesale trade. The manufacturer might have a surplus of goods and want to sell it; he will cut his price at home and we do the same in Canada. Is that dumping? We have manufacturers in the large cities who go into the small cities and sacrifice their goods
at a low price, and you cannot prevent that. So long as the United States offer us goods at the same ordinary selling price as they charge at home, there is no dumping at all. There is no room to debate that. The law of to-day is ample for all legitimate purposes, and this is an attempt to extend the dumping Act and give to it a meaning it was never intended to have.


Frank S. Cahill: Members opposite who were so insistent in promoting trade a few minutes ago, when clause 6 was under consideration, should be opposed to clauses 7 and 8, because, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce succeeds in developing trade in any foreign country, he will find the Minister of Customs standing at the boundary line with an axe in his hand, ready to cut off this trade as quickly as possible. Under this clause, he wants to prohibit trade. My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's, a few minutes ago, in speaking of goods at a fair value, insisted that this should not be fixed at production cost. Take shoes for example, styles change, and a manufacturer finds himself loaded with a stock of shoes which are not popular and are not selling, will the Minister of Customs insist on fixing the price of those shoes at the same ievel as new shoes made on a different last, although made of the same material? If he does, the manufacturer will never be able to sell those shoes and the consumer in Canada will not benefit by the cheapness of the article. We are buying in a falling market; prices of commodities are going down everywhere, and notwithstanding this, we are making restrictions to keep them on a high level for the Canadian people. Evidently the minister is not going to let prices come down in Canada. The price of wheat, the price of oats, and the price of farm produce have come down, but the Government is insisting in keeping up the price of manufactured goods, and yet they are going about the country talking about promoting trade. They are talking about increasing foreign trade, and at the same time are building a fence on the border to stop it. The minister even takes power to himself to say what shall constitute a reasonable profit "in the circumstances". What does the minister consider might be a reasonable profit in the circumstances? Does he expect that a man who ships goods from a foreign country to the Canadian boundary must ascertain from the Minister of Customs what he considers is a fair profit in the circumstances?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Frank S. Cahill: That is something that is most unusual and unheard of, and could not emanate from anyone but my hon. f'iends opposite, who seem to follow the example of one of their leaders, who admitted that he was a parrot, and keep on calling out "Carried" every few minutes. That is all the attention they pay to legislation that is passing through the House. The next clause is even more dangerous.


George Green Foster: Take them one at a time.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend's insist on clause 6 because it gives to the Minister of Trade and Commerce an outlet for his greatest enterprise, the promotion of patronage. He will have an opportunity of appointing many trade commissioners and my hon. friend will welcome that. He will welcome anything which will enable him to appoint commissioners or commissions.


Samuel William Jacobs: And census enumerators.


Frank S. Cahill: You may be sure he
will be in favour of doing that.


George Green Foster: He is a bad
man.


Samuel William Jacobs: One of the worst.


Frank S. Cahill: There is no doubt he
is one of the worst so far as patronage is concerned. Why this restriction should be imposed is something beyond the comprehension of the average Canadian business man. It is beyond all reason and common sense. Perhaps the Minister of Customs will explain to me what he means by 'reasonable profit" under the circumstances?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I think we would have to know something about the circumstances.
I do not think it is a very difficult matter for anybody to establish what would be considered a reasonable profit.


Frank S. Cahill: That is probably the
attitude the shipper would take; he would have to know something about the circumstances. Therefore business men would not take a chance of doing trade because they would not like to trust to the minister in the matter. They would not trust to him to say what would be a reasonable profit in the case of goods arriving at their destination hundreds of miles away from the factory. The proposition is a most un-tMr. Cahill.]
reasonable one and should not appear in this legislation at all.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the clause
carry? Carried.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: You are altogether too
previous, Mr. Chairman. I was on my feet before you started to read the next clause. I want to address the committee on the subject.


William Stevens Fielding: On section 7?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Yes, on section 7. I
do not know what the purpose of this section can be, but it is in line with the general attitude of the Government to build up a protective system that will absolutely prohibit importations into Canada from other countries. They might as well enact a clause providing that all importations for the time being be stopped. That would be a more effective way of proceeding than to proceed piecemeal. What business man of sound mind would attempt to import merchandise from abroad with such legislation as this staring him in the face? No man of sound mentality would attempt it-it would be utterly impossible. On what basis is he going to place the value of goods imported, or how is he going to arrive at it? When a merchant goes to Europe to make purchases to be sold in this country he naturally wants to be able, at the time of purchasing the goods, to determine what they are going to cost him when they are landed in his warehouse in Montreal or Toronto. Now I submit that fixing the valuation for duty at not less than the wholesale price plus a reasonable profit is an utterly impossible provision to enforce-you cannot do it. I think whoever framed this clause must be a fit subject for a lunatic asylum-I do not care who is the author of it. It is so absurd that any man who knows business methods will not stop to discuss it at all- he cannot get himself into a fit and proper state of mind. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, not to make the House of Commons an absurdity by placing a clause of this kind on the statute book. I will leave the House rather than be responsible for passing such legislation.


John Allister Currie: You had better leave it
right now.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I suggest that the Government might just as well frame a blanket clause prohibiting all importations into Canada for the time being. The situation is very much like the_ illustration given us by the hon. member for Red Deer about

the man who started to raise cats and carp and fed one to the other. If we cannot do business with the outside world what are we going to do with our surplus products? We shall have millions of bushels of wheat to sell next year and where are we going to sell them if our importations are to be stopped? If we cease buying goods abroad we simply cannot dispose of our surplus products. You are simply tying up the trade of the country. We shall all starve next winter, or else be compelled to maintain ourselves by subsisting on our surplus wheat supplies.


Samuel William Jacobs: In view of the fact that
the hon. member for Renfrew threatens to leave the House I think this clause should be dropped.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What I meant, even if I did not actually say so, was that I would leave the House while this section was being considered. I certainly would refuse to be responsible or even to be within the precincts of the House, while such a section as that was being passed.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I am sure we shall all be very sorry indeed if the hon. member is driven out of this country. I strongly advise him if he decides to go, and takes the member for Pontiac with him, that he should not go to the United States. If he does cross over into the adjoining republic and studies the customs regulations there he certainly will not remain in that country, because those regulations are entirely different from the Canadian regulations. Does the hon. member for Renfrew know that you cannot take goods into the United States unless they show a profit of 10 per cent-that is not dumping price or even sacrifice price.


William Stevens Fielding: How does it concern us?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: It concerns us in this way: if they are going to treat this country in such a manner surely we have enough of pride of our own to take a little of that medicine ourselves.


Michael Clark: But my hon. friend does not take the medicine, he takes the profit.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I would advise my hon. friend from Renfrew to get a copy of the American customs tariff and study it a little. He will then see what they do over there as regards our trade. [DOT]


Samuel William Jacobs: Nice Sunday reading.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: As I say, according to their regulations, in order to get your goods admitted, you must show a profit of 10 per cent, and the price is raised in any case where they deem the amount to be too low.


Frank S. Cahill: Does my hon. friend like the American system?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I certainly do not like it. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that we should lower our aduties and let them ship their goods in and sacrifice them in this country. They have been doing that for the last year and in consequence our factories are closed up to-day. Our factories cannot sell the goods but the Americans are selling them at these sacrifice prices. We have had experience with some of their customs regulations. I cited cases the other day where they imposed fines on goods entering the United States because the figures were not in accordance with their idea of What the profit should be. In view of such conditions surely we in this country should have a little pride and keep Canadian business for Canadian people in the interest of the men who are working in Canadian factories.


Frank S. Cahill: And the profiteers.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The profiteers if you like but I want the hon. member to understand that the profiteers have not made very much money on goods in Canada for a long time. The prices are closer than they are anywhere else, and are in the interest of the Canadian consumer too. I do not believe we should let American goods come in here at sacrifice prices when they put up the walls against us in shipping to them. I have not much faith in appointing trade commissioners in the United States because I do not believe they can sell any great quantity of goods in that country. They do not want our goods over there and they have put up all the protective barriers they possibly can to keep those goods out. That is their policy. It is not only in the customs duties they charge that the obstacle exists, but in the regulations they enforce concerning goods going into the United States. I think if my hon. friend from Renfrew will study the American customs regulations a little he will not leave this country but will stay here.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I will not occupy very much time in replying to my hon. friend. The hon. member for Haldimand endeavoured to insinuate that it was my in-

tention to leave this country. I have not the slightest idea of doing so and I certainly will not do it on his invitation. I do not think there is a member in this House or a manufacturer in the whole Dominion of Canada, who is better qualified to speak with authority on the subject he has been discussing than is the hon. member for Haldimand. He is an extensive manufacturer and I admire his enterprise-he has one foot in the United States and the other in Canada. He gets it both coming and going.


John Allister Currie: You will soon have all the factories over there.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Might I tell the hon. member the reason? The wall was so high we could not get -over-the regulations were too severe.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Does the hon. member for Haldimand mean to tell this committee that he sells his merchandise at the same price in the United States as in Canada?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I think that as a rule our prices in Canada are lower than they are in the United States, although the scale of wages to our working people in Canada is exactly the same as that paid in the American factory.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: We do not like thinking replies; we prefer specific answers. The hon. member should know his business well enough to give a specific answer to such a question.


Avard Longley Davidson: Is that in order, Mr. Chairman? Is that not interrogating an hon. member?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would suggest that
this clause also be withdrawn. It is really a restriction on the business of this country, an attempt to hamper it piece by piece. Why not, as I have already said, enact legislation absolutely prohibiting for the time being the entry of merchandise? Here is a letter I received a few days ago on the subject under discussion, that is, regarding taxes, impositions and restrictions on trade. It is from the firm of Gillies Bros. Limited, lumber manufacturers, Braeside, Ontario. It says, in part:
I think that comparatively few of the legislators have any idea of the amount paid to the municipalities, provinces and Dominion by lumber manufacturers in taxes and dues of various kinds: In addition to the ordinary municipal and county tax we have:
1.	Provincial business tax.
2.	Stumpage charge for the timber (ranging from $5 to $25 per thousand feet in Ontario.)
3.	Crown dues ($5 per thousand >
Quebec).

4.	Ground rent ($8 per square mile in Quebec).
5.	Fire tax ($6.40 per square mile or over).
6.	Provincial company or corporation tax, in addition to the annual fee as a Dominion or provincial company.
7.	Dominion Company income tax.
8.	Dominion War Profit Excess tax, if any.
9.	Personal income tax on the dividends paid from the business.
10.	Municipal tax on personal dividends.
11.	And now the high sales tax.
Compare this taxation with fishing, farming
or mining, which are industries in the same class as lumber in that they are indigenous to the country and utilize the product of the soil. We think that none of these other industries can compare in the amount they pay as taxes in proportion to the annual output or turn-over, taking into consideration that the annual turnover in the lumber business is very small in proportion to the capital invested and that the time required for a turn-over of working capital alone in our case is about two years, not to mention the fixed or invested capital, and we think you will find that no other of the large industries compare in the amount they pay towards the revenue of the country. And note particularly that we are not a protected industry, in fact just the opposite, we are the pack horse to carry all the load of the infant and infirm protected industries.
Taxes apparently are necessary to meet the country's liabilities but there is a limit to taxation and my remedy for the present condition is for strict economy in government expenditure and operations -


John Allister Currie: Mr. Chairman, what has that letter got to do with this clause?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Discontinue works which are unnecessary and which are simply political projects, as the drydocks and wharves at Prince Rupert, Victoria, Vancouver, Halifax and St. John; works like the Welland canal,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: -contracts for which have lately been let at
prices from which I am told fortunes are likely to be made at the expense of the taxpayer and the people generally; militia nonsense and many other luxuries.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele):: Order. The hon. gentleman has been out of order long enough now.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am reading an extract from this letter written by one of the largest firms in the country, and I submit that it is quite pertinent to the question we are discussing, because' it deals with taxation. It says, further-


Michael Steele: The hon. gentleman is out of order in reading the letter.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: There are only three
more lines to complete the quotation.


Michael Steele: I hope the hon. member will accept my ruling and

bring his remarks to bear upon the clause under discussion.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am in order, Mr. Chairman, in stating the effect of the remaining lines without reading further. The writer, in effect, states that if steps were taken by the Government to economize in expenditure instead of increasing the present heavy taxation they would accomplish better results.


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :: I cannot agr'ee with the hon. member for South Renfrew in saying that this clause is evidence of insanity on the part of the draftsman. I think it is evidence, of which we have many other examples, of great shrewdness in increasing the customs tariff indirectly and under cover. That appears to be the main purpose of the financial legislation which has been brought down this year. We have heard boasts from the Prime Minister of deductions in the tariff and of its being lower than it was under their predecessors, and apparently the Government thoroughly realize that the public will not stand any apparent increase in customs taxation. So they have adopted another plan. I do not know whether I would be in order in using the expression, but it seems to me the plan may be aptly described as that of "sneaking in" legislation which will accomplish the purpose under cover and by way of deceiving the people. This is purely an attempt to make a vast increase in the customs tariff without any appearance of so doing. The hon. member I think for Simcoe referred to the plan adopted in the United States where they allowed ten per cent for profit. Well, is my hon. friend going to bind himself to ten per cent? He can make it 100 per cent or anything he likes; his fancy is what settles everything. It seems to me that my hon. friend the Minister of Customs can teach the Americans something about legislation that will accomplish the purpose of increasing protection without apparently doing so. His own little speech showed plainly what he was after; there was nothing but protection in it; in fact, he did not appear to have any idea in his mind except the most extreme protection. I repeat, the man who drafted that clause was not insane at all, he was a keen man on protection and was determined to get all the protection possible for the industries of Canada without any appearance of doing so.


John Allister Currie: Does the hon. gentleman think that we should have free trade now? He is denouncing protection?


Levi Thomson: I am
afraid the Chairman would call me to order if I began to answer that question; but, if not, I will answer it.


John Allister Currie: All right, go ahead.


Levi Thomson: As far as I am concerned, the sooner we had absolute free trade the better I would be satisfied.


John Allister Currie: What about your party?


Levi Thomson: I am
only expressing my own personal opinion.
I am not standing for any policy of absolute free trade at the present time, and have never pretended to. My hon. friend and others have no right to spread abroad in the country, as they are striving to, that we are pretending to be in favour of free trade sometimes and at other times not.


John Allister Currie: Where do you stand? I would like to know.


Levi Thomson: The hon. member has no right whatever to spread that idea abroad. When that question comes up in proper order I shall be as ready as my hon. friend to state my views. He never needs to explain his policy. He wants to have a protective tariff so high that he can drain the last cent that he can possibly get out of the pocket of every Canadian. That is the policy the minister is following now, to put the manufacturers in a position where they can drain the last cent possible from the pockets of the people. It is not insanity at all, it is business keenness in an attempt to help out the manufacturers.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: If the hon. gentleman will allow us the same protective tariff that he supported. for sixteen years we will be perfectly satisfied.


Levi Thomson: My
hon. friend is going into a good many side issues. I have never agreed to any tariff which we have had during the last 16 years or the last 30 years. I protested publicly in the country against the tariff which my own party was putting on. I did so, and yet I had to support them, otherwise I would have had to support my hon. friends opposite who shouted all over the country that the Government should be put out of power because the protection was not adequate.


Michael Clark: I do not want to delay the committee Mr. Chairman, especially at this hour-and one wonders if prorogation is going to ibe further postponed. I intervene at this moment

to enter another word of protest against the most absurd fiscal proposals that have ever occupied the attention of supposedly intelligent men. This clause taken with the one that follows amounts to prohibitive legislation,-and I content myself with that statement on these clauses at the moment, I do not know where my hon. friend got them. I am sure he is too innocent in the business of legislation to have drawn these out of his own ibrain. I do not know, who put them to him but somebody has put one over him so far as this country is concerned. My object in rising, however, was to express my gratification that we have had an exposition of the effects of this clause from a strong supporter of the Government for many years. My hon. friend from Haldi-mand let us know exactly how this legislation will act

and he knows how it will act. His trouble is cheap foreign goods and he wants them kept out. That is to say, according to the definition of protection made by Mr. Balfour and quoted in the Budget speech by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) protection is a device for building up home industries by increasing prices. My hon. friend from Haldimand agrees thoroughly with Mr. Balfour and he has expounded what the effects of this clause will be-if not in those terms, in his own terms. Now, I want to point out to ministers the seriousness of the course upon which they are embarking and the injustice they are committing against certain classes in this country by a clause so expounded by one of their own supporters. It is supposed that 48 per cent of the people of this country are engaged in the pursuit of agriculture, which hon. gentlemen on every side of this House tell us from time to time is the foundation of our prosperity. I want to appeal to ministers; I appeal to my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, who has the interests of the farmers at heart: Are agricultural prices increasing at this time? My hon. friend cannot answer that question except in the negative. He knows his subject well and he knows that the farmers in this country are facing prices which are falling almost with the rapidity of the descent of an avalanche. I call the attention of the other Cabinet ministers to the fact and I ask them how they expect the farmers of the country to go o/i building up their industry, which is the foundation of the nation's prosperity, in the face of a clause, which, according to my hon. friend from Haldimand, is framed for the 
express purpose of raising the prices of all that the farmer buys. The same argument applies to the great masses of the labouring men of this country, to the great mass of the returned men and the whole mass of the consumers of this country. That is how the clause will operate, according to the exposition of a strong supporter of the Government. It is the rankest and the grossest injustice to the consumers of the country, as the minister will know very well before twelve months are over. It is the rankest national folly, because it is reducing the trade of the country. It is in keeping with the whole of this Government's policy. It is in keeping with the policy which you might expect from a Government one memfier of which says that a special clause in this Act is meant to increase trade while another says he does not want that trade increased. I point these things out once more and enter my emphatic protest against the time of Parliament being wasted in enactments which are diametrically opposed to the country's good and to our people's happiness and prosperity.


William Stevens Fielding: I would remind the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is leading the House, that we are to meet at eleven o'clock to-day. May I suggest that it would be wise if we should report progress and ask leave to sit again?


George Green Foster: I think my hon. friend will agree that we must pass this Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: I want to tell my hon. friend that the next clause is even more contentious than the one upon which we have spent nearly the whole evening.


George Green Foster: Well, we might as well discuss it.


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend say we might as well proceed, knowing that we have to meet at eleven o'clock?


George Green Foster: I think we
might as well discuss it.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, I am sorry, but if my hon. friend insists we will discuss it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-valuation of currency.
William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend the Minister of Finance at the close of his Budget speech had proposed changes in the tariff schedules increasing the rates of duty, at present 30 to 35 per cent, to 70, 80, 90, 100, 150, 200 per cent, he would, I

suppose have filled us with amazement. We would have been amazed at the audacity of the proposals, and if we had sought some means of comparison we would have been obliged to say that the course of my hon. friend was somewhat like that of a highwayman. We would at all events have been able to pay him the compliment that it was like a dashing highwayman, something of the Dick Turpin type, something like the man who would meet you on Hampstead Heath, take what you had and bow to you politely.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Chairman, I appeal to you if the hon. gentleman is using parliamentary language.


William Stevens Fielding: I think so.


John Allister Currie: I do not think so. I never heard the hon. gentleman express language of that kind before.


William Stevens Fielding: I rwas paying miy
hon. friend the Minister of Finance a compliment.


John Allister Currie: A backhanded compliment.


Michael Clark: I rise to
a point of order. The time has surely come when we must be protected from such interruptions as have just been offered to my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's. There is not only no member of this House, but I venture to say there is no citizen of Canada who knows something about the public life of this country who does not admire my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's. We admire his many gifts, but we admire him still more for his graces of character and for his uniform courtesy. My point of order is that my hon. friend has risen in his place and without even appealing to the Chair has denounced the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's as being out of order, in his opinion. I think the time has come when the committee must appeal to you, Sir, for protection from this sort of conduct on the part of the hon. member.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Chairman,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Allister Currie: I appeal to you distinctly as a member of this House, and I ask you if the language used by the hon. gentleman was parliamentary when he designated in a backhanded way the Minister of Customs as a Dick Turpin. That is the language he used, with evasion and the slim manner-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


John Allister Currie: I want to tell the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Allister Currie: I appeal to the Chair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must ask hon. members to allow the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) to state his point of order. At the same time I must ask the hon. member for North Simcoe to limit his remarks to the point of order.


John Allister Currie: I simply ask your ruling if it is in accordance with parliamentary usage for an hon. gentleman in this House to rise in his place and state that a minister of the Crown is like a Dick Turpin.


William Stevens Fielding: I agree that that
would be out of order. I think the Minister of Finance, who is most concerned about this, would know that I did not intend any discourtesy to him. I was really paying him a compliment. I was saying that, as regards what he was doing in this matter, he would at all events have admiration for the boldness with which he proposed it. While we might credit my hon. friend with some boldness in the matter, what shall we say when we find him doing precisely the same thing, I will not say in a backhanded way-that was an expression of the member for Simieoe-but in a roundabout way; I will niot say, with intention to deceive, because that might be unparliamentary? Let us see what the situation is. By this resolution we are practically increasing the duty on the products of some countries now having a duty of 30 of 35 per cent to 70, 80, and 90 per cent, and really in the case of Germany we are going to impose duties of 200 per cent.


John Allister Currie: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend says "Hear, hear." I am not anxious that anybody shall trade with Germany. I do not want to buy any German goods. If I know it, I will not buy any for a long time. If you and I and the thousands of others who feel as we do are unwilling to buy German goods at any price, that is our individual right; that is the penalty which Germany must pay for her crimes against civilization. But, as a dominion or as a nation, if my hon. friends prefer that term, we have no right to legislate against Germany. We have made our peace with Germany. Rather needlessly, as I think,

we have laid our treaty with Germany on this Table; we have sealed it with our own declaration; we have set forth in that Treaty of Peace the reparation that she must make. We have magnified it, some think, although others think otherwise. It is a contract and if we, as a nation, attempt to legislate against Germany, then we are treating our own treaty as a scrap of paper; we are doing the thing that we have denounced Germany for doing. While individually we have a right to do as we like with Germany, as a nation we have made our bargain, and as long as she complies with the terms of the treaty, we are bound to treat her decently and in order. What are we going to dio? By this provision you are giving a false value to goods of a foreign country, you are actually increasing the duty in the case of German goods to 210 per cent. The thing is so amazing that hon. gentlemen opposite will think that I cannot be right, that I must be mistaken. What is the position? The German mark is worth 23 cents ordinarily. I have taken my figures from the Trade and Commerce Bulletin, and a few days ago the German mark was worth 1.88 cents, or a little less than 2 cents. You are going to say, by the terms of this clause, that when any goods come in from Germany bought on the basis of the mark being worth 2 cents or a little leiss, for customs purposes the mark ils worth lli cents, because you cannot make the valuation at anything less than. 50 per cent. That is to say, when the German mark is really worth 2 cents or a little less to-day, for customs purposes you are going to say that it is worth lli cents. You are multiplying the valuation of those goods by five times and under the duties imposed you are nutting a tax pf 210 per cent on German goods. My hon. friends opposite on reflection must be startled at that. I was startled at the ifirst thought of it, but these figures are absolutely beyond question. It is an economic law that when the currency of a country becomes depreciated, the price of articles in that country ascends proportionately, so that the purchasing power is not materially changed. After all, the world's gold standard fixes the value of things, and the world's gold standard has fixed the value of the German mark, which is now worth less than 2 cents. If I send $100 to Germany to buy goods that money is no good in Germany; it has to be converted into German money before I can buy anything. I convert it into

German currency at current rates, but it is quite certain that I get only $100 worth of goods. But when those goods are brought to Canada, I am to be told that that is not the whole value, but it is to be multiplied five times. It is marvellous that hon. gentlemen opposite should present such a project to this country. I do not see how they can justify it for a single moment. The fact that Germany was an enemy country serves no good purpose in the world in argument. We have made our peace with Germany, and we are bound to treat her decently so long as she keeps her part of the contract.
We need not confine the argument to Germany, which is the worst case. We have lent some money to Roumania, and some people think that we are not going to get it back. It is one of the principles of economy that you do not get payment in gold, but in goods. How are we going to do business with Roumania under those conditions? The Roumania lei, as they call it, is ordinarily worth 19 cents; it is now worth about 1.90 cents. 50 per cent of the ordinary value would be 9| cents. Therefore, if you buy any goods from Roumania,-I do not imagine that you will have much chance to buy them-you are going to have the real value of those goods multiplied about five times. You are going to say that, where-as the real value is 2 cents, you are going to call it 9i cents, which is very nearly multiplying the value by five.
Take if you will the case of Italy, which is not an enemy country, which was one of our allies and associates in the war. Italy is surely entitled to decent treatment. What is the situation there? The Italian lira is usually worth 19 cents; it is now worth 6 cents, but you are going to declare, by this legislation, that in every transaction with Italy, whereas the real value is 6 cents, you are going to call it 9i cents. You might just as well multiply the duties openly and squarely, because there is no question in the world that under this fictitious valuation that you are quoting here, you are making an enormous increase in the customs duty. What my hon friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) said a few moments ago is only too true: You are making enormous increases in the duties, not in a straight and open, manner, but under cover, and that is a very modest expression to use. I cannot imagine that hon. gentlemen supporting the Government realise the immense increases made by these proposals. This cannot be justified. It is not decent treatment in the case of Germany; it is worse treatment in the

case of Italy, and it is not fair treatment to the consumers of Canada who will have to pay an enormous and unjustifiable rate of taxation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I admit at once that this is a matter of great difficulty. It is not a matter that can he got rid of by a few general observations. It is one which I think so far nobody has been able properly to solve. It is a matter with which England herself is having a great deal of trouble, as well as France, and one in which Italy is also deeply interested. My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) says that it is not fair to France. I wonder if it is not fair to England, I wonder if it is not fair to Italy, that one chief source of competition to which these countries are subject is placed under a heavier handicap. But, after all, this is not a question to be got rid of by general declaration I have answered my hon. friend in kind, and I will now try to get down to what the proper economic considerations ought to he.
In the first place, let me point out that I think it is pretty generally understood by any hon. gentleman who has taken the trouble to look into it, that Germany's policy has been steadily in one direction, that policy being to get out of the payment of her reparations in any way that she well can. Her policy has been to show that Germany, a country practically untouched by the war, without a single factory destroyed, with her territory just as good as it was before, is nevertheless in such a position that she cannot carry on. She is certainly taxing her people in such a way as to produce very large deficits. In that regard she is doing everything she can to show that her position is the position she would have us think it to be. In that connection I desire to quote from my hon. friend's paper, the Journal of Commerce, with reference to a matter that enters very largely into the cost of manufacture, and that is the question of taxation. Germany, as shown by his paper, and as shown perfectly correctly, the figures being taken from the statistics collected by the International Financial Conference, is taxing her people at the rate of $12.50 per head, France at the rate of $34.60 per head and the United Kingdom, $87.90 per head, while our rate of taxation in Canada works out at the rate of practically $50 per head. In other words, in so far as the cost of carrying on business in Canada is concerned, the added burden and expense on the Canadian producer or
manufacturer from taxation is four times as great as that burden of taxation in Germany. I quote again from my hon. friend's paper:
The profits of the German nation look to he inverse proportion to the burden of taxation and cost to which they are now subject.
The paper goes on to show that the savings bank deposits of Germany increased by 6,500,000,000 marks in 1918, by 4,500,000,000 marks in 1918-1919, and by 6,259,000,000 marks in 1920. The paper goes on to show extravagance and the expenditure of large amounts of money, and generally a pretty good condition in Germany.
The next thing to know is whether there is the same value in Germany for the mark as the value established by that gold standard which my hon. friend says gives the true test of value; in other words, it is to ascertain whether the mark is the mark. I wish to quote in that connection from the London Statist, which in its issue of April 30 says:
To take the example of the German mark. Partly on account of the chaotic condition of German finances, rendering the real value of the mark peculiarly unstable, and partly perhaps as a result of a deliberate policy on the part of German financial and business interests, the purchasing power of the mark in the foreign exchange market is considerable less than is warranted by its commodity value in Germany itself. '
That view is one that has been adopted in more countries than in England. Leading authorities in the United States have come to the same conclusion, mainly, that so far as Germany's policy at the present time is concerned-and she is right, she is playing her game-it is to sell just as much as she possibly can. She is out to sell far more than she buys, and she is right. She realizes just the same as any man with any knowledge of finance realizes that in order to solve successfully her problems and meet foreign competition a low and debased currency is a very good thing. That is what she is doing, and I wonder how it is working out. I have not said anything yet as to Canadian conditions, but the matter is a good deal wider and broader than Canada considered by itself. The London Financial Times of May 12, 1921, contains an interview with Mr. Hichens, chairman of the large firm of Cammell, Laird and Company, whose name is very familiar to many hon. gentlemen in this House, in which he says :
I am a manufacturer of goods and am seeking foreign markets. If I can compete with my trade rivals I get the business. If I cannot, I do not. That is the position in a nutshell.


Mr. CANNON:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to interrupt the minister, but I rise to a point of order. I understand that we are supposed to prorogue on Saturday-


William Stevens Fielding: No.
Mr. CANNON -and if the minister would just lay this paper on the Table of the House so that members would have cognizance of it he would save time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am nearly
finished.


Michael Clark: I think I can make a better suggestion than that: That the Minister of Customs should give us an exposition of what the Minister of Finance means.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In the meantime I will try to get along. I think the hon. member for Red Deer has got a pretty good idea of where I am drifting to.


Lucien Cannon: "Drifting" is good.


Henry Lumley Drayton: One of the
difficulties in arriving at what the local value of the mark is pretty well shown by Secretary Hoover of the United States Administration. He says, emphasizing the amount of indirect subsidies biting granted by the German Government:



[Stage Direction]
An analysis showed its expenditure would indicate roughly that of a total budget in excess ot 80 billion marks somewhere between 50 billion and 60 billion marks are spent through relieving German manufacturers, railroads and public utilities, etc., of costs that would normally apply. The German Government even goes to the extent of importing a large amount of food supplies and re-selling them at a loss to the consumers.
The fact is that we have come to the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that there is a difference in the value of these coinages, and a situation under which Germany is in position of toeing able, in certain businesses at any rate, to undersell alt will.
Now, through the courtesy of a gentleman on the other side of the House, some inside information was given to me very largely corroboratory of the public information which I had been able to get. What the onlooker and the investigator, endorsed by one of the gentlemen on the other side of the House, says is this,-and I may say he was there for a long time looking into conditions, and was good enough to think the matter of sufficient importance to bring it to my notice-
German exporters have a policy under which they are represented in foreign countries by special agents.
This is one of the ways in which the mark is kept up.
These agents are informed of the lowest possible cost price at which they are to send in orders. They are then instructed to sell at the highest possible price, but under prices of competitors, sending in their orders to the German factories at the cost price, plus ten per cent, which is all the German manufacturer shows as profit. The manufacturer then divides with the agent all the excess profit over ten per cent, and the agent is generally instructed to deposit this surplus profit in a foreign bank, in many cases under a fictitious name or account to the German manufacturers' credit. This results in keeping down German manufacturers' taxation and also has an adverse effect on the exchange situation. It is evident that the Germans are not very anxious to see the present exchange situation right itself as the people are at present willing to exist on available materials in order to help their employment situation and to do everything possible in this way to hurt the interests of Allied countries.
Lucien Cannon: While the minister has this statement before him, may I inquire if it was prepared prior to the decision of the reparation commission or afterwards?


Henry Lumley Drayton: This statement was prepared shortly before the Budget was brought down.
Deposits are often made in Scotch banks.
One particular dye was sold at 300 marks, another grade of the same dye was sold at 700 marks, and the selling price in the United States of the *700 mark grade was $55 a pound. On this basis the Germans are also selling acetic

acid in England and other European countries at fifty per cent of the cost of production in the United States and Canada. Germany are giving entries for export for chemical dyes under names of printers' ink colours so as to avoid the reparation committee. In such industries as the Germans have tlje necessary equipment and are unable to purchase raw material owing to the exchange situation, the German Government issues-*
That goes off on the question of handling raw materials, in which I do not suppose the committee is interested. On the question of cost though, this gentleman got toys which sold there for 40 and 60 marks; they are worth here $5 and $10. Binoculars he could get there for 200 marks, as against $20 and $25 here. He also stated that the wage scale was 45 to 60 marks a week, and that it now ranges from 190 to 250 marks a week.
Now, we believe the result to be, following the ideas of the same authorities, that there are two standards of value for the mark; that is, in Germany, measured in the value of the mark on the exchange rate, there have been large decreases in wages as against very large increases in this country, and that at the moment at any rate-and I think at much longer than for the moment-while undoubtedly it is in the interest of everybody to help the other fellow we have got a very vital interest in trying to keep things going in this country. There is in Canada, for example, an industry making gloves, the German selling costs of which are about five-eights the actual cost of the Canadian manufactory. There are 1,065 people employed. I think already I have given the committee information as to the toy businesses which are closed, I think, altogether. Now the Germans in the past have not been exporting very largely into 'Canada, but they are now commencing, and there are quite a large number of invoices coming into the customs, covering chiefly laces and trimming, dolls, toys, toilet preparations, musical instruments, optical instruments, magic lanterns, clocks, cutlery, enamel ware, aluminum ware, china-ware and other ware. Unless something is done there is no doubt what is going to happen in connection with unemployment. Well, there is the situation: keep up the value of the mark as it is, allow free entry of German goods, and with the present German rate of taxation as compared with the rate in this country it will not be long before hon. gentlemen will be asking who won the war.


Frank S. Cahill: Is it the intention of the Government that the cost in Canada shall

be the test of the cost of production of the goods?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think there is any such proposal.


Fred Langdon Davis: the raw material is obtained in their own country. Therefore, we have nothing to fear from them in textiles, because, in the main, as regards the textiles from which they make their goods, they have to get their raw materials from abroad. When the Minister of Finance spoke of the way in which Germany had been cutting the cost in iron, these very words happened to be under my eye. I am quoting now from the Mining Journal of April 2:
The Germans appear to be afraid particularly of competition on the part of the Belgian works whose prices for iron and steel goods are lower than the Germans and they say the Belgians can beat them in price owing to the modernization of the Belgian plants which the Germans carried through when in Belgium, and which are now in a greater state of efficiency than the Rhenish-Westphalian works.
That does not "gibe" at all with what the Finance Minister told us as to the condition. At present, as has been said again and again to-night, trade conditions are so disturbed that you do not know where you are going to get hit next. For instance, the other day on the Pacific coast Chinese pig iron was offered at better prices than those at which the great United States Steel Corporation could produce it. How are you going to meet conditions like that by such, I am tempted to say, a "fool" regulation as is here proposed?
As regards wages, the Minister of finance said that wages were $100 a week ,in those trades in Germany. This is a ^Mining Journal which makes a survey of ,those lines, and it is worth while looking at the range of wages which are given for some twelve or fifteen different classes of .employees in connection with the 'production of metal. Drillers get from 247 ;to 980 marks per week, and this, I should Say, was in February, 1920. Since then conditions have changed adversely to Germany. No country can long, unless it lives within itself, keep its currency abroad at a different value from what its currency is at home. If I take just the instance which I have now given of the fact that when she has to buy abroad, she has to pay more for her goods, that comes back home, and it at once increases the cost of the goods at home. As that currency works back into her system, her whole costs abroad and at home work to one level. I am using Germany, because Germany is the outstanding example of this. God knows that I have no love for Germany, but we are discussing here questions which affect our relations, not with Germany alone, but with the whole world, and

as Germany is the outstanding example, I am taking her case because it best illustrates the problem. Turners are getting from 318 to 993 marks; iron moulders from 308 to 1,117 marks; brass moulders from 403 to 1,050 marks. Let us go to some of the cheaper kinds of labour. Helpers are getting from 205 to 961 marks. Blast furnace and smelter men are getting from 483 to 1,514 marks. The whole list is here if any one wishes to look at it in order to see whether I have made fair quotations from it or not. These are grades of wages which do not bear out at all what the Minister of Finance is saying about wages being very much lower there than they are with us. Indeed, it is quite possible that Germany, during the time when this question of reparations has been outstanding, has taken every advantage she can. That is the way in which she has been working in national affairs. We have suffered from this before, and in all probability she was doing the same at this time. But even Germany, devilish as she may be, is unable to control economic forces once she has set them at work, and' they are working here to a parity. Eventually, the currency which she has sold abroad in the shape of a demand loan will come back into her own circulation and will bring her prices to one level, and in that case, we are going to try to deal with a passing phase of the business. The same thing has been done in slighter measure by Italy; but there again the same forces are at work and will bring things at length to the same position. In consequence, if we want to trade, we must deal fairly with their conditions. There is no use whatever in putting such a difference in the value of their money as we are here trying to do because, in the long run, it can be beaten by buying through other countries, either under free trade or with smaller duties, and, in the end, these conditions will correct themselves.
Furthermore, what is our duty to-day? There are broad views to take upon this question. We stand to-day a favoured people, possibly 9,000,000 people in one of the world's great empty spaces. These people have suffered from the war even more than we did. They are looking for outlets, for better conditions, even as we' are, and yet with our immigration policy we are restricting them; we are denying them admission; we have almost to deny them for the preservation of our own ideals and the Canadian character of this state which we hope to preserve. Yet we

will go abroad and offend these people in every possible way. We will say: "Although we are better placed than you, go to destruction if you will; it is true that we fought with you as brother to brother, but now there is a dollar in sight, that is all we want." The consequence will be this, that we will gain the ill-will of these people. It is not merely for this day that these things count in connection with the policy of nations.
I take it that one of the ways in which we can now assist is out of the abundance of what we have got to endeavour to help them to make their conditions better. In saying that, understand, I am not appealing at all to generosity, I am trying to combat what is narrow-mindedness. It is not that we should part with it because they need it, but because we should take a broad generous view-the view that in the end will work profit to our own pockets in the matter of trade, besides having a valuable effect upon a world that talks a League of Nations but acts like a disunion of nations.


Michael Clark: I hope I shall delay the committee only a few minutes while I point out to my mind what is the meaning of this clause and how it will act in a few places which have no been covered by previous speakers. I very much fear that the Goverment are taking up propositions without the knowledge that similar propositions have been taken up elsewhere and have already been given up. My hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Davis) has referred to the Reparations Act in Britain. Now for purposes of comparison with this proposal, it may be said that the Reparations Act amounted to the creation of a customs duty of 100 per cent against German goods. What was the result of that Act, which has led according to my hon. friend's statement to its being given up? The British people have had to run away with it. There are protectionists in the present Government in Great Britain, and they enacted this legislation along the line, not of protection, but of getting reparation. The consequence of that 100 per cent tariff was that the British ports were crammed with German goods, which the importers could not relieve, that Germany retaliated on Britain, and that commercial, confusion resulted between the two nations, leading the protectionists to desert the measure which they themselves had enacted at the dictation of the Prime Minister himself. Now this Act before us is a much worse Act in regard to the size of
duties it enacts. Fortunately our trade is much smaller, or we should be at once faced with comparative national disaster as a consequence of this measure that the Government are proposing. I say, fortunately our trade is smaller. All the nations affected by this provision do a comparatively small trade with us, so we shall not be hurt nationally to the extent which we should otherwise. But that is what has happened in Britain from similar legislation.
My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has pointed out that this means a 210 per cent tariff against Germany, and similarly large tariffs against other countries. Well, that is a prohibitive tariff. Hon. gentlemen in the ministry and their supporters fondly think that even a prohibitive tariff against these places will increase our production at home. It will do nothing of the sort. What is going to happen to the production of our goods which previously have been paid for by goods that we got from Germany and Roumania? Clearly these goods will not be produced, and to the extent that we have done trade with these countries we are prohibiting that trade by an arrangement of this kind. We shall diminish the total industry of our own country, add to unemployment, add to the general conditions of distress-and I want to say in the calmest way that I have the gravest fears regarding our next winter in this country. I want to tell the Government that they are doing what they can by their tariff enactments to aggravate conditions in this country next winter.
Now, I would just like to put one or two questions to the Government, if I might. Suppose every country followed the course of putting on a prohibitive tariff against Germany. I should just like to ask how Germany could pay her reparations? They could not be paid, and ther'e is the unreasonableness of this legislation. If all the countries that trade with Germany put on a prohibitive tariff, then no reparation whatsoever could be paid, because in the end that reparation comes in goods. It seems to me it is the height of unreason to place a prohibitive tariff against the country from which you must take goods, if that country is to carry out another part of your arrangement with her.
I wish to put another question to the Government, which comes a great deal nearer to them and their policies. They are by this proposal putting on a prohibitive tariff against Roumanian goods. How do they propose to get the money r'eturned

which they have advanced to Roumania under their credit system?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I suppose they do
not expect to get it.


Michael Clark: They are certainly postponing the getting of it to the Ides of March. Do the Government expect to get these credits back? Was that part of their policy carried out simply as a straight steal from the consumers of Canada to give to their' friends the manufacturers? If they do expect those credits hack from Roumania,. the only way they can get them back is by importing goods from Roumania, and they are preventing those goods from coming in by means of what amounts to a prohibitive tariff.
There is only one other point I want to emphasize, and that is the point that was raised by my hon. friend from Neepawa (Mr. Davis). Do they suppose they will put Germany out of business by this little act in this country. All that we do by these silly retaliatory, hateful, and in the long run, immoral acts is to drive the trade of Germany elsewhere. We cut off our nose to spite our face, and we build up the trade of other countries; that is what we do. Those who have looked carefully into this thing, and who have been engaged in the importing trade in this country, think it likely that quite an amount of these goods will come to us through the United States. If these goods do not come to us, certainly the United States will increase her tr'ade enormously, or at least to the extent of the trade which we absolutely cut off with these countries. Now, we have certain friendships with the United States, but we have also certain rivalries, and I should have thought this Government, of all governments, would have asked before it embarked upon such a policy: Is it worth while undertaking a policy which will have for one of its direct effects the building up of our commercial rival's trade with other countries in Europe? That is an aspect of the case which perhaps has not occurred to them. If it has not, I would like to know what the Government think about it when we take this up, I should be inclined to think, at a future sitting of the House.
I have pointed out these things as the practical results of their policy. I do not think there is any doubt about them. I have already admitted that I do not think their effects spell national disaster', because our trade with all these countries was comparatively small. I think the previous
TMr. M. Clark.]
clause is more serious for this country, because it affects our trade with the United States, or will, if taken advantage of to any great extent, but to the extent that this clause is operative at all, it will' lead to the results I have stated, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We are doing the best we can along these lines, I repeat, to diminish our' trade, to produce unemployment, to raise the cost of living to those who are unemployed, and to bring about national' commercial trouble and disaster.


Andrew Ross McMaster: By this legislation we are making it difficult for the Central Empires to recover. The Central Empires, or rather Republics, are a market for the goods of this country, agricultural, mining, and other. They can become a purchasing market again only by being able to sell their goods, and unless they can regain their purchasing power, we shall be seriously affected. Recently, legislation has been passed in the United States which will affect the entrance of our natural products into that market, so that we shall have to depend on the European and British markets to a greater extent than before. Any policy, therefore, which retards or prejudicially affects the purchasing power of Europe and Great Britain is bound to reflect adversely in the sales of our natural products, and this section of the Bill hurts farmers, lumbermen, miners and fishermen of this country. It goes still further. By reducing the selling power of the great natural producers, you affect their buying capacity, and therefore affect the market for our manufactures; so that in the long run, you will prejudicially affect precisely those classes of the community which this law is attempting to benefit. This is a mistake founded on a misconception of the fundamental economic laws underlying all trade and commerce. Many members on the other side seem to regard trade as a bad thing; at least, they regard buying as bad, although they think that selling is a good thing. They are making a mistake. This section of the Bill will hurt this country, and all classes in it, in the long run. I wish to register the most emphatic protest against it, and warn the Government against the error it is perpetrating in this regard.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I do not think the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) overstated the case in regard to the question of the enhanced value of importations for customs purposes. In the

Weekly Bulletin for May 9, last, issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, the value of the mark, as at May 4, is given at 1.7, and you would require seven times the present value of the mark to equal that 50 per cent, or, in other words, seven times the duty. So that if you import woollen goods, instead of a duty of 35 per cent, you would really pay seven times that or 245 per cent of a duty on merchandise, which is absurd. This law is based on a wrong presumption. I have here a copy of an extract from the Dry Goods Economist, one of the best trade publications in the world. It is dated Saturday, April 30, 1921, and I shall read extracts from an article headed "Foreign Currency Inflation and Commodity Prices." This article says:
The presumption on which this provision rests, presumably, is that prices of merchandise in other countries, as measured in American currency, have declined in proportion to the depreciation in the currency of those countries. In other words, it is argued that while an American exporter can buy a German mark for 1.6'0' cents <he can go into Germany and obtain for it 2,3.8 cents' worth of merchandise- which is the normal exchange value of the mark.
Such a presumption is based on entire ignorance both of economic laws and of the actual facts in the case.
An extreme illustration is the story of the Moscow cabman, who wanted to charge an American traveller the equivalent of $50 in roubles for driving him less than a mile from the railway station to a hotel, but who finally compromised by accepting a package of cigarettes instead of the money.
In the course of his statement the Appraiser pointed out that linens from Germany, for example, have increased in value in marks, over 1914 prices, approximately 2500 to 3!000 per cent, or 58 per cent in United States gold over pre-war prices in United States gold ; that German chinaware selling before the war at 4 marks is now sold in the home market at 60 marks, and that the price of German cutlery has increased about 2500 per cent in marks, or 50 per cent in United IStates gold as compared with pre-war prices in United States gold.
The German mark is now worth approximately one-fifteenth of its pre-war value, the members of the Association are paying for goods which they import from Germany from fifteen to eighteen times the pre-war prices of the same goods. Invoices of cotton hose and ladies' gloves imported from Germany in 1914 and in 19'21 by Marshall Field & Co. show even greater price increases-in German marks as well as in American dollars. Cotton hose have increased 2000 to 3000 and more per cent in German marks and 50 to 100 per cent and more in American dollars; increases in women's gloves run as high as 4000 per cent in German marks and 100 to 300 per cent in American dollars.	.
In the face of these facts it is proposed in the anti-dumping section of the Emergency Tariff Bill to value the German mark for customs purposes at five times its present actual value.
On the basis of such a valuation the duty assessed on imported articles would in many instances amount to much more than their total price.
The practical effect of such a measure would be, of course, to stop altogether the importation of goods from those countries. If this is its purpose, if it is really intended as an embargo, it would be better to say so frankly, so that its nature would be clear to the eyes of the country. It is not likely that the country would stand for a commercial boycott against nations whose economic rehabilitation is essential both to our own prosperity and to the prosperity of the world at large.
It is to be hoped that this clause will be dropped from the Bill, for it is in the highest degree stupid and objectionable.
I might just add that this clause has been dropped entirely from the American Bill, owing to the protest which it aroused from both the consumers and the commercial interests of the United States and I would make an appeal to the Government to give the matter more mature consideration before deciding to enforce such a clause. When the provisions of the Bill become effective they will practically prohibit importations * from foreign countries altogether. The member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) raised a point, I think a very opportune one, in this connection, and that was as to how these countries in Central Europe are going to obtain the opportunity of rehabilitating themselves. If outside countries cease to do business with those countries, then the position of affairs in Central Europe will be hopeless-I do not think there will be much chance for them to re-establish themselves unless they receive assistance from the outside.
Some time ago the Minister of Finance quoted many authorities in support of his policy as embodied in this Bill. He endeavoured to show that the policy of Germany was to sell all she could. Let me say to the minister that even that be true such a policy is not a crime. I think the Canadian manufacturers would do well to follow the example of Germany and sell all the goods they can both at home and abroad. In fact it would appear to be the policy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to encourage that idea in the mind of the Canadian manufacturer, and not only that but to assist him in extending his trade in all parts of the world. The Minister of Finance referred to the fact-and it is true [DOT]-that the Germans were able in some respects to undersell the British manufacturer and manufacturers elsewhere. The item of hooks and eyes was cited and it was mentioned that whereas the German manufacturer could produce hooks and eyes for

4!d. per pound, the wire alone in England cost 6d. a pound. There must be something wrong with the British manufacturer or with British workmen when such a thing is possible. From my knowledge of the subject, and from my reading, I have come to the conclusion that the British workman is not living up to the record which he had in past years-I refer to his pre-war record. I think that in a measure he is lying down on the job, and that accounts to a great extent-much more so than the reason assigned by the Minister of Finance -for the great disparity in the cost of production in the two countries. If it is a fact that Germany is selling merchandise the world over for Jess than that merchandise costs, it reminds me of the old woman who kept a stall in the market place in the city of Dublin. This old woman made a specialty of selling socks, and she always maintained that she sold those socks for less than they cost her, which accounted for the large business she did in socks and for her success as a business woman. I transmit that as an idea to the Minister of Finance when he says that Germany is making a success the world over by selling goods at less than the cost of production. In this connection I am reminded of one experience that Germany had on the sugar question many years ago. The Germans decided to pay a bounty on the sugar that was exported from Germany to foreign countries. Of course the effect was to drive the manufacturers of sugar in England out of business. But what happened? The sugar manufacturers in England turned round and bought the German made bounty-fed sugar, manufactured it into candy and sold it in Germany at a lower figure than the Germany manufacturers could produce the same article for. That is the way the thing works out. I will not follow thfe Minister of Finance in the remarks he has made with reference to the cost of living in Germany as compared with the cost of living in Great Britain and other countries. I still insist it would be a wiser method to discard all camouflage and prohibit importations altogether, because that will practically be the ultimate result of this enactment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	[DOT]
On section 10-customs house brokers may be licensed at any port by collector, subject to approval by minister:
Mr. PARDEE:: Will it be necessary for any custom house broker now carrying on business to obtain a license?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Yes, it will be necessary for him to obtain a license.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Would a man now carrying on business have a right to obtain such a license?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: If he has been carrying on a broker's business without any complaint at all, and there is nothing against him, of course a license will be given him.


William Stevens Fielding: What is the object of obtaining a license now?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: We have had very
many complaints from a number of sections of the Dominion with regard to men who have been carrying on a broker's business. This legislation is with the idea of remedying that condition. When such complaints are made the license will be cancelled in the event of the complaints turning out to be well founded.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What is the nature of the complaints?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Irregularities in connection with entries. A case occurred not long ago in Toronto where a customs brokerage house made default, a person in their employ having committed the theft of some $4,000 intended for the payment of different brokerage fees. We have had complaints from several quarters.


James Alexander Robb: There would be nothing in
the regulations to prevent an importing house passing any entry for their own purpose?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: That is provided for
in the Act.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Has the minister any
idea to give the committee as to the number of licenses to be issued in towns and cities according to their size?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: We are not limiting
the number.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is it the (minister's
idea that there should be no limit on the number of brokers in any one place?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I do not think there
should be any limit. Any respectable citizen able to carry on should not be denied a license.


William Stevens Fielding: The minister is to
have power to fix the fee. Has he any idea what the fee should be?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I have not considered
that yet.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Bill reported as amended, and amendment read the second time and concurred in.
Hon. Mr. WIGMORE moved that the Bill be now read the third time.
William Stevens Fielding: No, the Bill has been
amended; next sitting.
On motion of Right Hon. Sir George Foster for the adjournment of the House:


William Stevens Fielding: What will be the order of business to-day?


George Green Foster: Other bills on
Government Orders, then Estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: What departments?


George Green Foster: Post Office,
Labour, Finance, Interior-


Mrw FIELDING:: Somewhat in that
order?


George Green Foster: -and Agriculture-supplementary.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 3.20 a.m. Friday.
Friday, June 3, 1921.