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

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the demonstration farm at St-Tite-ies-Caps in the county of Montmorency, been removed since 1930 from the property of one Renaud who was in charge of the same?
2.	If so, why?
3.	Were any complaints made against the said Renaud?
4.	If so, what was the nature of the said complaints ?
5.	By whom were they made?
6.	Who has been placed in charge of said demonstration farm?


Mr. MURPHY (For Mr. Weir, Melfort):: 1.	The Illustration Station at St-Tite-des-Caps was closed on June 30, 1931.
2.	The operator left his farm to become foreman on Seminary Farm at St. Joachim.
3.	No complaints.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 3.
6. Mr. Renaud has not been replaced


MONTREAL HARBOUR BRIDGE, TOLLS
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Have any representations been made, directly or indirectly, to the government by the south shore residents to decrease the tolls on the new Montreal harbour bridge?
2.	What was the last annual deficit on the bridge in question after all operating charges were paid, and provision was made for interest and maintenance charges?
3.	Is the Dominion government extending financial aid to the proposed Caughnawaga bridge, which would be situated eight miles west of the new Montreal harbour bridge?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Insofar as the Department of Marine is concerned:-
1.	Yes.
Note.-The Harbour Commissioners of Montreal have received representations from representatives of south shore municipalities and from the Montreal Tramways Company for reduced fares on the Montreal harbour bridge.
2.	The following information has been furnished by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal:
Total deficit	 $ 721,604 03
Less contribution toward deficit by province of Quebec and city of Montreal	 300,000 00
Net deficit	 $ 421,604 03
3.	No information.


ORIENTALS ADMITTED TO CANADA
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	How many Japanese were admitted to Canada each month, from June 1, 1931, to November 1, 1932, in the following classes: (a) adult males; (b) adult females; (c) children?
2.	How many Chinese were admitted to Canada each month, from June 1, 1931, to November 1, 1932, in the following classes: (a) adult males; (b) adult females; (c) children?
3.	In the same period, how many Japanese
departed from Canada:	(a) with the intention of returning, and (b) without intending to return?
4.	In the same period, how many Chinese departed from Canada: (a) with the intention of returning, and (b) without intending to return ?

Questions


Mr. GORDON:: Males	Females	Children	TotalJune, 1931	
1	11	3	15July	10	5	18August	7	1	9September	
2	7	2	11October	
5	5	-	10November	3	3	10December	
5	9	4	18January, 1932	
4	5	1	10February	
10	6	3	19March	
7	11	6	24April	
-	5	-	5May	3	-	3June	
2	5	1	8July	
1	2	6	9August	
4	4	1	9September	
1	3	1	5October	3	1	450	99	38	1872.	One male in October, 1932.
3. (a) 1,126; (b) no information.
4. (a) 6,024; (b) 375.


CONVICTION OF ARMAND ROY
Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	Was one, Armand Roy of Drummondville, prosecuted for an infraction of the Excise Act?
2.	If so, was he convicted and sentenced?
3.	What was the sentence?
4.	Was the sentence appealed? If not, why?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	One month in jail together with a fine of S200 and costs, and in default of payment six additional months in jail.
4.	No, the sentence imposed was in accordance with the requirements of the act and amendments.


CAMBRIDGE AND HAVELOCK, N.B., AERODROMES
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	What is the distance between the aerodromes now under consideration by Department of Militia at Cambridge and Havelock, New Brunswick?
2.	What is the distance between the site under consideration at Havelock and the already established aerodrome at Moncton?
3.	On whose recommendation or report were the sites chosen at Cambridge and Havelock?
4.	Why is it necessary to have two aerodromes between the airports of Saint John and Moncton in a distance of only about 90 miles er less?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	Cambridge-Havelock, 35-5 miles.
2.	Havelock-Moncton, 28-1 miles.
3.	The technical officers of the Civil Aviation Branch, Department of National Defence.
4.	On established airways intermediate aerodromes are necessary at intervals of approximately 30 miles.


CARLET0N, QUE., LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Was Louis Bujold dismissed as lighthouse keeper at Carleton, Bona venture county?
2.	Was a temporary appointment made, who was the appointee, and on what date was such appointment made?
3.	Did the Civil Service Commission make a permanent appointment? If so, who was so appointed and on what date?
4.	Did the appointee of the Civil Service Commission enter upon the discharge of his duty, and on what date?
5.	Was the appointee of the Civil Service Commission a returned soldier?
6.	If the returned soldier so appointed was not placed in charge of the light, what was the reason for such action?
7.	Who is now in charge of that light, and was he appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes; Henri Joseph Martin; 18th April, 1931.
3.	Leo Labreque was selected by Civil Service Commission 29th October, 1931.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.
6.	He was rejected under section 24 of the Civil Service Act.
7.	Henri Joseph Martin; yes.

Questions


DRUMMONDVILLE, QUE., CUSTOMS EXCISE OFFICE
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	What are the names of the employees in
the customs and excise office at Drummond-ville?	_
2.	On what date was each employee appointed?
3.	By whom were these respective employees recommended ?
4.	What salary is paid to each employee?
5.	What was the total revenue collected by this office during the last fiscal year?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I,	2, 3 and 4:
Lucien Pare appointed August 6, 1912, by Civil Service Commission, salary $2,340;
J.	C. R. Fleurent appointed May 31, 1930, by Civil Service Commission, salary $1,320;
L. Lemire appointed September 28, 1923, by Civil Sendee Commission, salary $1,740;
L. P. A. Chagnon appointed June 14, 1920, by Civil Service Commission, salary $1,740.
5.	$370,780.58.


ST. JUSTINE STATION, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. THAUVETTE:: 1.	Under what government and on what date was Mr. Adelard Menard appointed postmaster at St. Justine Station, Quebec?
2 .During how many years did he perform the duties of this office uninterruptedly?
3.	Was he dismissed?
4.	If so, on what date, and by whom?


Mr. SAUVE:: .
1.	(a) Sir John A. Macdonald's.
(b)	1st May, 1889.
2.	From 1st May, 1889 to the 8th May, 1931.
3.	Yes. Reasons for dismissal were contained in a return tabled in the house on the 8th July, 1931.
4.	8th May, 1931. Postmaster General.


BONA VENTURE COUNTY, CENSUS COMMISSIONER
Mr. MARCH:: 1.	Who was census commissioner for the county of Bonaventure for the last census, and how much was he paid for his services?
2.	What amount was paid to the commissioner for the census of 1921?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Mr. George M. Kempffer, $1,141.42.
2.	$640, for part of work.


RESTIGOUCHE, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has Jos. Olscamp, the postmaster of Restigouche, Quebec, been dismissed?
2.	If so, who has been appointed to this office, and is the appointment permanent or temporary?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Francois Charles Roy has been appointed permanently.
[Mr. Duranleau.l


EMPRESS OF BRITAIN
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is it to the knowledge of the government that the Empress of Britain collided with another vessel in the St. Lawrence river, in the middle of July last, near the entrance of the Saguenay river?
2.	If so, was there any investigation held by the Dominion Wreck Commissioner?
3.	If not, why?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	In the opinion of the Department of Marine an investigation was not necessary.


GRANTS OF FEDERAL CHARTERS
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	How many federal charters were granted by the companies branch during the fiscal year
1930-31?
2.	What was the revenue of the companies branch during that same year?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	Letters Patent, 898; Supplementary Letters Patent, 301.
2.	Revenue, S389,296.


STEAMER NORTH VOYAGEUR
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Is it to the knowledge of the government that the steamer North Voyageur was grounded on Red Island, in the St. Lawrence river, near the entrance of the Saguenay river, in the month of August last?
2.	If so was there any investigation held by the Dominion Wreck Commissioner?
3.	If not, why?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	In the opinion of the Department of Marine an investigation was not necessary.


CANADIAN NAVY, SUPERIOR OFFICERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
How many superior officers in the Canadian navy are Canadian citizens or native Canadians, and how many were born in foreign countries or in Great Britain?
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I think that question will have to be made more explicit as to just what officers are meant.
Question stands.


RAW LEAF TOBACCO IN BOND
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How much raw leaf tobacco (pounds) was there in bond in Canada on November 15, 1932?
2.	Can the government give a reasonable estimate as to how much tobacco, raw leaf, was held in storage in bond as of the above date?

Questions


Edmond Baird Ryckman: 1 and 2. Data as of November 15, 1932, not available, and figures are of November 1, 1932:
Pounds
Foreign unstemmed tobacco. .. 7,705,144
Foreign stemmed tobacco.. ..	482,496
' Canadian leaf tobacco	 7,426,974
Note.-Under tariff item 142, imported raw leaf tobacco entered free and transferred to excise bond under conditions of Excise Act, and when taken for manufacture is subject to duty of forty cents per pound on unstemmed and sixty cents per pound on stemmed.


REBATE ON UNITED STATES TOBACCO
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Is the United States tobacco used for blending or other purposes with Canadian tobacco for export allowed a rebate?
2.	If so, how much?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: 1 and 2. Rebate of forty cents per pound allowed on the quantity of foreign leaf (less ten per cent deducted for moisture) contained in manufactured tobacco exported.


FLOUR PRICES
Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: What was the price of flour per barrel at Halifax, Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver, on September 1, of the years 1931 and 1932?


Mr. STEVENS:: Canadian Wholesale Flour Prices, September, 1931-September, 1932
Winnipeg	Montreal
Fancy patent First patent per barrel	per barrel
s	s
September, 1931.. 4 35	5 00
September, 1932.. 3 60	4 60
Comparative wholesale prices for Vancouver,	
Edmonton and Halifax not	available.
Average Retail Flour Prices, September,	
1931-September,	1932
Price per pound	l Price per pound
September,	September,
1931	1932
cents	cents
Halifax. . . . 3-4	3-5
Montreal. . . 3-7	3-4
Winnipeg. . . 3-0	2-7
Edmonton . . 3-0	2-8
Vancouver . . 3-5	31


ST. LAWRENCE NAVIGATION COMPANY, SUBSIDIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Did the Lower St. Lawrence Navigation Company obtain subsidies from the government dining the past ten years?
2.	If so, what were the amounts of such subsidies, and for what purposes were they granted?
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Under contract signed April 11, 1930, the following payments have been made:
Fiscal Year	Subsidy Paid
1930-	31	
S49,9901931-	32	
50,0001932-	33 (to September 30)..	28,125
The above subsidies were paid for the performance of the following services:
(a) Rimouski and Pointe-aux-Outardes Service.-Three round trips a week during the season of navigation, from Rimouski to Bersimis, Ue-aux-Outardes and Pointe-aux-Outardes.
Ob) Rimouski, Comeau Bay and Trinity Bay Service.-Three round trips each week during the season of navigation between Rimouski and Comeau Bay; two trips each week being extended to Franklin, Bay St. Nicholas, Godbout and Trinity Bay.
(c)	Matane, Trinity Bay and Seven Islands Service.-Two round trips each week during the season of navigation from Matane to Seven Islands, calling each way at Trinity Bay, Pentecost, Egg Island, Shelter Bay, Clarke City and Seven Islands.
During 1932-33 the amount previously voted having been reduced by 25 per cent to 837,500, certain reductions were made in the service. The Rimouski and Pointe-aux-"Outardes Service has been reduced to two trips a week, with one call each week at Pointe Lebel. On the Rimouski and Trinity Bay Service, calls at Comeau Bay have been discontinued, operations at this port having been closed down. Two trips a week have been made from Rimouski to Trinity Bay, extending one trip to Seven Islands, calling at way ports.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Have any works been authorized by the Department of Public Works in the county of Bonaventure, since the first of October last?
2.	If so, what are they and what amount has been authorized?
3.	Have any such works been authorized in the parish of St. Simeon de Bonaventure, what are they and what amount lias been authorized?
Relief to Pensioners



POST OFFICE REVENUES

Mr. POULIOT:: What is the last total annual revenue and the last total net annual revenue, after deducting salaries of postmasters, allowances and mail carriage costs, of post offices whose incumbents were subjected to inquiries for political partisanship since the month of August, 1930?


Mr. SPEAKER:: This order is now tabled. MOTIONS FOR PAPERS



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER, TWELVE MILE LIMIT

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all orders in council regarding the twelve mile limit in the St. Lawrence river passed during the last ten years.



ADDINGTON FORKS, ANTIGONISH COUNTY, POST OFFICE

Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all correspondence including letters, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between the Postmaster General and any of his officials and any person or persons in the province of Nova Scotia, regarding the removal of the post office from Addington Forks, Antigonish county, Nova Scotia, where it was for over 100 years, to the other end of the district, near Beaver Meadows.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This order will have to stand for amendment, because it is not in proper form.



BRIGHT FAN INQUIRY

Mr. McINTOSH:: For a copy of the evidence adduced at the investigation instituted to inquire into the sinking of the British freighter Bright Fan in Hudson strait, as well as any letters, telegrams, radiograms and other documents made use of during the investigation but not included in the evidence.



MINISTER OF MARINE

Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the back benchers of the opposition I wish to welcome the hon. Minister of Marine, and Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau).


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: I thank the hon. member.



RELIEF TO PENSIONERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that last April the scale of relief for pensioners was cut down on the ground that the expenses during the summer months were not as heavy as they

had been in the previous winter. Winter is upon us again. I have before me a communication from Deer Lodge indicating that pensioners on relief are very anxious to have the scale restored to where it was, and also some allowance for clothing. Ordinary work is entirely non-existent, and they carinot possibly subsist under conditions as they now obtain. May I ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health whether action will be taken by the government along this line?


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Mr. Speaker, from what I heard of the hon. member's question I am inclined to believe that his statement is somewhat inaccurate. I understand that he has inquired as to what the allowance is at the present time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. I shall repeat my question. I understand that the relief granted to pensioners was cut down last April on the ground that expenses for the summer would not be as great as they had been the previous winter. I have now before me a communication from pensioners at Deer Lodge St. James, Manitoba, in which they urge that the scale be restored to the original rate, and that there should be an allowance for clothing. Will the government take action in the matter?


Murray MacLaren: As I stated before, I think the hon. member is inaccurate when he states that the allowance has been cut down. That is hardly a correct way of putting it, because relief has been given during the summer months along lines similar to those adopted in the previous summers. At the present time the rate upon which pensioners receive unemployment relief is figured on the basis of the amount of relief granted by the various municipalities. The amount of pension, plus the amount of relief to pensioners who are in conditions requiring relief amounts to not less than the amount granted by municipalities. That is the principle upon which unemployment relief is now given, and it is proposed that this amount of relief be continued through the winter months.



WHEAT MARKETING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
a question of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. On Tuesday last orders in council were laid upon the table in regard

Disarmament Conference-Sir George Perley
to guarantees to chartered banks for advances made to certain wheat marketing agencies. Upon referring to order in council No. 2077 of September 20 I find that there is provision for the guarantee of certain advances within the limit laid down in the order in council. Then, at the end of the document there is a further provision for the guarantee of an additional advance without limits, so far as I can see. There is the provision that the additional advance will be authorized by order in council. I ask whether any such additional advances have been made, and if so whether they have been guaranteed? In the event of such guarantees will the government lay the order in council on the table?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, my memory is that no
additional orders in council were passed, but if such have been passed they will be laid on the table tomorrow-that is, if there are any.



DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the leader of the opposition asked a question regarding the report of the delegates to the Disarmament conference which I, along with two colleagues and a staff, had the privilege of attending. I have before me two copies of the report in English, with annexes attached. Also I have copies of the covering letter which I sent to the Prime Minister with the report. Further, I have two copies of the report itself in French, along with the covering letter.
The report is rather lengthy. As this can be only an interim report, and as the matter is still very much under discussion it is not proposed at the present time to print it. In the letter which I sent to the Prime Minister I explained to him in a brief way the situation as I understood it, and with your permission I would like to read this letter for the information of the house, as it gives the main points:
Ottawa, November 1, 1932. The Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, M.P.,
Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,
I have the honour, as chairman of the Canadian delegation to the Geneva Disarmament conference, to submit the enclosed report on the work of that conference from its opening on February 2, to the adjournment of the first session, July 23, 1932. The work of the first.
session cannot be considered an unqualified success, and yet it is not fair to say that nothing was accomplished. The complexities of the disarmament movement are familiar to every student of the subject. These complexities, which would have made the problem before the conference a difficult one in any case, were increased by several special events, which held back the work of the first session, and which were concerned partly with the situation in the far East, and partly with the exigencies of politics in certain European countries. As a result not as much was accomplished as had been hoped for. An analysis of these accomplishments is given in the concluding section of the enclosed report.
May I outline here, briefly, the progress of events at the first session. The conference opened on February 2, with a general debate in which the representatives of some forty states participated. This occupied almost a month. After the conclusion of the general debate the conference concerned itself with mapping out a plan of procedure for the work before it, not a simple task, and in setting up committees on land, naval, and air armaments, political questions and national defence expenditure. These committees had begun their work before the Easter recess, which lasted until April 11. After this recess the conference concerned itself for some weeks with the question of qualitative disarmament, that is the abolition of certain weapons chosen more particularly because of their aggressive nature, their efficacy against national defence, or their cruelty to the civil population. After a vigorous debate the principle of qualitative disarmament was accepted, and the technical land, naval, and air committees were instructed to examine what armaments might be dealt with under it. This constituted a new and important approach to the problem of disarmament. It was meant to be a supplement to, not a substitute for, quantitative disarmament. It was rightly considered that at this time quantitative disarmament could not be achieved without the prior solution of certain political difficulties. While the representatives of the larger powers were attempting to settle some of these political difficulties, by informal conversations, the consideration of qualitative disarmament went on in the technical committees, but it was not particularly successful. The problem was as political as it was technical, and committees of experts found a technical solution difficult indeed. The result is that the reports on qualitative disarmament finally submitted by the committees to the general commission of the conference are little more than records of their proceedings.
From June 10, when these reports were presented, to June 22, there were important private conversations among the representatives of the great powers in a further effort to find some solution of the more serious political difficulties which stood in the way of progress. It may be said here that these were concerned largely with the German demand for "equality" (that is, the removal of special treaty restrictions) and the French demand for "security." It had become only too apparent that the fate of the conference was contingent to a large extent on the satisfactory settlement of these two questions. While this solution was being sought, a new direction was given to the work of the conference on June 22, by the presentation of what came to be known as the Hoover proposals, which advocated generally a one-third
1366	COMMONS
Disarmament Conjerence-Sir George Perley
reduction in armaments. These proposals were debated until July 5, and while there was general acceptance of the principle behind them, it was felt that further time was needed for a consideration of their details. It was decided, therefore, that the conference should adjourn to give time for this consideration. A resolution including all the points on which the governments had been able to reach agreement during the first phase of the conference was then drawn up and submitted for acceptance. This resolution, which is analysed in the penultimate section of the enclosed report, was accepted on July 23 by 41-2, with eight abstentions. Germany and Russia voted against it. The conference then adjourned while making provision for the continuation of the work of the bureau during the adjournment. The bureau, which consists of the president and vice-presidents of the conference, the officers of the general commission, and the chairmen of the important committees, continued its duties during the summer. It supervised the work of a committee on effectives, requested certain of its members to submit reports on various questions raised by the closing resolution, and set up a committee to deal with the question of the trade in and manufacture of arms, a subject which was of special interest to the Canadian delegation, but which had not been reached in the deliberations of the first session of the conference. The main activity of the bureau, however, during the adjournment, has been its efforts to get Germany back into the conference. The German delegate had announced, in voting against the closing resolution, that his government would take no further part in the disarmament conference until the question of "equality" had been settled. The bureau has been making every effort to persuade the German government to reconsider this position. At the same time the United Kingdom government has been also attempting to find a way out of this impasse. It is becoming increasingly clear that unless such a way out is found, the next session of the conference will have small chance of making that further progress which is essential and which the public opinion of the world demands.
The bureau is to meet this week and it will then be decided on what date the next session of the general commission of the conference will be called, when subjects of great importance will be discussed. In addition to the German claim for equality it is probable that the French delegation will submit a scheme guaranteeing that political security on which, in their view, disarmament must depend. The Hoover proposals will also be considered, while the further reduction of naval armaments will also probably be examined. There is reason to believe that, if the views of France and Germany can be reconciled, decisions of far-reaching importance may be taken at the forthcoming session.
The attitude of the Canadian delegation at the first session of the conference may be summed up in the following words: We gave whole-hearted support to any and every constructive proposal for the limitation and reduction of armaments which was laid before the conference. We were at times somewhat impatient at the slowness of the progress which was being made, but at the same time we realized the difficulties that had to be faced and the problems that had to be solved. Those difficulties and those problems were primarily

neither of our making nor for our solution, but it was our duty to do everything we could to assist in the efforts that were being made to bring about some effective limitation and reduction of armaments, as a step in the direction of ensuring world peace.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
George H. Perley.
May I say that there is a French translation of this letter that I am putting on the table.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that explains the position as it existed on the first of this month. Since then, as hon. members of the house have seen in the press, both France and the United Kingdom have put forward somewhat modified suggestions or proposals. They are before the bureau now in session at Geneva, and will receive most careful consideration. And may I explain to the house that the bureau is similar to an executive committee, or committee on arrangements. It has no power to make decisions on questions of policy or principle, without reference to the general commission of the conference, but its reports and recommendations always cariy great weight.
While I am on my feet I would like to be allowed to take advantage of this opportunity to pay tribute to the splendid spirit of cooperation which existed among the Canadian delegates and our advisers at the Disarmament conference. My colleague, Mr. Dupre, Solicitor General, made a definite place for himself among those who were directing the activities of the conference, which was shown in a special manner by his election to the important post of vice-president of the Naval committee.
The other official delegate was Miss Winni-fred Kydd, president of the National Council of Women. There were only two ladies who were full delegates to the Disarmament conference, and we are proud of the fact that one of them was a Canadian. In this way the dominion recognized the fact that the women of Canada have a very direct interest in the question of disarmament. You will not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, to be told that Miss Kydd was a happy and fortunate selection for this place. Her energy and ability are well known, and she was very helpful in every way As for the staff and our advisers, I do not intend to mention them by name but I cannot speak too highly of their capable assistance and of the faithful and efficient service which was given us by them. I can assure the house that we all sincerely appreciated their loyal work. I see

Canadian Policy in Far East
by the press of Saturday that our advisory officer at Geneva, Doctor W. A. Riddell, who has represented the government there for a number of years, was chosen the other day as dean of the diplomatic corps. That is a worthy honour for Doctor Riddell, which reflects credit on the dominion as well.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to add that all of us in Canada are very much alive to the necessity for disarmament as the best way of preventing future wars. We must not be discouraged if this is not accomplished as quickly as we might wish, and we must continue to do everything possible to bring it about.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether a date has been agreed upon or even suggested for the reconvening of the Disarmament conference.


George Halsey Perley: As I said before, the bureau is now in session in Geneva. At one time it was suggested that the general commission-not the conference itself, which will not meet until the parties have agreed on a date-which is a committee of the conference, just as we have a committee of the whole house, perhaps would meet on the 2,1st of this month. Then we heard last week that perhaps it might meet on the 28th of this month. No date has been, fixed, and we have as yet no definite advice as to when the general commission will meet.


Ernest Lapointe: While my right hon.
friend was in Geneva, with the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), and Miss Kydd, a special meeting of the assembly of the League of Nation was called for the purpose of considering the Manchurian question. The right hon. gentleman and the Solicitor General were appointed to represent Canada at that meeting. I do not know why Miss Kydd-as to whose qualifications I entirely agree with my right hon. friend-was not made a member of that delegation as well. I cannot discuss that question at the moment, but I should like to know if my right hon. friend will submit to the house also a report of the proceedings of that meeting of the assembly of the League of Nations.


George Halsey Perley: All I can say in reply to my hon. friend is that if this had been a regular session of the house I fancy there would have been a report presented in regard to the meeting of the assembly, but I have no such report. with me at the present time.


Ernest Lapointe: Certainly the house is
entitled to that report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I add to what my right hon.
friend has said. The ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), well knows that at the special meeting of the assembly of the League of Nations the government of Canada was represented by two of its members.


Ernest Lapointe: But why two of its
members?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because it was advisable to do so.


Ernest Lapointe: I protested at the time, and I still protest against the government not appointing the three members of the delegation to represent Canada at that meeting. Miss Kydd was there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is slightly childish.


Ernest Lapointe: The attitude of the government is childish.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The repetition of a remark does not add to its strength.


Ernest Lapointe: I am soTry I had to
repeat it.



SOCKEYE SALMON TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: On Wednesday last the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) asked whether the government were considering making representations to the government of the United States with respect to the ratification of the sockeye salmon treaty. I can only say that the government are in close touch with the situation but obviously, having regard to the political changes which have taken place in the United States during the last few weeks, it is not desirable to enter into any discussion here with regard to a matter of that kind.



CANADIAN POLICY IN THE FAR EAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: On Friday last the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) asked a question with respect to the eastern situation, his question being in the following terms:
What, if any, is the policy of His Majesty's government in Canada in regard to the situation in the far east and to the Lytton report?
Perhaps I can best serve what I conceive t.o be the public interest by indicating that
Canadian Policy in Far East

it is not thought desirable to enter into a discussion at this time with respect to a matter of this kind, for it not only cannot serve the public interest but would be anticipating action that might be taken, and therefore is to be deprecated. In that regard I have the support of the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, Right Hon. Sir John Simon, who in dealing with the same matter on the 10th of this month used these words:
It is the greatest possible mistake to suppose that good is done by individual preliminary declarations.
I think that clearly indicates the position of His Majesty's government in Canada, but in view of the fact that many members of the house are greatly interested in this matter and have been asking questions of members of the government, though not in the house, I think it well to direct attention to a few matters that I trust will make the situation somewhat clearer than it is at the moment to some of them.
First, on December 10, 1931, by a resolution of the council of the League of Nations a committee or commission was set up under the chairmanship of the Earl of Lytton, to study on the spot and to report to the council on any circumstance which, affecting international relations, threatened to disturb peace between China and Japan or the good understanding between them upon which peace depended. Secondly, it will be recalled that a special assembly of the League of Nations was called to consider this matter, and at that session a special committee of nineteen members was set up, much like a committee of this house, to consider the report that would be made. Canada is not a member of the council; Canada is not one of the nineteen countries represented on that special committee.
I next observe that the Lytton report was signed in Pekin on September 4 of this year, and submitted to the council of the League of Nations on the first day of October last. Today the council meets to consider the report. It was originally intended that it should sit at an earlier date, but the Japanese government requested that time be given to enable it to file a memorandum with regard to its attitude towards the report. That memorandum has been filed, and a summary of it was delivered to His Majesty's government in Canada today. There are now two courses open: (a) the council of the League of Nations may proceed to consider the Lytton report, or (b) the special committee of nineteen may proceed to consider the report. In any event ultimately the matter

will reach the assembly, of which Canada is a member, which presumably will not meet this year.
That is the situation at the present moment. If I were to answer the question as to what is the policy of the government with respect to the Lytton report I would be anticipating what will be the attitude of the government after the assembly meets to consider it and gives this important question careful consideration. And as Sir John Simon pointed out, preliminary declarations prior to discussion, or prior to opportunity being afforded to listen to what is being said by others, if carried to its logical end would of course render the meeting of the assembly wholly unnecessary, because every member would then be confronted with a prior declaration -and the whole purpose of the gathering is to afford opportunities for discussion, for conference, for understanding in order that some way out may be found that will result in a permanent peace in that territory.
May I further, just for one moment, direct the attention of the house to the language of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when speaking on November 10, making' the address he did from which I have extracted the section to which I have referred. He said, in addition to what I have already read:
We shall continue to act, as we have acted throughout, in loyal cooperation with the League of Nations on the whole matter. It is the greatest possible mistake to suppose that good is done by individual preliminary declarations. We shall hope to act, we mean to act, with the League of Nations as a whole, and we have a further ground for satisfaction in knowing that, anxious as this situation is, unsatisfactory >as it is in many respects, we have in this matter been able to act not only side by side with other members of the League of Nations but in the closest cooperation and good faith with the United States of America.
And, as is known, the United States is not a member of the League of Nations. I think that fairly represents in general terms the attitude of His Majesty's government in Canada. But with respect to the whole Manchurian situation, in view of the inquiry, I desire to point out that copies of the report are in the library

I speak from memory, but I think there are four copies-and I believe that additional copies can be secured at the office of the League of Nations in this city. There are, however, a few words at the end of that report, the concluding paragraphs in fact, which I think indicate clearly the magnitude of the problems that are involved:
Manchuria, for a year past, has been given over to strife and turmoil. The population of a large, fertile and rich country has been sub-

Canadian Policy in Far East
jected to conditions of distress such as it has probably never experienced before. The relations between China and Japan are those of war in disguise, and the future is full of anxiety. We have reported the circumstances which have created these conditions. Everyone is fully aware of the gravity of the problem which confronts the League of Nations and of the difficulties of the solution. At the moment of concluding our report, we read in the press two statements by the foreign ministers of China and Japan, from each of which we would extract one point of the utmost importance.
On August 28, Mr. Lo Wen Kan declared at Nanking:
"China is confident that any reasonable proposal for the settlement of the present situation will necessarily be compatible with the letter and spirit of the covenant of the League of Nations and the anti-war pact, and the nine-power treaty, as well as with China's sovereign power, and will also effectively secure a durable peace in the far east."
On August 30, Count Uehida is reported to have declared at Tokyo:
"The government considers the question of Sino-Japanese relations as more important than the question of Manchuria and Mongolia."
The concluding paragraph of the Lytton report reads:
We cannot close our report more appropriately than by reproducing here the thought underlying these two statements: as exactly does it correspond with the evidence we have collected, with our own study of the problem, and consequently with our own convictions, so confident are we that the policy indicated by these declarations, if promptly and effectively applied, could not fail to lead to a satisfactory solution of the Manchurian question in the best interests of the two great countries of the far east and of humanity in general.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The other day the Prime Minister said that this matter had not been discussed because it was sub judice. Do I understand that there cannot be a discussion in this parliament until the matter is decided by the council of the League of Nations? I confess I am a little mystified in regard to the relationship that exists.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Our relations to this
matter arise primarily from the fact that we are a member of the League of Nations and we must sit on that report and determine what action shall be taken to give effect or otherwise to the recommendations therein contained. It is an elementary rule that those who sit upon matters in a judicial or deliberative sense should not prejudge the case by antecedent public declarations. They may for the purpose of discussion, talk with one another or negotiate a point of view for the purpose of hearing it controverted by someone else; but the broad general rule is that a matter that is sub judice, that is to say, a matter that is being considered by a body charged with authority as is the League of 53719-87
Nations-the assembly-with quasi-judicial powers, if one examines the covenant carefully, should not be the subject of expressions of opinion publicly which would preclude the possibility of that body being able to treat the whole matter with an open mind, not bound by previous declarations.


Ernest Lapointe: How can members of the parliament of Canada express their views if -that is the right doctrine?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They can always express their views in opposition to the view taken by the government and deprive the government of power.


Ernest Lapointe: But it would be too late.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But as Sir John Simon has pointed out, if you set up any body-for instance, a board of arbitration-to consider a delicate problem in this country, would it be regarded as sound for the house to discuss the problem in all its bearings before the arbitration was held, and to express opinions, one member after another, as to what the arbitrators should decide? That, I submit, is not the true rule, and once we have attorned to the jurisdiction of the League of Nations it must be -taken that we have accepted the principle that -that body is the body to determine and pass upon questions that involve international relations as between Canada and other countries.


Ernest Lapointe: I quite agree with my right hon. friend that this parliament should -not take a definite stand on a matter of this kind. But surely the representatives of Canada, at the League of Nations or at any conference which is going to deal with the matter, are entitled to know what the opinions and views are as a result of discussion in the House of Commons, or otherwise. That is quite different from this house taking, by resolution or otherwise, a definite attitude on the question before it is debated and considered by the League of Nations. The members of this Canadian House of Commons, I submit, are certainly entitled to express what in their opinion their representatives there should bring forward as the views of the Canadian pep ole.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, even at the risk of asking your indulgence for one moment, I would not suggest at all that the members of the House of Commons might not express any opinion they pleased, but I do say that it is not expedient that it should be done. I say further, beyond (all peradiventure of doubt, that the government should not make

League oj Nations

a declaration of policy, when the policy must needs be to some extent governed by considerations that will arise through discussions that will take place by the tribunal Which ultimately has to decide the matter. It is one of the great difficulties we have, and all nations have, that being so far away from Geneva, although it is true we can now use the telephone, we are unable to know exactly what transpires from hour to hour, having regard to differences of time-and it is sometimes of the utmost importance that we should. Were I to declare to-day an attitude which is in my mind with respect to some of these matters, it might not only become embarrassing but might render the influence of this dominion absolutely useless so far as the problem itself is concerned, for my antecedent judgment would be upon facts which might be varied by reason of concessions made between powers, or by a new attitude being taken with respect to them. Like all other problems of this kind which are dealt with by tribunals other than the parliament of Canada, the representatives of the Countries affected always must accept great responsibilities where they cannot get the fullest possible instructions from their governments. All that can be said is that from the fact that they represent the government, they will, to the extent that it is possible, obtain from the government of the day a clear appreciation of their understanding of the problem and of such modification as may arise by reasons which exist when the problem has to be finally dealt with and which involve, as I have said, negotiations, discussions and sometimes concessions which have to be made by one of the parties to the dispute. Almost any problem is capable of being entirely altered by reason of a changed attitude on the part of those primarily responsible for its solution.



WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, since we are discussing international matters I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) whether or not he has any information to give as to when and where the international conference will be held. A rumor has appeared in the press that the conference will not be held at all unless and until Great Britain agrees to return to the gold standard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no official advices beyond those which I indicated to the house the other day. So far as I know the conference will be held

but it may be that there will be delays consequent upon political appeals. As to the date of meeting, I was not then in position to give the house any idea as to what month it would be, and I cannot do so today.



LEAGUE OF NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an inquiry of the Acting Secretary of State (Sir George Perley) in connection with the recognization which has been accorded to Dr. Riddell at Geneva as the so-called dean of the diplomatic corps. May I say first of all that I would be among the very first to appreciate any recognition given to Dr. Riddell because I believe him to be an excellent officer but I should like to know whether or not the government regards the post which Dr. Riddell holds at Geneva as a diplomatic post. As I understand it, a diplomatic post as considered in international affairs is a post held by one who represents his sovereign and who is accredited by his sovereign to the executive head of some other country. Dr. Riddell's position is that of Canadian advisory officer at the League of Nations; as such it undoubtedly has quasidiplomatic functions but I question very much whether the government's intention is to consider this position as being of a diplomatic character in the sense in which that term is used as, for example, in the case of ministers and ambassadors who are now resident at Geneva and who are members of the diplomatic corps in the strict meaning of that term.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman knows
of course that there has been no change in the position of Dr. Riddell and the observations which he has made are absolutely correct. He is not accredited by one sovereign to another as are several representatives in Geneva, he occupies exactly the position which the right hon. gentleman has indicated, namely Canadian advisory officer. In that sense, he is not a diplomatic agent at all.



REMEMBRANCE DAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) based on a persistent rumour which has been circulating throughout the

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
country especially among returned men and members of the Canadian Legion. This rumour is that the members of the permanent force who paraded in Ottawa and other cities on Remembrance Day carried rifles and had been issued ammunition and side arms. I should like to know if such an order was given by the minister or his department, and, if so, why was the order given?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I shall consider this as
a notice of question by my hon. friend.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have another question to direct to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), whose department, I understand, has charge of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is reported that on Remembrance Day the Royal Canadian Mounted Police paraded to the services held in Ottawa and other cities armed with rifles or revolvers and supplied with ammunition. I should like to know if this rumour is correct and, if so, why was the order issued?


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: I shall have to make inquiry before I answer the question. I presume these men appeared in the correct uniforms and accoutrements for such an occasion.


Frederick George Sanderson: I was not referring to the uniform, I was referring to the arms.


Hugh Guthrie: I shall ascertain definitely in connection with the arms and give an answer to the question.



TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, November 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. 8, respecting a certain trade agreement between His Majesty's government in Canada and His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom -Mr. Bennett.-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
On article 12.
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake forthwith to constitute the tariff board for which provision is made in the Tariff Board Act, 1931.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the
government just when it is intended to appoint this board and if it is possible to indicate the probable personnel?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the right hon. gentleman would be the first to say that it would be quite impossible to indicate who the probable appointees will be. Last summer
53719-87^
when it became apparent that we would have to consider matters of the character contained in these agreements, the government concluded that it was undesirable to appoint this tariff board until after the economic conference. I can assure the committee that we are endeavouring to obtain the services of men whom we consider will be qualified in every sense to discharge what we conceive to be a very difficult task.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope the
Prime Minister will not mind my pointing out to him the fact that since his administration came into office the tariff has been revised several times and is now at a point where I imagine it would not be possible to do very much more by way of an increase. Any real purpose which the tariff board might have served has, I believe, gone by, but I should like to know whether or not the Prime Minister will undertake to say that before further increases are recommended the tariff board will be given an opportunity to consider and report upon such increases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid one could hardly make that promise, for reasons which I am quite certain the right hon. gentleman understands more thoroughly than most. A situation might arise which would require action, as has happened in the past. The right hon. gentleman probably will say that we will still have section 43, but I do not think it is quite apt to suggest that we give an undertaking of this character.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the constitution of this board will the Prime Minister be prepared to see that different political views are represented in the personnel? As my right hon. friend is aware, on the board constituted by the United States government to deal with such matters the different political parties are represented. If this board is to be appointed for a term of years it would seem only reasonable that some representation should be given to the different political points of view. I would ask my right hon. friend if he is prepared to consider granting or will grant that form of recognition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman will remember that when the Tariff Board Act was under consideration as a bill, the point to which he now directs attention was referred to by him and other hon. members on that as well as on this side of the house. The United States tariff board is, of course, a much larger one than ours. At the moment our board is composed of three, the chairman and two members. Having regard to the size of this country, as I pointed out
1372	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
when we were dealing with the bill, I am sure it will be desirable to endeavour to secure representation from other than one part of the country, and if it is at all possible, having regard to conditions, to ensure that other than one school of thought, for instance, is represented on the board, we shall do so, but I shall try to avoid purely political considerations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might draw my right hon. friend's attention to the further fact that under this agreement the character of the tariff board is being altered in one material factor. It is being given a judicial function such as has not hitherto been contemplated. That affords a still further reason why care should be taken in the appointment of the personnel to see that whoever may be selected are at least persons not too biased in their political opinions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have great hopes that I may be able to secure encomiums from hon. gentlemen opposite on the appointments which will be made.


Ernest Lapointe: I hope my right hon.
friend will have better success than was the case in the appointment of the radio board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought my hon. friend would say that.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend
knew I had to say it. That is the result of a guilty conscience, I am afraid. Leaving that aside, may I ask whether there will be any necessity of amending the law creating the tariff board for the purpose of meeting the requirements of this agreement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is thought and, I believe, correctly, that with this agreement ratified in the form in which it is, the only change that may have to be made in the tariff board will be to provide more ample compensation to whoever may become members of it. That is the real difficulty. May I say this with respect to the radio board: the chairman of that board certainly cannot be charged with being a politician.


Ernest Lapointe: I am not speaking about that point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The civil servant who was selected for the position is a gentleman who, if he votes at all, has, so far as I know no politics; at least he has not manifested any. The appointment to which the hon. member takes great exception was made from Quebec. It is true the gentleman was interested in political matters but his life has not been lived in a political atmosphere. He was a

professional man of, I think one might say, very high reputation. He was engaged by the present Liberal administration for forestry work. He has had a fine training and career so far as that work is concerned. He has lived much outdoors. He has an excellent education and he is at any rate regarded as a fair-minded man. The fact that at one time he was mixed up in an election by being a candidate and assisting his party to organize is of course a factor that gives my hon. friend an opportunity to criticize. I am not complaining of my hon. friend's criticism, but I think he will find that this gentleman, in the discharge of his duties, will be eminently fair, because in the long career he had in administering a very difficult act in connection with forestry operations in Quebec, he did work for the government headed by Mr. Taschereau, was paid large sums of money per annum for doing it and had to adjust very delicate differences.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was not a cheap man in any sense. He had a fine professional reputation and he was paid large sums of money for the service he rendered. He adjusted delicate differences between lease holders and crown holders, I think to the satisfaction of the persons concerned, and the government. He was highly spoken of by those best able to express an opinion. The fact that he was interested in one election-


Ernest Lapointe: More than one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, let us say several
elections-should not debar him from a public position, because I think he realizes that if he can in any respect be charged with political activities, he would forfeit the position he holds.


Ernest Lapointe: May I say a word on this matter, Mr. Chairman? I realize this has not much to do with the clause at present under discussion, but still I cannot let it go without a word. I have nothing personally against the gentleman. He had contracts from the Quebec government no doubt, and as my right hon. friend says, earned large sums of money; but he quarrelled with them and became the organizer of the Conservative party. Not only was he a candidate but he was chief organizer of the Conservative party for the Quebec district during many election campaigns. I have no quarrel with the government giving him a position of some kind, but as regards the radio board last year we agreed unanimously that political considerations should be eliminated altogether. He is there to represent an important section of the com-

United. Kingdom
munity, a section which is a little apart as regards certain functions of radio broadcasting, and we certainly hoped that the man who would be appointed would carry the confidence of the whole community. I am sorry that the government has appointed a man, who, however honourable he may be, has been so closely identified with one political party in Canada. That is all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should just like to mention to my hon. friend, because it is a fact known to Mr. Maher himself, that a certain well known professional gentleman in Quebec was not able to accept the position, because the salary was wholly inadequate as compared with what he is now securing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On article 13:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that on the request of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom they will cause a review to be made by the tariff board as soon as practicable of the duties charged on any commodities specified in such request in accordance with the principles laid down in article 11 hereof and that after the receipt of the report of the tariff board thereon such report shall be laid before parliament and parliament shall be invited to vary wherever necessary the tariff on such commodities of United Kingdom origin in such manner as to give effect to such principles.
Jean-François Pouliot: With regard to references to the tariff board, may I direct attention to Hansard of November 15, 1932, at page 1169 with regard to cocoa butter. I have received a letter of protest from a Toronto manufacturer, Mr. J. Wardropper, managing director of Rowntree Company, Limited. This letter, which is dated Toronto 3, November 17, 1932, reads:
I have just received a copy of the record of the House of Commons debate for Tuesday, November 15, 1932, and note from page 1242 of the records that you seized the opportunity to poke fun deservedly at the Prime Minister's suggested ways and means by which he could increase his already large interest in the manufacturing industries of Hull.
I notice that you also took considerable time of the house to explain the movements of international trade in cocoa butter. It is rather galling to me, a manufacturer, to find that a member of the House of Commons can get on his feet and inform the house that cocoa butter is derived from the cocoanut.
How can we get intelligent action upon affairs concerning our industry when such misstatements are made apparently in all seriousness.
May I teach something to the manufacturer of that commodity. There is no "cocoa butter"; there is cacao butter. If I said "cocoa butter" it was just to see if one of the hecklers on the other side of the house would correct me. As they did not, I will tell them and Mr. Wardropper that they are cocoanuts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice that in this article the word "invited" is used, and it is used several times elsewhere throughout the agreement. In the other articles where it has been stated that the government would be invited to do so and so, the interpretation placed upon the phrase has been that the government would do so and so; in other words that it was part of the agreement and that the phrase meant they shall do so and so.
I ask if that is the construction to be placed upon the expression, "shall be invited to vary wherever necessary" and wThether those words are applicable to whatever the tariff board may recommend to (parliament under this particular article.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman is perhaps more fully aware than I am that it is always difficult to choose words which will not indicate that the body to which they are directed is in any sense being coerced, although sometimes it has been suggested that that was so in this case. What happened was that the word "invited" was said by the leading legal member of the British delegation to be the appropriate term to use in a case of this character. I looked it up very hurriedly and was quite satisfied that the word used expressed the proper shade of meaning, when you indicate that a power is conferred to enable a function to be discharged. I think that is as far as I can usefully go in an endeavour to define the term, because the context more or less determines the exact shade of meaning to be given to the word as used. For instance, it might be given a different meaning in one paragraph than it has in another, by reason of surrounding context. In a general way, however, it indicates that power is conferred for the purpose of enabling a function delegated or imposed upon a body to be discharged.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad the Prime Minister has given us an interpretation, because the leading legal member of the British delegation to whom he referred, would as I understand it, be the Right Hon. Lord Hailsham. I read the remarks of Lord Hails-ham delivered at Calgary, and it seemed to me they went much farther with respect to the authority which this tariff board will have than the right hon. gentleman is prepared to go at the moment. If I understood them correctly Lord Hailsham's remarks were to the effect that the tariff board would be a judicial body, that its decisions would be more or less binding upon the government of the day and that it would be the duty of the government to see that whatever decision the tariff board gave should be implemented by parliament. I submit any view of that kind
1374	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
is wholly subversive of the rights of parliament, as we understand them, and as we would wish to maintain them. Certainly those of us on this side of the house would not countenance them for one minute.
As hon. members know there has been an effort time and again, more particularly in the House of Commons, to substitute for parliament in the right of framing a tariff some board which would have judicial or quasi judicial functions. That attitude has been persistently and consistently resisted by the Liberal party whenever it has been proposed in the past. It will be opposed with equal persistence and consistency in the future. We cannot for one moment agree that any tribunal of any character can be established with authority in any way to determine what is to be the tariff of the country, any more than any such tribunal would be permitted to have authority to determine any other tax which should be imposed upon the people of Canada.


Mr. YOUNG:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to state clearly that so far as the Liberal party is concerned, it is not prepared to place upon this section the interpretation which, if I have read his remarks correctly, Lord Hails-ham has placed upon it. I am not in agreement with Iris view of the obligations imposed upon the government of the day as a result of powers given to the tariff board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think, Mr. Chairman, if the right hon. gentleman will be good enough to re-read the paragraph, coupled with the statement of the powers of the tariff board, he will have no difficulty whatever. The tariff board is a fact finding body. I think there was a general agreement in this house and, for that matter, at the conference that we could not substitute for parliament and its powers another body created by it.
I can recall very clearly asking that the Tariff Board Act be carefully read by those who were concerned in its operation, and who were representing the United Kingdom. The Australian act, in a particular and general way will be, if it is not at the moment, clothed with practically similar powers. That may be said with respect to others as well. There is no intention to substitute for the powers of parliament those of a tariff board, it being a fact finding body only. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman may recall that from the discussion which took place in this house I heard Lord Hailsham's speech in Calgary and certainly I did not conclude from it that he had made any statement such as the right 
hon. gentleman has outlined. Perhaps the ex-Minister of Justice, who was also there, will bear me out in my statement. I did not conclude that Lord Hailsham was suggesting that the tariff board was to be substituted for parliament.


Mr. LUCAS:: Will the facts as found by that tariff board be presented to parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would appear that the hon. member has not bothered to read the paragraph, because it states that they shall make a report to parliament. It was felt that that was essential so that public opinion might crystallize, if it is thought desirable, in one way or another. Therefore the report is to be laid before parliament.


Mr. HEAPS:: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister if he can tell the house whether or not the proposed tariff board will determine the exact percentage of protection which may be granted to any given industry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a question which I am afraid I cannot answer. That is not the purpose of the tariff board. Its powers are mentioned in the statute, and there is added to it this additional provision, "that such report shall be laid before parliament and parliament shall be invited" to do so and so.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Article 13 states:
Such report shall be laid before parliament and parliament shall be invited to vary wherever necessary the tariff on such commodities.
And so on. In other words, the board will determine whether a tariff should be varied or not. I was wondering whether they could say a percentage would be 10, 15 or 20 as the case might be?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a question of
recommendation. They do not recommend to parliament; they make findings of fact.


Abraham Albert Heaps: They will say whether a
tariff is too high or too low?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
must not place in my mouth words I did not use. I did not say that, and that is not what the act says. The tariff board shall ascertain the facts, as they must be found under the provisions of the Tariff Board Act, and upon that parliament will be invited to take such action as the section indicates.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then if I may go a little further, its function will be somewhat similar to that of the old tariff board that was in existence until about a year ago?

United Kingdom


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? Article 13 says that the government of Canada as soon as practicable will cause a review to be made of the duties charged on any commodities specified in such request in accordance with the principles laid down in article 11. Article 11 says:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that during the currency of this agreement the tariff shall be based on the principle that [DOT]protective duties shall not exceed such a level as will give United Kingdom producers full opportunity of reasonable competition . . .
The question I want to ask is, suppose the tariff board arrives at a conclusion as to what is a proper tariff to give the United Kingdom producer full opportunity of reasonable competition in Canada, is the government in duty bound to put that recommendation into effect?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section says that
they will be invited to take such action as may be appropriate. The government of the day is not bound by the report, except as to the finding of facts. It will have the report of the board; the extent to which it will be necessary to vary the tariff to effect the purpose is a matter entirely within the discretion of the government.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Does not that bind the government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It binds it for one purpose, as I said the other evening, on the principle that protective duties shall not exceed what will give a fair opportunity to the United Kingdom producer to compete with the Canadian producer. Fair opportunity is the basis.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Who is to be the judge of the United Kingdom producer being given a fair opportunity?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government of the day must assume that responsibility, based upon the finding of facts by the tariff board. I tried to make that abundantly clear; the tariff board is a fact finding body. It reports on facts. Then the government has said that on the statement of facts so found it will apply the protective principle only to the extent of giving reasonable opportunity of fair competition.


John Campbell Elliott: Is the tariff board expected to make some recommendation as to whether or not the duties exceed such a level as will give reasonable opportunity for fair competition?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not my understanding of what the tariff board is to find. It will find facts and facts only, and on those facts the government has pledged itself that it will act in a given way.


William Daum Euler: I do not desire to criticize the Prime Minister with regard to his interpretation of the duties of the tariff board, but I think he will admit that from the very circumstances of the case the tariff board is almost obliged to recommend certain action based upon the facts which they have ascertained. Because they will be the only ones who will have the knowledge and information upon which the government can act. The Prime Minister says that the tariff board is only intended to ascertain facts; quite right. But having those facts, who but the board itself can judge what action should be taken?
I do not see how the Minister of Finance or the government, after certain facts have been ascertained by this board, can do other than take them as indicative of a certain rate of tariff. Take for example woollens; in order to give the British producer a fair opportunity in the Canadian market, the board make certain investigations, they must of necessity decide whether 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 per cent protection is sufficient to protect the Canadian industry. I do not see how the board could present those facts to the government in any other form than some sort of, call it recommendation if you like, some sort of suggestion at least as to whether the present or a different rate of duty on these goods is correct. I rather think that the Prime Minister is not quite fair to himself nor to the intention of the government when he says that there will be nothing by way of recommendation by the board. I quite admit that in the final analysis the government and parliament itself will have to come to the decision upon the matter. But I fancy that if this thing is going to be practicable the tariff board, as the only body which can have the necessary information, will make some pretty definite recommendations -you might as well use that word-as to what the rate should be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what they should not do.


William Daum Euler: How are you going to get out of it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly as the law provides. Section 4, subsection 6, reads:
Inquiries under this section shall be conducted in a summary manner in public, except as otherwise expressly provided in this or any other act of the parliament of Canada, and the
1376	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
respective reports to be made pursuant to its provisions shall succinctly state the facts so ascertained; and each report shall be accompanied by a copy of the evidence, if any, taken, and by a copy of all information obtained in connection with the inquiry.


William Daum Euler: What would be the nature of these facts?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The facts brought to the attention of the board by those who ask for change in the existing tariff. Let us be practical about it.


William Daum Euler: Let us imagine a concrete
case. Take the British manufacturers of woollens coming to Canada and making certain requests for reductions; I would like to know just What the tariff board would say to the government. What could they say other than that the tariff is too high or too low, by so much? I do not see how any other intelligent use could be made of the board. If the government does not agree with the board that the tariff should be increased or reduced by so much per cent they will simply not accept its recommendation. But, to be practical about it, I believe that the government is pretty nearly in the position of being obliged to ask that board what the decrease or increase should be. Call it recommendation if you like, I think that is what it amounts to, if you are going to make it work and have any teeth at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The last sentence of the
hon. gentleman contains an expression used so often by hon. members without any regard to what it means.


William Daum Euler: Which is that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Teeth". This is a fact finding body. We are not now considering the tariff act; it was passed last year, after long discussion. But I will deal with the case put by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), the case of a certain type of woollen goods; it is contended by the applicants that the duty is excessive. They then proceed to lay their case before the tariff board, to produce evidence and show what costs of production are, and that the tariff affords more than ample protection to enable their competitors in Canada to maintain efficient production.


William Daum Euler: Will the board not say, how much more?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Wait a minute. The
Canadian producer proceeds to show his costs of production under efficient management and
fMr. Bennett.]
with efficient machineiy. Then it is for the board to report those facts. It is only a matter of arithmetic for the government to determine w'hat will give equality of opportunity and fair competition. But it is not the board's function to recommend that a certain duty be imposed.
I can however, conceive of a case arising in which they would have to find as a fact what the hon. gentleman suggests. If for instance, the applicant asked that the duty be reduced from 35 to 25 per cent and laid his case on the basis of 25 per cent being ample, the board has then to find whether or not a duty of 25 per cent was ample to meet the requirements of the statute, and if it found as a fact that it was, it would have no right to make a recommendation that the government should reduce the duty; that discretion rests with the administration of the day. But the board finds the facts, and it might in the case which I have just given find as a fact that a given rate of duty was sufficient for the purpose. It will be recalled that when we had the statute itself under consideration I produced half a dozen cases from the files of the American court and showed how they bad prepared and laid their cases, and where the application had been to reduce the duty to a given figure how they had found as a fact that that would be sufficient to effect the purpose they had in mind.


William Daum Euler: I do not want to carry the
matter further, but I think there is a distinction without a difference. If the board finds that a rate of 25 per cent is sufficient for the purpose required, I imagine that if the government acted upon that finding they would have taken it as a recommendation, whether or not you call it that.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I would like to ask
just how the board are to determine the facts. Supposing two contrary arguments are presented before the board, one by a British cotton manufacturer and the other by a Canadian cotton manufacturer. In order to determine whether the arguments are facts will the board have authority to send men perhaps to England to determine the factors entering into the question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The fact that the tariff
board is to be used as indicated in this agreement does not in any sense add to or detract from its powers. The questions that now are being asked are questions that were asked last year when the bill was under consideration. This is not a discussion as to the merits or demerits of the Tariff Board Act. The

United Kingdom
hon. gentleman must realize that when judges decide questions they do so on the evidence submitted, and that evidence is given under oath. This board is a judicial body charged with the responsibility of determining facts on the evidence submitted by the applicant or, it may be, submitted on the part of others, and the finding of facts, of course, must be predicated upon the evidence which it is the duty of those who use the tribunal to submit to it. That was all discussed when the statute itself was under consideration. This agreement is merely an indication that this body, now existent, is to be used for the purposes indicated.


John Campbell Elliott: If it is found by the tariff board that the duties do exceed such a level as will give United Kingdom producers full opportunity of reasonable competition, will the government introduce and submit to parliament legislation giving effect to that finding?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a matter which
the government must consider.


John Campbell Elliott: The tariff board may find as a fact that duties do exceed such a level as will permit United Kingdom producers full opportunity of competition and, if they feel so disposed, the government may pay no attention to that finding of fact at all. Is that what I understand from the right hon. gentleman?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, neither is that a
correct statement. If the fact sought to be established by the applicant is that a given rate of duty is higher than is necessary to provide for fair competition and equal opportunity, then conceivably the board might find that fact. That is the fact which is reported to the government and to parliament, and the government then undertake to invite parliament to take such action as may be necessary to give effect to the principles mentioned by the hon. member for Provencher in connection with the preceding article.


James Layton Ralston: I think the hon. member for North Waterloo is quite right in his submission that in effect there is a finding by the tariff board of the rate of duty which should be charged. It may not be a recommendation ; it is not a recommendation according to the statute. It is a conclusion, but in reading article 11 it seems plain that this article must have been worded in conformity with the Tariff Board Act. Article 11, taken
with article 13, provides in effect that the investigation shall be made as to the relative cost of economical and efficient production. According to section 4 (b), the Tariff Board Act empowers the board to make inquiry as to:

the cost of efficient production in Canada and elsewhere, and what increases or decreases in rates of duty are required to equalize differences in the cost of efficient production.
I submit that what the board does, as the right hon. Prime Minister suggests, is find as a matter of fact what actual duties are necessary to equalize that cost of production. Having done that it seems to me there is not very much left for the government to do but at least bring in the legislation based upon that finding, containing those very figures. So in the end the result is that the tariff board does make a finding at least, if not a recommendation, on which action is taken under article 13; really therefore, it is the tariff board which determines what action shall be taken under that article.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: It does seem to me that, without repeating the definition given by the hon. member for North Waterloo, the actual result must be as he has said. What will be the main fact to be ascertained by this tribunal? It must ascertain the percentage of difference which exists between the cost of production in Britain on the one hand and in Canada on the other, and that percentage will be the amount of tariff necessary to equalize the opportunities of both. It does seem to me that the basic and essential fact the board will be called upon to ascertain and determine will be that percentage of difference, which in effect is the rate of tariff necessary to equalize the opportunities of competition. If the government disagrees with that report and says those percentages are not correct, or if it declines to act upon the recommendation even though the percentages are correct, then it seems to me the government must take responsibility for its refusal. So far as action itself is concerned, however, it does seem to me that the fact to be ascertained will be the actual rate of duty which must be put into effect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section of the act to which the hon. member for Shelbume-Yar-mouth referred, and which is being discussed by the hon. member for Red Deer, must be considered in relation to subsection (2) of section 4.


James Layton Ralston: I referred to subsection (b) of section 4.
1378	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has relation to the cost of efficient production in Canada and elsewhere, and what rates of duty are required to equalize those costs. That is one of many factors. Subsection (2) reads:
The board shall make inquiry into any other matter, upon which the minister desires information, in relation to any goods which, if brought into Canada or produced in Canada, are subject to or exempt from duties^ of customs or excise, and shall report to the minister, and the inquiry into any such matter may include inquiry as to the effect which an increase or decrease of the existing rate of duty upon a given commodity might have upon industry or trade, and the extent to which the consumer is protected from exploitation.
That is also part of the same section. I think it is fair to say that if the hon. member for North Waterloo merely means that the tariff board is seized with jurisdiction and power to find as a fact that a 10 per cent increase in duty would effect a certain purpose, or that the application to reduce the duty from 35 per cent to 25 per cent would bring about the result at which the statute aims, that jurisdiction and power clearly are there. I do not think there is any doubt as to that, but I was endeavouring to make clear that this board does not make a recommendation. The hon. member for North Waterloo says it is a distinction without a difference, but I will tell him why that distinction was observed both here and in the United States. It was for the very reason mentioned by the right hon. leader of the opposition, namely so as to not place within the power of this body jurisdiction to recommend a given rate of tariff or duty. They find as a fact that a 20 per cent duty would do so and so, or that a 30 per cent duty would do so and so. Then it is for the government to act upon it, as the hon. gentleman has said; . and we do know that as a matter of fact, in half a dozen cases in the United States, no action was taken.


Alfred Speakman: That is absolutely correct; but it appears to me that article 11 of the agreement does somewhat affect the terms of the general act itself, because it limits the circumference of the work of the board, so to speak, to one point. It is focussed on one point m article 11, and in that it is differentiated from the general act under which the tariff board will be appointed. That one point is the percentage of duty which is intended to do one certain thing and nothing else, namely, to equalize the costs as between the two countries, and it eliminates from review, in dealing with these articles, all other considerations which are found in the Tariff Board Act.
TMr. Ralston.]
It focusses attention upon and confines the duty of the board to the one point, the percentage of difference which may exist between actual costs of production in one country and actual costs in the other, and upon the actual percentage which will equalize these conditions and make for reasonable competition. It does modify the Tariff Board Act itself inasmuch as it eliminates from review all other considerations, and does focus the attention of the tribunal, in this regard, on that one point alone.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Percentage is not mentioned in article 11.


James Layton Ralston: I wish to refer again to a question I brought up the other night in regard to the latter part of the last clause of article 11, which is incorporated as one of the principles referred to in article 13. It is set out in article Id that, although His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that the tariff shall be based on the principle that protective duties shall not exceed such a level as will give United Kingdom producers full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production, the following proviso shall be operative:
Provided that in the application of such principle special consideration may be given to the case of industries not fully established.
On Friday night I asked the principles on which that special consideration would be given, and although I did not ask by whom, I was given the answer. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said, in reply to my question:
I have already intimated that the test will be applied by the tariff board under the principles clearly set forth in the Tariff Board Act.
Having looked at the Tariff Board Act, and having read article 13, I doubt whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce was correct; I am inclined to think that he was misinformed or misapprehended my question. Is not the special consideration, which is to be given there, special consideration by the government, having regard to the facts found by the tariff board, rather than special consideration by the tariff board itself?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will observe that the principle on which that article is applied is reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production. It will be applied by the board. I should not think it would make much difference in actual practice

United Kingdom
because it would have to be presented to the board in any event whether the industry was firmly established or only a newly established industry. I should think it would not be a very important matter, in a broad and general way, speaking of conditions as they are, but it was put there to protect this situation. I could tell the hon. gentleman of industries -I have not a list of them at the moment- that have come into this country during the last ten years on the tariff as it was.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The silk industry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Silk is one of them, as my hon. friend from Lincoln reminds me.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: You don't suggest it needs more protection?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but it came into the country on the basis of the tariff and was so established. At the time we had a very small investment and now we have millions of dollars, and that proviso was added to the article in question so as to preclude the possibility of bad faith being imputed to parliament when, by reason of the existing tariff arrangement, an industry was established in Which millions of dollars have been invested. An application to loweT duties would be successfully met by the application of the principle that special consideration may be given the case of industries not fully established. The finding of fact would be that this industry had not been fully established and special consideration would therefore be given to it. The government would deal with the facts as found.


James Layton Ralston: I think the special consideration is really given by the government rather than by the tariff board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of law, it
would be open to both interpretations.


James Layton Ralston: But in practice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, in practice, in the
first instance, it would be applied by the board and secondly by the government. Both must exercise that power, because the finding of fact would be that this was a new industry and was therefore entitled to special consideration.


James Dew Chaplin: May I point out that
the silk industry was established in Canada quite recently, during the period that the late government was in office. They were the ones that imposed the tariff on artificial silk; they are the people that built up the industry. I just want to call that to the attention of the leader of the opposition.


Edward James Young: Can the Prime Minister
tell us when an industry may be said to be fully established?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That question was discussed the other evening and I do not intend to traverse it again; there are rules of the house which would forbid my doing so. It was fully discussed. The hon. gentleman is a great reader, and I might refer him to what John Stuart Mill said on that subject. He would find it much more interesting than any observations I might make and, moreover, he would regard it as much more authoritative.


Edward James Young: Would it not be possible for any industry which the tariff board might find to be inefficient to make the plea that it was not fully established?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be possible for
the hon. gentleman to contend that he was a strong protectionist. It is always possible to make any contention. Those of us who have listened to the hon. member realize how fully and amply he can develop any suggestion and with what strength of conviction he can express his views.


Edward James Young: But I would not have as
much influence with the government as some of these industries have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should hope not, for
in one instance we are endeavouring to build up the country, whereas in the other the endeavour is to destroy it.


Edward James Young: Not at all.


Charles A. Stewart: That is a
matter of opinion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit; it is a matter of fact.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government will give to Canadian interests the same undertaking that has been given the British government with respect to the right to appear before the tariff board. Article 13 reads in part:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that on the request of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom they will cause a review to be made by the tariff board . . .
As I recollect the provisions of the Tariff Board Act, and what was said at the time that measure was under discussion, the effect was that no matter would be referred to the board, so far as Canada was concerned, except at the instance of the Minister of Finance; in othei words, the discretion rested vith the Minister
1380	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
of Finance as to whether an application for review would be passed on to the tariff board. That is quite different from what is being done in relation to British industries. With respect to British industries, this provision makes it mandatory upon the board to have a review of any matters which the British government may request to have reviewed. If I am wrong in that I should like to be so advised.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman realizes, I think that so far as we are concerned we entered into an agreement. It has already been said that duties are highly protective- too high according to the hon. member for Weyburn and o'thers. We say we have made changes in these tariffs ourselves and reduced them, but will leave the matter to be settled by the board; and the government of the country affected, namely, the United Kingdom, will make a request of us. We will honour that request because we have every confidence that it will be made on the sound business principles which govern the requests from one government to another country. It will be recalled that last year when we were discussing this matter the question arose as to the right of audience of those who might desire to be present merely for irritation purposes. This section contemplates information, not irritation and a distinction is made between the requests of a government and the requests of irresponsible parties. I think the right hon. gentleman will realize that when you are dealing with governments you are dealing with bodies which will not needlessly take up time or cause expense.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What the Prime Minister has just said might have come more appropriately from someone who has not so definitely and strongly advocated a Canada first doctrine. I cannot see why Canadian interests should not have equal rights with British interests before the tariff board, whether or not those rights have to be exercised via the British government or by any other route. This section clearly gives to British industries a right which may be denied to Canadian industries or to different classes vitally interested in Canada. For example, should an organization representing the agricultural interests of Canada wish to make application to have certain customs duties reviewed there is no undertaking whatever by the government that its request would ever reach the board. The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada might ask that certain duties should be reviewed-there is no undertaking on the part of the government that the matter so requested would be referred to the board for investigation and report. Such

an undertaking is however, given in connection with requests received from British industries through the British government. This is an unfair discrimination in favour of industries in Great Britain as against our own and in favour of interests in Great Britain as against the interests of the Canadian public and the Canadian consumer.
Might I direct attention to another objection which I have to this section. The article states that when any matter is investigated by the board, they shall deal with it in accordance with the principles laid down in article 11. The study of article 11 makes it pretty clear that the business of the board is to keep the protective principle in the tariff. Article 11 reads:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that during the currency of this agreement the tariff shall be based on the principle that protective duties shall not exceed such a level as will give . . .
And so on.
I venture to say that any duty which is not absolutely prohibitive will be regarded by parties who so wish to regard it as being in the nature of a competitive duty. If there is a very thin margin between what is completely prohibitive and what is not, that would be considered as permitting competition and thus as bringing the situation within the principle which this board is to maintain with respect to the tariff. The purpose of this article is to give rigidity and fixity to high tariffs, and as such I am strongly opposed to its provisions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The British government makes application to the government of Canada that the board shall deal with an application on behalf of, we will say the woollen industry, to reduce the tariff from one rate to another. The consumer in Canada applies to the Minister of Finance to ask that the board shall consider a certain matter. There is an undertaking in this agreement on the part of the Canadian government that it will refer to the board a request received, not from a British manufacturer, but from the British government. It does not follow that because a British manufacturer asks the British government to do this, the government will. That matter was clearly discussed. The British government has some idea of what is involved in the way of expense and of the serious character of these hearings and the effect they will have upon industry. As far as Canadian applications are concerned, very often they are purely for the purpose of irritation. I use that word deliberately because I happen to know of some of the applications made to the Minister of Finance under my right hon.

United. Kingdom
friend's administration. Some of those applications were made purely for the purpose of causing annoyance. The Minister of Finance must take his chance in this house of refusing or granting an application. The Canada first doctrine applies here if it ever applied anywhere. A Canadian makes his application to his Minister of Finance who is asked in the house, "Did you receive such an application?" He replies, "I did", and he is then asked, "Did you grant it?" He says, "No", and he is then at the bar of public opinion as far as deciding whether or not this government was sound in the position which it took. So far as concerns the procedure in dealing with a government which has made the concession of free entry of the entire products and commodities of this country, manufactured or otherwise, the British government will, first of all, determine whether or not it shall accept the responsibility of sending forward a request from a manufacturer. If it thinks well of that request and makes it with all the responsibilities which are involved, this government will afford an opportunity of a hearing before the board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to ask one further question in connection with the effect which in practice it will really be possible for the tariff board to give the provisions of this article, having regard to the business generally of a tariff board. The Prime Minister has some knowledge of the length of time it takes to investigate technical matters, particularly where those matters refer to conditions which exist in other parts of the world as well as in Canada. Will it be humanly possible for any tariff board which is appointed to do more than review a very few items in the tariff in the course of a year? Unless it is, this provision becomes largely meaningless as rendering any kind of advantage to those who may seek to have these applications placed before the board for review. There was some discussion recently in connection with what had taken place in the United States under a similar provision in the act governing the tariff board of that country, and a statement was made of an authoritative character to the effect that during the two years the United States tariff commission had been investigating commodities, only seventy-three out of thousands had been investigated. The commission had been working morning, noon and night and that was the sum total of their efforts during two years. Among the articles investigated were pipe-organs, peppers, egg plants and bicycle bells. A careful estimate had shown that if the tariff commission of the United States undertook to complete
its examination of the schedule, it would take until the year 2005. I shall drop the five but, shall venture to say that it will take to the year 2000 for any tariff board to go through our tariff schedule and investigate its items one by one. I believe this clause will be largely meaningless or fruitless in practice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the right hon.
gentleman knows that it is not contemplated that the items in the tariff shall be taken up and investigated one by one. That is the reason why this agreement provides that the request for a hearing shall come from the British government. It is obvious that the British government with its sense of responsibility will limit the requests to matters which it believes to be of such importance as to warrant action being taken. That is the reason why I explained to the house last year that we were limiting applications to those upon which the Minister of Finance would pass. That was provided in the measure under consideration last year, it was provided that it should be a summary application. I venture to suggest that in a single week many, many cases will be disposed of. Once notice is given and application had of the matter to be reviewed, the summary disposal of the matter will narrow things down. If it is so desired, these matters can be dealt with great rapidity. I am bound to say that I do not contemplate the kind of hearing which took place under the former tariff board; I may be wrong, but that is not the sort of thing I contemplate will happen. In any event all this discussion might, I think, properly be said to have been anticipated last year when we were dealing with the tariff board itself, and I have still sufficient confidence to believe that the people who are responsible for making applications will not make them needlessly. The British government will make them carefully and after much consideration and they will be disposed of with great rapidity in a summary manner.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not see very much difficulty about articles 11 and 13. I think the cast iron provisions that are contained in the tariff legislation will prevent any board of any kind from at least reducing the tariff very materially. As for the British manufacturer who goes to the British government and convinces them that he has a case against the Canadian industry whereupon they in turn consult with the Canadian government and get the latter to believe they have a case, ths manufacturer will be dead and buried about ten years before there are any results.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 0, ye of little faith!
1382	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Charles A. Stewart: I do not think the article will do any harm to anybody; we can depend upon it that it will certainly do no harm to the Canadian manufacturer. He will enjoy for at least five years the duties fixed in the schedule now in force under the agreement. There seems to be a great deal of care taken to protect Canadian manufacturers; they are one group of gentlemen in Canada who to the fullest extent enjoy special privilege by legislation, and every means that can be devised to protect them, whereas those who are not so fortunate as to be engaged in those industries must take their chances. I suppose this will always continue to be so.


Edward James Young: I cannot conceive of anybody going to the expense and trouble of carrying a case to the tariff board merely for the sake of irri fating the Minister of Finance. I think the Prime Minister's statement that such was the case deserves a little explanation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Carried.


Edward James Young: We want to know who did that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Conscience makes cowards of us all.


Edward James Young: Conscience does not make cowards of us all. We want to know who is meant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say the Minister of Finance; I said for the purpose of irritation.


Edward James Young: The Prime Minister also
said: "Conscience makes cowards of us all." I should like to know who are the cowards. He will not tell us.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I should like to make an observation in connection with the composition of the tariff board. In the House of Commons in Great Britain when this question was being discussed, Mr. J. H. Thomas, Secretary for the Dominions, said that the tariff would be on the basis of raw material, social service, wages, standard of living, capital expenditure and overhead. On Friday we had a great deal of discussion about textiles; much loose talk and suppositious facts and figures were bandied around with respect to wages and working conditions in Great Britain as well as in Canada. In this country we have probably reached a far higher degree of mass production than they have in the old country and when wages in this dominion are being discussed, that fact should be taken into consideration. The thought passes through my mind that this is possibly the first time- and I stand subject to correction-that wages and standards of living will enter into dis-
[Mr. Bennett.J
cussions before the tariff board. Therefore I would suggest to the government that in the composition of this board, the vital factors in the life of this country be considered, such as agriculture, labour. I do not know of any other two great forces in this country more interested in the proper composition of the tariff board unless possibly the consumer and the manufacturer. If this board is going to do the work planned for it, these vital factors should be represented in its personnel.


The CHAIRMAN:: Carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under protest.
On article 14:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that no_existing duty shall be increased on United Kingdom goods except after an inquiry and the receipt of a report from the tariff board, and in accordance with the facts as found by that body.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is asking us to countenance a principle to which, unless the House of Commons is prepared to surrender wholly its control over fiscal policy, it will not submit for a moment. It is quite true the article has been drafted in this case so as to apply to any increase of tariffs, but once the House of Commons has approved the principle of acting only at the instance of a tariff board and in accordance with its recommendations, we shall find that on some other convenient occasion a clause similarly worded will be introduced into the house, and the only difference between it and this article will be that instead of the word "increase" there will be the word "decrease," so we shall then discover we are committed on principle not to decrease any duty of any kind unless first of all the item has been referred to a tariff board and the board has reported upon it. Then we shall be asked to act in accordance with the facts as found by that body. That is a principle with which I do not believe anyone on this side of the house wmuld agree for a moment, and I should be very much amazed if hon. gentlemen opposite would agree to it because it is a thoroughly unsound and untenable position to seek to maintain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think my right hon. friend is too serious about that. Let us look at the matter for a moment. My right hon. friend and the hon. member for Weyburn say that they are opposed to these agreements because they have increased the tariff; they say that tariffs in Canada are so high that even to think of increasing them is impossible. We are saying now that we shall not increase them against Great Britain unless the tariff

United, Kingdom
board finds facts that warrant such action being taken. In other words, we have met the views of hon. gentlemen opposite to the extent of agreeing not to increase tariffs unless an independent tribunal finds facts that warrant such action being taken. The right hon. gentleman is difficult to please. We have endeavoured to please him. Let us not talk about decreases until we have to meet them; we are talking about increases. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. It is very nice to stand up straw men in order to have them knocked down, but they do not serve any purpose in dealing with this agreement. We are dealing with an increase which we say this government will not ask the house to make unless a body created by parliament has found facts that warrant such increase. I am sure, on consideration, the hon. gentlemen will welcome this. It prevents an increase in tariffs without a finding of fact by this tribunal. Everybody, especially on the other side of the house, should welcome it and rejoice and be exceedingly glad that there is to be no increase in the tariff except after an independent body has found facts to warrant it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: While, as my right hon. friend knows, I am not opposed to anything that will help to reduce duties where they should be reduced, I am strongly opposed to the principle of having a tariff regulated by a tariff board, and that is what is at stake in this article. Its application extends away beyond even the various items that are mentioned in schedule E. It applies to all commodities that come from Great Britain to Canada. I can conceive quite readily of an instance where next year, or the year after, for reasons arising out of some change in conditions in this country or to meet some existing need of expense or otherwise we might wish to increase certain duties, even against Great Britain. If we should desire so to do this House of Commons should be perfectly free to act. We should not in any way fetter our rights to deal with the tariff as we think best, in the light of Canadian needs and conditions. The fact that at this moment the article is worded so as to relate only to an increase of duty does not affect the underlying principle one iota. But even if it stood only in relation to an increase, without the possibility of later on being cited as a precedent governing the method of regulating tariffs, I should be opposed to it on the score that, having regard to the changing conditions throughout the world in industry and trade, it is impossible to say whether, two, three or four years hence it might not be desirable
to place some duty for purposes of revenue or otherwise against some particular articles, and even against goods coming from Great Britain. It might be desirable to raise duties in one direction and lower them still more m another. It is perfectly clear that only on the basis of having absolute freedom to deal with the tariff as this House of Commons deems best, and getting as far as possible away from the idea of having tariffs made by some external authority can the house preserve its control over taxation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure every hon. member in this committee must be greatly obliged to the right hon. gentleman opposite. He now has established the thesis upon which this government has been operating for two years. He has said conditions may arise in the next year or two, in these days of stress and strain, when it may be necessary to increase duties on goods coming to this country even from Great Britain. It is a most, shall I say, flattering compliment which has been received by the government. I note the loud applause with which the statement is received by the hon. member for Weyburn, and we are all happy to think that there is unanimity in understanding that it might be necessary to increase duties against Great Britain. The only difference between us is this, that in the one instance it would be log rolled, and in the other instance the board finds the facts upon which action is taken. We make it a condition precedent to any action being taken, before raising a tariff against Great Britain, that the facts shall be found by the tariff board. But the right hon. gentleman opposite says that is not the way to do it, that conditions in this country may be such that we may want to raise duties against Great Britain without finding facts at all by a tariff board or anybody else.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister may interpret my remarks in any way he wishes. The text will speak for itself. The difference is between fiscal freedom and the denial of fiscal freedom.


Mr. NEILL:: This section prevents the government increasing any existing duty, but apparently it does not apply to any condition where no duty exists. Therefore a duty could be introduced where one does not now exist. Should it not read that "no duty shall be imposed or increased"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the British government and British people will be greatly obliged to the hon. member, for advocating their rights in this connection.


Edward James Young: And our rights.
1384	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not so much our rights, in that regard. They were content with the provision as it reads, and we are asking parliament to accept their view of it.


Alan Webster Neill: It is sloppily drawn.


James Layton Ralston: There is another point to consider. We will suppose the government desires to impose a duty and refers it to the tariff board. Under section 4 (b) of the Tariff Board Act the board brings in a report in which they say, "We believe the duty should be increased by so much." Hon. members on this side of the house oppose the increase, and suggest that the tariff board are wrong in their finding of fact. The government will have the right to say, and will be in the position where they will have to say to the opposition and to the country, "We are sorry; we may agree with you that the tariff should not be increased so greatly, but we are bound by our agreement with the people in the United Kingdom to increase this tariff in accordance with the finding of the tariff board."


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: That is not according to the facts at all.


James Layton Ralston: The facts found are:
What increase or decreases in rates of duty are required to equalize differences in the cost of efficient production.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is only one of
several.


James Layton Ralston: That is one which will be found. If the tariff board finds what increases or decreases in rates of duty are required to equalize differences in the cost of efficient production, then I say, by reason of the agreement with our friends in the United Kingdom, we are bound hand and foot to the findings of the tariff board, and we simply must act as a rubber stamp.


Alfred Speakman: I suggest my criticism of the government is the very opposite from that attributed by the Prime Minister to the leader of the opposition. I put it in a very safe and careful manner. My criticism would be not that in the future they were going to refrain from raising duties without first ascertaining the facts, but that in the past they have raised the tariff so frequently and substantially on the basis of no facts at all, or that they have raised the tariff and taken drastic action without ascertaining the facts.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the article carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under protest.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.

On article 15:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that United Kingdom producers shall be entitled to full rights of audience before the tariff board when it has under consideration matters arising under articles 13 and 14 hereof.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to point out that privileges and rights are accorded to producers in the United Kingdom that have been, are and will be denied to producers in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes. The article is as follows:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that United Kingdom producers shall be entitled to full rights of audience before the tariff board when it has under consideration matters arising under articles 13 and 14 hereof.
Articles 13 and 14 deal with the tariff schedules, and commodities coming in from Great Britain. I ask the Prime Minister this question:	Will he undertake to give to the
Canadian producers the right to appear before the tariff board and be heard on any matter affecting tariffs between Great Britain and Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman apparently confuses the agreement and the statute. By agreement we have undertaken that the British producer shall have the opportunity to be heard before-the tariff board. As it stands now the Canadian producer, without agreement, has that right by statute and by practice of the court.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He has the
right?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Only if the
minister refers the matter to the board in the first instance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the way it gets
there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the minister does not permit reference the producer has no right or power whatever.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another matter.
He must take his chance in referring it, but once it is referred the provision is:
The board shall give reasonable opportunity to persons who may not have been summoned, to appear before them and give evidence upon oath or solemn affirmation as aforesaid, on any matter relevant to an inquiry then being held by the board.
I shall not discuss the matter at length, but I remember that last year the hon. member for Weyburn asked whether or not any one

United Kingdom
would be permitted to appear. We pointed out there must be some restriction. Producers affected have the right to be heard, and are parties to the application.


James Layton Ralston: Will the Prime Minister
explain to the committee the distinction which he makes between the principle laid down in article 15 and that which he so vehemently asserted in 1928? His position was referred to a few days ago by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. The words of the Prime Minister, quoted by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, are to be found in Hansard of March 13, 1928, as follows:
Do you realize, sir, that for the first time in the history of Canada, people outside of this country have assisted in determining what our tariff shall be? I have under my hand the briefs that were filed with the tariff board. By whom are they filed? The first brief on the woollen tariff schedule was filed by representatives of the Canadian Woollen and Knit Goods Manufacturers and there were also filed observations on the brief presented by the Canadian Woollen and Knit Goods Manufacturers, by the wool textile delegation of England on behalf of the federations and associations who are its constituent members.
Mr. Young (Saskatoon):	Does the hon.
member object to that?
Mr. Bennett: I certainly do. I object to any man who is_ not a Canadian having anything to do with fixing our tariff.
Then he goes on on page 1258:
Do you suppose, sir, for a single moment that the great republic of France, in fixing its tariff, would have Canadians tell them how they should deal with it? Do you suppose, under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, the government of Great Britain would rely upon the attitude taken by Canadians as to how they should shape and form their tariff?	-
Then he continues:
That is his story, but now he approves of these men not bringing factories to Canada but endeavouring to influence the members of the tariff advisory board as to what protection our industries should have.
I want to commend that to my right hon. friend, and ask him what makes the difference between the principle enunciated by him then and his position as taken today and his expression in article 15.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I fancy from the looks on the faces of some of the hon. gentlemen's colleagues that they have anticipated the answer. In the one instance we got something for it, in the other they had no right there. They have a right there now because they have given to us the right of free entry into their markets for everything we produce, as against the foreigner who has to pay from 10 to 33i per cent. In addition there are certain other concessions granted to us that I will not refer 53719-88
to. And as one quid pro quo, amongst others, we said that inasmuch as you think our tariffs are high, they are to be considered by the board which we have set up, and you may have the opportunity to be heard there; because the basis upon which you are giving us what you do give us is that we say we will let you come here on terms of equality of opportunity and fair competition. But we say that a government is not the best institution in the world to arrive at that, therefore last year we set up a body to do it, and having set up that body we will permit you, being directly concerned and affected by contract in the matter, to present your position before that board in any way you please.


James Layton Ralston: Let me tell my right hon. friend that there is no contract in regard to about 800 items in our tariff schedules; there is in regard to 223 only. But my right hon. friend provides here that if we raise duties in regard to any one of the 1,100 items the producers of those goods have the right to come here and protest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is also part of the bargain.


James Layton Ralston: I find nothing in the
contract by which we undertook to give a preference to Great Britain in regard to more than 223 articles. I shall be much interested to know of it, because it seems to me we have done enough in the way of binding ourselves in the tariff as it stands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said. The hon. gentleman must not look upon this in the way in which a distinguished counsel, Baron Parke, once treated a special demurrer, as a question of the way you dotted your "i's" or crossed your "t's." What we say is that as part of the bargain, the contract, the agreement set out here, we have made these arrangements, and we think the consideration we have received for doing so is ample.


Mr. MALCOLM:: I find the Prime Minister's remarks on this item more or less at variance with his remarks a few minutes ago on a previous item. I was glad to have the Prime Minister point out that so far as the tariff board was concerned it was after all only a fact-finding body, and that questions of policy must be decided by the government. However, I judge from his remarks now that if the United Kingdom manufacturers should succeed in establishing before the tariff board that they are entitled to a lower rate of duty the government by this clause more or less commits itself to act upon the finding of the board.

1386	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, this is only giving
the right to appear before it. I think you are dealing with another article.


James Malcolm: I took it that the Prime Minister's last remarks were to the effect that, as part of the bargain, under the agreement which we are discussing, in consideration of the free entry into Great Britain of certain Canadian commodities on which a duty has been established as against foreign countries, the Canadian government in effect said to the British producers: If you think that the duties against your commodities coming into Canada are too high, we will give you the right to appear at any time before the tariff board and establish that fact, on any commodity whatever, regardless of whether or not the commodity was dealt with in the agreement. I take it from what the Prime Minister says now that if the fact is so established by the British producer, the government will act on the facts as found by the tariff board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; if I may say so I
think the hon. gentleman is confusing two things. We are now dealing with the right of audience, article 15.


James Malcolm: I was dealing with my
right hon. friend's statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Article 15 is the article
giving the right of audience before the board. We say: You have given us certain things, for which we will concede to you the right of being represented, if you so desire, before the tariff board. The hon. gentleman has forgotten what I said before, that the agreement provides, not that the producer shall come to the board in the first instance; it is the British government which makes application. When the British government has made the application, after considering whether it should or not, then the Minister of Finance sends it to the board, and the board accords right of audience to that producer, that is all. With respect to some of these items it is clear there is no likelihood of appeal. On others there might be. That is a matter for the government * to decide in the first instance, and then the producer has the right of audience.


James Malcolm: What value is the right of audience to the British producer if when he has had his audience and established his case the facts as found are not to be acted on by the government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly the same right as the cement producers had before the late tariff board. That I think will be a con-

elusive answer. It does not follow that because you are represented in court by a counsel you win your case. It may follow that the plaintiff wins, who has a very poor lawyer, and the defendant, who has a good lawyer, loses. The right of audience is the right to present your case just as you please. The judgment of the court will depend upon its appreciation of the evidence. The action of the government will be governed by two factors; first the government's general policy, and second, public opinion. By reason of the laying on this table of the proceedings, and findings of fact by the board it will be influenced by public opinion outside the house and public opinion within.


James Malcolm: I am much obliged to
the Prime Minister for his last few words. After all it comes down to this that the government does not bind itself in any way to grant the request of the British producer, but only to grant him audience. Even though he makes a fairly good case, even though the tariff board as a judicial body finds his facts are well-established, even then the general policy of the country may direct the actions of the ministry in another course.


William Daum Euler: Would that be keeping faith?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not exactly what was said. If it had not been for the remark of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) I should not have risen, but this desire to try in every way possible to make it appear that someone is going to break faith-


William Daum Euler: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, before the hon.
gentleman who was speaking had sat down the hon. member for North Waterloo said "Would that be keeping faith?" He is looking for some breach of faith on the part of someone with respect to an agreement that they say has no value. One day it has no value; it is very valuable the next. If you do not do exactly as hon. gentlemen desire, it is a breach of faith. Why do we not get beyond that? I say that very frankly. The principles that govern are set out in this agreement; the British people, who were well represented and capable of taking oare of themselves, thought this ample for their purposes. We have endeavoured to protect the interests of Canada to the best of our ability, as they expected we would do, as we believe *we have succeeded fairly well in doing, and as they believe they succeeded fairly well in doing for their country.

United Kingdom


James Malcolm: 
James Dew Chaplin: We have always agreed
on that.


James Malcolm: So long as my hon. friend and I are in agreement I do not think there can be any difficulty about it. I do feel, however, in connection with this right of audience which the Prime Minister grants the British manufacturer, that if it is a part of a bargain and he does establish facts, it really has not a very great deal of value if the general policy of the government is not in accordance with the facts so determined. I think it might as well be taken out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why contemplate a situation that has not arisen? Why assume that someone will act differently from the way the hon. gentleman himself would act if he were a member of the government? Why assume that someone desires to do a dishonourable thing, to quote the language of the hon. member for North Waterloo? Why not assume that the government would act as decently in regard to this matter as any other government would act?


James Malcolm: It is not a matter of
deoencj'-; it is a matter of policj'.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend asks
what is the sense of doing this if the government is going to do so and so. Why talk about contingencies that may never happen, and events that may never take place?


William Daum Euler: The Prime Minister has given a perfect example, I think, of how remarks may be misinterpreted merely by the inflection of the voice. When I asked whether that would be keeping faith I was voicing exactly the argument set forth by the Prime Minister early in the discussion of this agreement. There were certain points which perhaps were not clearly set out in the agreement, and the right hon. Prime Minister made something of a fuss, if I may use the word, in stating that the government had conducted these negotiations with the British government in good faith, and that if everything was not absolutely covered he knew the British government would keep faith, just as this government would. Now when we talk about the ascertain-
53719-88J
ing of facts-and the discussion had turned pretty much on that phrase-I will say this: While parliament must keep absolutely within its own control the changing of tariffs, whether up or down, I do say that unless there is some very special reason why they should not do so, the government should act according to the suggestion or recommendations, if you like, of the tariff board which has ascertained those facts. If, except for some very good reason, the government do not act upon those facts so ascertained, they will not be keeping faith no matter what the Prime Minister says. He referred to those words and gave a peculiar intonation to a more or less impromptu remark of my own. I do not want to have those words construed by my right hon. friend or anyone else as suggesting for one moment that there is any breach of faith on the part of the government.


James Layton Ralston: I think the Prime
Minister will agree that with regard to articles 13, 14 and 15 the agreement is perhaps a little obscure. That is what has led to some of the differences with regard to the right of audience. I think I have the meaning; I think article 13 refers to cases in which the British government itself may initiate a review of the duties on commodities which they may specify. They may ask for a review to find out whether or not the principle set out in article 11, that is, that there shall be an equality of opportunity, is being lived up to. The next section is entirely different. As I understand it, the British government do not institute the hearing before the tariff board. That is instituted by the Canadian government itself or by someone applying for a change in the duty. Then there is a provision to the effect that the British producers who are interested may appear before the board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That applies to both sections.


James Layton Ralston: I am referring only to the initiation of the hearing. Under article 13 the British government initiates the review, and I take it that only through the instrumentality of the British government would a producer have the right to appear. Under article 14 the Canadian government, or someone in Canada, initiates the review and asks for a change in the duty, in which case there is no intervention whatever by the British government, so far as I can see. Under section 15, however, the British producer is entitled to an audience.
Coming back to the words of the Prime Minister a little while ago I submit that this is an infraction of the principle he has laid
1388	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
down. He says the reason for it is that the British have paid for this right of audience by giving us what has been given in the agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And they have a direct interest in it.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot conceive how their interest would be more direct now than it was before. Just as it was before, the duty is still being imposed against those goods. However, the Prime Minister says they have purchased that right of audience, and I take his word and leave him to be judged as to that distinction. But this does give the right of audience direct to the British producer, without regard to the intervention of the British government. The moment the British producer learns that an application is being made before the tariff board he may exercise his right to be heard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory of the
discussion with regard to that article is this: Obviously the British government could not be represented before the tariff board as such, but the producers, being the (people affected, would be able to be represented. The provision is to remove all doubt as to their right to be there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It seems to me that the really important point in connection with this article is what it is expected to secure to the British interests which are to have the right to appear. Perhaps at this point more appropriately than at any other I can refer more specifically to what Lord Hailsham said in Calgary. I did not have the opportunity to hear Lord Hailsham, as my right hon. friend and the ex-Minister of Justice did, but his address was published in full in the Fortnightly Law Journal of September 15, 1932. At page 67 of that journal I find the following paragraph, which deals with Lord Hailsham's conception of the powers of this tariff board and the obligations which it places on the government and the parliament of Canada:
... in the dominions a tariff tribunal shall determine what is necessary to afford protection in accordance with these principles, and the government undertakes to take the necessary steps to give effect to its findings of fact. I think a lawyer above all ought to be able to appreciate the importance of ensuring that there shall be an impartial investigation and a decision on facts, and I think the politician ought to be able to appreciate the importance of taking the tariff as far as possible out of polities. It may be said that these provisions leave the whole efficiency of our principles to the mercy of a tribunal, and that is true. It is no good having good laws unless you have an efficient and reliable tribunal to administer

them, but ladies and gentlemen, I believe it to be true that one of the greatest assets of the British commonwealth of nations is the impartiality and high standing of the tribunals, and I believe that there is nothing which has helped more to establish the reputation of British justice and British freedom throughout the world than the confidence which every man feels in the fairness of the tribunals and the fairness of the decisions which they render, and I can imagine nothing which is better calculated to ensure the success of the principles which I have enunciated than the knowledge that a Canadian tribunal in Canada is impartially to investigate the facts and a Canadian government is going to be the government which is going to give effect to the findings of fact.
That, Mr. Chairman, is simply a statement that so far as this tariff board is concerned, to all intents and purposes it is to be a judicial body, similar to the supreme court or any court in the land. It is to give decisions based on the facts, and the government are obligated to carry out those decisions. What ever we may say with regard to the duties of the courts in deciding matters which come before them, whether they be matters of civil right or criminal matters we must admit that the field of the judiciary in relation to the administration of the law is one thing, while the field of parliament in relation to the making of laws is quite another and fundamentally different one. Any interpretation which involves a surrender, as this interpretation does, of the rights of parliament to a board which is to be a judicial body, and which is to say what customs duties shall or shall not be imposed, runs wholly counter to the fundamental principles governing the imposition of customs duties and other forms of taxation as stated this afternoon by the Prime Minister as well as by those on this side of the house. So long as we are in agreement that this parliament is perfectly free to do as it pleases with duties where they refer to matters that have been submitted to the board and is not, as Lord Hailsham says, obligated to carry out any decisions of the board, I have nothing further to say; but I think it is very important that the people in Great Britain as well as in this country should realize that one interpretation is being placed upon this section by Lord Hailsham in England while another and quite different interpretation is being given it by the Canadian parliament.


Frederick George Sanderson: A few moment ago the Prime Minister said, "We have formed this body," meaning the tariff board. I would point out that the board has not yet been formed. About the first act that this government did after coming into power was to scrap the tariff board which had functioned under

United Kingdom
the late administration, and hon. gentlemen opposite said that they were going to institute a new tariff board that would be a tariff board, in the words of the Prime Minister. Yet they have waited, from 1930 up to the present time, without forming the board, and now at this late date the Prime Minister stands up in this house and says, " We have formed this body I repeat, they have not formed it yet. May I ask the Prime Minister now a question which I put to the Minister of Trade and Commerce last Friday when one of the tariff items was under consideration: Why has the government waited all this time without forming the tariff board? Why did they not form it so that it might review all these questions of the tariff, as between Canada and the United Kingdom, prior to the conference? It is only camouflage, and they are prolonging matters to help their friends who are in favour of high tariffs. I would ask the Prime Minister in all seriousness: Why has he delayed forming this tariff board, or advisory tariff board, or whatever he calls it, until this late date?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member was not in the house this afternoon or he would have heard the whole story at length. I do not think it is necessary to repeat it beyond saying that the tariff advisory board under the late administration was formed by order in council for which there was no sanction by statute, and the chairman of the board having resigned and having been elected to parliament, that terminated it. In order to make it perfectly clear, however, steps were taken by order in council to rescind the order in council under which the body had functioned. We said that it should be by statute and we passed a statute in 193d. The appointments have not been made. The reasons why the tariff was dealt with as it was in 1930 and 1931 have been given so frequently that it is not desirable to take up the time of the committee today going over them again. But I would put this question to the committee. What would be the sense of endeavouring to answer a question when the hon. gentleman who puts the question answers it himself by saying, "This is camouflage to protect the manufacturers of the country "? When you ask a question and answer it yourself what is the purpose of asking someone else to answer it? It shows perfectly clearly that there is no intention to accept any answer as relevant to the question asked. This is camouflage to protect your friends, says the
hon. gentleman. Well, since he makes that statement in answer to his own question, I do not see that any further observations are necessary.


Frederick George Sanderson: With all due deference to the Prime Minister, I submit that he has not answered my question at all. I would say that the remarks made by the right hon. gentleman in the last two or three minutes were camouflage pure and simple.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
On article 16:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that customs administration in Canada shall be governed by such general principles as will ensure: (a) the avoidance, so far as reasonably possible, of uncertainty as to the amount of customs duties and other fiscal imposts payable on the arrival of goods in Canada; (b) the reduction of delay and friction to a minimum; and (c) the provision of machinery for the prompt and impartial settlement of disputes in matters appertaining to the application of tariffs.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This agreement was signed on August 20. Can the Prime Minister tell us what if anything has been done since the agreement was signed to carry out the undertaking of this article?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On October 6 the House of Commons was called together. On the 12th the agreements were submitted to the House of Commons. It is now the 21st day of November and the agreements have not yet been passed. In Great Britain they have been passed, and in Australia the same action has been taken. We have done all we could to enable this to become law, but up to the moment it is not. The only thing that is law is the schedules, because under our practice they become effective. But our efforts to get the agreement through have not been crowned with success, judging by Hansard. "So far as reasonably possible, of uncertainty as to the amount of customs duties and other fiscal imposts payable on the arrival of goods in Canada": that is a matter of administration. Complaints were made by British importers that there were difficulties which they experienced and which should be overcome. I think it is only fair to say that from the day the agreement was signed, and prior to its being signed, all the officials of the customs department have been endeavouring by every means in their power to make easier and simpler, and less subject to criticism, the passing of entries through customs. We all admit that conditions have made them extremely difficult. When I explained our diffi*
1390	COMMONS
Imperial Conjerence-Trade Agreements
culties to the British delegation and their permanent officials, I am bound to say that they took a much more reasonable view of the matter than previously. Here we are on the northern half of a continent beside 122 millions of people. We are endeavouring to maintain our integrity, financial, industrial and otherwise, and it is a task that tries men as perhaps few tasks have tried them. In administration there are difficulties by reason of exchange. That is the primary difficulty. There are difficulties between the United States and Canada because of exchange differences, and they are very acute because they vary from day to day. To formulate rules that would govern is not easy. Then there are difficulties of exchange with every other country with which we do business, and that has added greatly to our burden. What we have been endeavouring to do, what the minister and all his officials have been doing, is to avoid, so far as reasonably possible, uncertainty as to the amount of customs duties and other fiscal imposts payable on the arrival of goods in Canada. It was contended, quite improperly-at any rate investigations which I have personally made would seem to indicate that the contention was not warranted -that one did not know what duty would be paid on goods because we fixed a value for duty on goods that might be imported from Great Britain. It will be observed that we have already passed a statute that gives effect to the contention, which we conceded, that we should remove that clause so far as it affects British goods.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think it is passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It stands for third reading; it is still before the house. We have passed it through committee and it now stands for third reading. That statute, we believe, will meet that difficulty. "The reduction of delay and friction to a minimum": The causes of delay in connection with the passing of entries are not always attributable to governments, but an effort is being made to overcome that difficulty by instructions from the Commissioner of Customs. Since the conference, I have asked for suggestions from those who have had great concern in the conduct of our customs, and the department has been endeavouring to meet the situation. The minister can speak more freely of that than I can. "The provision of machinery for the prompt and impartial settlement of disputes in matters appertaining to the appli-

cation of tariffs": We believe that the provision made last year in the tariff aot, to which attention may be directed, in part 2 of chapter 55, will meet the situation:
From and after a date to be fixed by the governor in council, all the powers, functions and duties of the board of customs shall be assigned to and be transacted by the tariff board constituted by this act.
Before this government or its predecessor came into office it had been the practice to have practically the same body pass in review on appeal upon the facts which it had determined in the first instance. I dare say the right hon. gentleman recalls that protests were made from time to time. The board of customs was dominated to a large extent, not necessarily by numbers, by those from whose decisions appeals were made. The committee will recall that last year I made the suggestions which are now embodied in the Tariff Board Act with a view to getting a tribunal which could not in any sense be connected with government as the court of appeal in connection with administration.
I have been told, and I am only passing on what I have received by way of information, that the Customs Act is the most difficult act we have to administer. Everyone knows the difficulties in connection with putting through entries. There is the question of checking up invoices and other matters. Since this agreement was signed the commissioner has endeavoured to meet the situation by ascertaining the date of arrival of large shipments and advising consignees that they should be prepared to furnish evidence as to the exact cost in the country of origin. I recall the other day that I had to pass a customs entry when coming in from the United States. I had purchased a piece of antique silver and the difficulty I experienced in passing this article was considerable. There was the question of establishing the value in the country of origin; the question of the value of the money of the country of origin converted into our money; the question of the surcharge of three per cent; the question of our sales tax, which is a domestic tax, and the question of the ordinary customs tariff. When you combine all these they look quite formidable. The department has settled upon a form of invoice to be used by those who ship into this country, and every effort is being made and will be made to reduce the friction which arises because of abnormal conditions. We are now endeavouring to provide in this tariff board a tribunal to which appeals can be taken summarily and disposed of quickly.

United Kingdom
Mr, MACKENZIE KING: I do not believe anyone will take exception to this article; in fact, I commend the government for including it in the agreement. The only criticism I have to make is that all these things which are of any assistance or value to the country generally seem to come only at the instance of requests made by Great Britain or parties there instead of in response to the demands of our own people. If there is one matter above another about which Canadian importers have been complaining ever since the present administration came into office, it is the manner in which the tariff is being administered. Notwithstanding what the duties may be, the rulings, valuations and technicalities of one kind or another are such as to make it almost impossible to bring into this country articles from any other part of the world. If these principles are sound with regard to commodities coming from Great Britain, they are equally sound with regard to commodities coming from other parts of the world. I hope the government is ready to tell us that it is prepared to carry out the same principles in administering the tariff with respect to commodities coming into Canada, irrespective of the country from which they come. If these principles are sound, they should be applied generally; if they are not sound, they should not be invoked.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The observations of the light hon. gentleman are perfectly fair and his criticism is not unwarranted. There has been great difficulty in administering the Customs Act and the tariff because of the conditions to which I have referred. The fact that this article is in this agreement might be open to objection; when it was put there I quite appreciated that it would be said that this should not be necessary. As a matter of fact, it is not necessary that it should be there at all. I should like to demonstrate to hon. members the difficulties which this country is experiencing in connection with the administration of a statute like the Customs Act under the present abnormal conditions. I have seen importers on more than one occasion. Shortly after England went off the gold standard the question of the value of the pound sterling became important and I should like to give an illustration of how this worked out. Our tariff is based on the pound sterling being worth $4.86. Let us take an item valued at a pound and bearing a duty of twenty-five per cent. The duty would amount to about 81.22, disregarding the fraction. That amount added to $4.86 makes 86.08 as the total value ol the article and the duty. The pound sinks to $3.80, twenty-five per cent of that would
be 95 cents, which gives a total of S4.75 or 11 cents less than the face value of the pound upon which our duty rate has been predicated, not only by this government but by all governments since confederation. These importers interviewed me and I told them that the following two weeks should demonstrate the effect of England's going off the gold standard upon the value of commodities. It was expected that wages and commodity values would rise. I told them to come back in about two weeks, that in the interval I would watch the operations of trade and commerce and they could do the same. They came back and they told me that the prices of commodities had not risen as rapidly as was expected, nor had wages increased. It is a singular Jhing, but the fact is that the expectations in Great Britain in that regard were not met. Trade figures which were produced at the time of the conference showed that the increase in the prices of commodities was about S.8 per cent. I then suggested to these gentlemen that we should fix the value of the pound for our purposes at $4.40 or substantially 10 per cent less than the par value upon w'hieh our tariff had been ranged. Instead of $4.86, we made it $4.40, which made a reduction in value for our purposes of 46 cents. We did not make this law in its entirety, we found it on the statute books.
When it came to dealing with what has been called the dump duty, mentioned in the next article in this agreement, I explained to the members of the delegation from the United Kingdom and elsewhere that we were confronted with this situation: if we left the pound at $4.40 instead of $4.86, its value would be reduced by ten per cent compared with the original value; it was then suggested that we would establish a fifteen day average for the real value, and the difference between the real value, which might be $3.80, and $4.40 would represent what has been incorrectly termed a currency dump duty. That is one of the problems with which this government had to deal. It is an administration problem but it makes for friction and difficulty. If you have a pound fluctuating from day to day it becomes almost impossible to carry on. As I have said, what we did wTas to establish a fifteen day average value, in other words, we arrived at a value twice a month. We made $4.40 instead of $4.86 the par value of the pound for the purposes of these computations. The effect of this upon my illustration would be that you would have $4.40 with a twenty-five per cent duty of SI.10. That would make the value of the commodity plus the duty, $5.50 as against $6.08, w7hich was the figure
1392	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
parliament had in mind when it imposed the duty. Many of those duties were imposed by parliament when Mr. Fielding was Minister of Finance. I point out these matters because they were in the minds of the British delegates; their merchants were complaining. I discussed the matter with them at some length. The Minister of National Revenue was on a committee with them; they brought in a large number of recommendations and we explained to them our difficulty. Finally we said; We are quite content to put in this document an article whereby we shall do our very best to meet the situation. It is of some value to British producers because we are doing our best in respect to them. As the right hon. gentleman has suggested, if it accrues to the benefit of Great Britain, it of course accrue? to the benefit of all, because the Customs Act cannot be administered in one way in respect of one set of importers and in a different way in respect to another. That is the whole position and is the reason for this article being in this agreement.


James Layton Ralston: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but when our
British- preferential tariffs were being made, they were based upon the par value of the pound. I think the hon. gentleman will have no difficulty in verifying that from those who were nearest to Mr. Fielding in the preparation of those tariffs.


James Layton Ralston: My point is that it is
only this government-perhaps I am wrong and when the committee resumes, we shall know for sure-that has ever adopted the principle of giving a fixed or arbitrary value to the pound. That is to say, we have accepted, generally speaking, the current exchange value of the currency of the country of origin and have charged our duty at so much per cent based on the number of Canadian dollars represented by that currency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I can say is this,
that after we had discussed this matter pro and con, the representative here of the British authorities stated, not privately, that we had

done what he conceived to be a very fair thing under the circumstances, because we could have operated in a way that would have been vastly more difficult from the standpoint of those concerned.


James Layton Ralston: My point is that it is not a representative of the British government about whom we are talking. We are talking about what I think is an arbitrary increase in the cost of goods to the people of this country, brought about by a value of $4.86f being given to the pound when it was only $4.40 or say $4.40 and the government not only figuring on a basis of $4.86| but adding to that the difference between the pound at an arbitrary value of $4.40 and the current rate. That is something with which it seems to me the representative of the British government would not have very much to do, but it essentially affects not only the Canadian consumer but the Canadian importer. Nothing has been more marked in the last two years than the uncertainty suffered by business, which uncertainty has been caused by this variable rating of the pound from time to time. That is the thing of which importers and consumers complain, and it is in regard to that that I, for one, welcome the insertion in this agreement of the particular provision which appears. As my right hon. leader has intimated, it is I think humiliating to Canada to find that this is brought about by the intervention of the British government and of British representatives when for two years there has been an outcry in this country and in this house with regard to the uncertainty which exists respecting importations and the very arbitrary amounts which are being imposed on importations of goods particularly from Great Britain.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: We are on article 16.
Article 16 agreed to.
On article 17:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that all existing surcharges on imports from the United Kingdom shall be completely abolished as soon as the finances of Canada will allow. They further undertake to give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of reducing and ultimately abolishing the exchange dumping duty in so far as it applies to imports from the United Kingdom.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, or the min-

United Kingdom
ister in charge, concerning existing surcharges. Does this article refer particularly to the three per cent excise tax and is that the surcharge to which the provision refers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I am aware that is all to which it refers. That is the only one I had in mind at the time.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: In my view the
expression "shall be completely abolished as soon as the finances of Canada will allow" is rather indefinite. I suppose the government of Canada will be the judge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: It is not very hopeful for just a little while?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Layton Ralston: Can the Prime Minister tell us anything more than is indicated by the article with regard to the prospect of "sympathetic consideration," so far as the abolition of the exchange dumping duty is conoemed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the hon. member does not desire to prolong this discussion beyond what may be useful. Everything that can be has been said with respect to the point he raises. The world economic conference, if it comes into being, may be able to solve the problem. As it stands, the hon. member is fully aware of the circumstances, and I have nothing to add to what I have said.


James Layton Ralston: I w'as speaking only of the exchange dumping duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand that.


James Layton Ralston: Does the right hon. gentleman consider the world economic conference will have any effect on that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say it is a very important factor in determining what shall be done about it. As matters stand to-day, with prices and exchange as they are, it is unnecessary to remind hon. gentlemen that the fluctuations make the transaction of business extremely difficult and that some stabilized form of exchange is very desirable, and will doubtless be accomplished in time.


James Layton Ralston: The Prime Minister is right when he states that we do not wish to prolong this discussion. I would point out however that the United States is in exactly the same position as we are, so far as fluctuation is concerned, and as I understand it the exchange dumping duty is not in operation
there. It seems to me therefore that in view of the undertaking given in this article, the Prime Minister might well consider the abolition of the exchange dumping duty without waiting for the world economic conference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If, with safety to the body politic, it could have been done, it would have been done. In our opinion it could not be done, and it will not be done until it is considered safe for Canada to do it.


Edward James Young: What does the Prime Minister mean by "safe"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: So as not to destroy the country by creating a chaotic condition.


Edward James Young: Doesn't the Prime Minister think the finances of the country would be improved if the government were to allow the goods to come in, and collect duty on them? No answer.
Article 17 agreed to.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Articles 18 and 19 have already been agreed to. We now turn to article 20.
On article 20:
Nothing in this agreement shall prejudice or diminish any of the benefits enjoyed by any of the parties thereto under the Canada-West Indies Trade Agreement dated the 6th of July, 1925.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
On article 21:
This agreement is made on the express condition that, if either government is satisfied that any preferences hereby granted in respect of any particular class of commodities are likely to be frustrated in whole or in part by reason of the creation or maintenance directly or indirectly of prices for such class of commodities through State action on the part of any foreign country, that government hereby declares that it will exercise the powers which it now has or will hereafter take to prohibit the entry from such foreign country directly or indirectly of such commodities into its country for such time as may be necessary to make effective and to maintain the preferences hereby granted by it.
James Layton Ralston: Would the Prime Minister state, having regard to this article, the significance of the renunciation or breaking off of the trade agreement between Russia and Great Britain?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will recall that a commercial treaty was being negotiated between Great Britain and Russia by Mr. Arthur Henderson and soviet authorities. Difficulties were experienced in completing the treaty along the lines suggested, and a protocol was signed which had the effect
1394	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
of a temporary treaty. It was provided in the protocol that it might be terminated on six months' notice, and inasmuch as the terms of the treaty would be to prevent this section becoming operative, as by its terms provided, the British delegation undertook to give notice within the terms of the protocol. Such notice was given and is now running. The effect of course is that they are then free, beyond question, to give effect to this article of the agreement. Without renunciation of the agreement it is a matter of extreme doubt ' whether or not there would be any power on the part of the government of the United Kingdom to give effect to the conditions of the article, in the event of its being necessary to do so.


James Layton Ralston: The right hon. gentleman has not before him the term of the treaty which might nullify the effect of article 21?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not think it necessary to bring it, but if I remember correctly the protocol did not specify the term, because it provided for the negotiation of a treaty at an early date. The express provision was that it should remain in effect until the expiration of six months' notice by either party. If the hon. member is particularly interested I shall have the information for him tomorrow.


James Layton Ralston: No. I wanted to know the effect of whatever term there may have been in the treaty which would nullify article 21. There might quite possibly be a treaty and still nothing in it


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, I understand the hon. member now. The most favoured nation clause was in the treaty.


James Malcolm: Was given to Russia?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, was in the protocol.


James Malcolm: So that if the protocol had stayed in existence Russia would have had the same terms as Canada, so far as lumber is concerned?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: The six months' delay is running now, and article 21 really does not come into effect until the termination of that delay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend suggests that it does not come into effect, I reply that it comes into effect in so far as it is possible to make it effective, because it has been approved and assented to by the British 
parliament. But so far as the ability to operate every section of it is concerned, it would be necessary, as I have said, that the six months should have run before it could operate in its entirety.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the Prime
Minister indicate to us a little more clearly and definitely what class of action taken by a foreign state would come under that part of the section which reads:
. . . the creation or maintenance directly or indirectly of prices for such class of commodities through state action . . .
Recently our own government guaranteed the Canadian banks against loss in connection with the transactions of the selling agency for our wheat, which is being sent abroad at less than the cost of production. In that sense we are dumping wheat, the state itself entering into the dumping process. Would action of that kind on the part of a foreign country come under this clause?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No statement could be
further from the fact than the one just made. Why it should have been made I know not. To suggest that the government is engaged in the wheat business is as far from the fact as it is possible for any statement to be, and I should think the hon. gentleman would know that. Why did he make that statement? Does anyone know? This aims at a condition under which there is state control of the product of industry or agriculture, where the state itself is the moving power with respect to the production and marketing of it. Where the state intervenes in that manner, so as to frustrate the operation of the preference thus granted by Great Britain to Canada,' Great Britain has said that if attention is drawn to it, such action will be taken as will ensure that the state thus offending shall not be able to sell its product in that market. That is what it means. Either government, of course, has the right to call into operation the provisions of the section. Could anything be further from the fact than to assert that there is any relation between that and the guaranteeing of the financial position of an agency that buys and sells wheat without reference to the government? I cannot understand what purpose is served by making that observation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not necessary that I should explain the purpose I have in view in making an observation. But the Prime Minister has not answered the question. My question was this:	If the government of a foreign country should take action

United Kingdom
similar to that recently taken by our government in guaranteeing the banks against loss when they are advancing money for the sale of wheat, would it come under this clause? That, I take it, is indirect action on the part of the state, if it is not direct action. And I take it further that that is virtually a dumping of grain, because it is selling it at less than the cost of production in the country of origin. Whether or not the Prime Minister agrees with that interpretation of the action of this government I am not immediately concerned, but I ask, if some other state, Germany if you like, in subsidizing its grain, should take action along that line would this clause apply against Germany?


An hon. MEMBER:: Russia.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, or Russia. I
hare no objection to taking Russia as my illustration, but some people here do not like the mention of Russia, so I took Germany instead. Or take Italy if you like; there are a great many people not so frightened about Italy. In Saturday's Ottawa Journal, an eminently respectable paper, and rather inclined to be Conservative, there appeared a report of a recent statement by Sir Arthur Steel-Mait-land, who, I believe, was Minister of Labour in the last Conservative government in Britain and has just returned from a trip to Russia. He said:
I want Britain to trade with Russia because of the great and growing burden of unemployment. ...	.
Our export trade to Russia last year amounted to $35,000,000 at par. It can easily be trebled. It might well be multiplied manifold.
I ask the Prime Minister the definite question whether, if another state takes action along lines similar to that which we have taken in Canada, this clause will apply against that state?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the language of the article is:
This agreement is made on the express condition that, if either government is satisfied that any preferences hereby granted in respect of any particular class of commodities are likely to be frustrated in whole or in part by reason of the creation or maintenance directly or indirectly of prices for such class of commodities through state action on the part of any ' foreign country, that government hereby declares that it will exercise the powers which it now has or will hereafter take to prohibit the entry from such foreign country *directly or indirectly of such commodities into its country for such time as may be necessary to make effective and to maintain the preferences hereby granted by us.
The hypothetical case suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) does not come within those provisions.


James Layton Ralston: As far as I am concerned I do not want to have the discussion led off into a question of what action this government has taken in regard to wheat. But I do not think the Prime Minister should be too dogmatic about the effect of this government's intervention. I have before me the order in council authorizing the action referred to by the hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth). The recital is that there has been marked variation in grain prices in the immediate past; it refers to the uncertainty as to future prices of wheat, and goes on to provide for guarantees in order that the wheat may be sold for cash at present prices. That is not very far from what this paragraph refers to, namely, the maintenance of prices directly or indirectly through state action, not on the part of any foreign country but on the part of this country. I should think, therefore, there might be seme doubt whether if this sort of action were taken by foreign countries to maintain prices it might not be quite possible that this clause would be invoked by us, and we might present to Cheat Britain that situation and ask (hem for redress. I think the Prime Minister is perhaps unduly restricting the possibilities of this section when he declines to agree that the maintenance of prices in this way, or the assistance in the maintenance of prices, might not come within this section.
I want to ask the Prime Minister if there is any understanding as to the procedure to be adopted in connection with this section. That is, how are representations to be made, or what has	to	be shown in	order that	thesection may	be	invoked by,	let us say,	this
government, through a request to Great Britain in respect of action on the part of some foreign government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only question of procedure that was discussed with the British authorities was that of first giving notice under the provisions of the protocol. Then if occasion necessitated, and the effect of the offering of state controlled products or commodities at a price	that bore no	relation to	themarket was	to	frustrate the	preference,	this
government could give such notice as might be necessary and, on the facts being verified, the British government would take the necessary action to prevent the importation into that country of the commodity so affected.
1396	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


James Layton Ralston: But I was getting at
whether the burden is on the Canadian authorities to satisfy the British government with regard to any infraction of this article.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course, as the matter has not yet arisen in practice, I can only say this is one more illustration of the intention of the governments, in making a bargain of this kind, to act in the utmost good faith. I can only repeat that if the facts were brought within the four comers of the article, and the attention of the British government were directed to them, they would make such inquiries as might be necessary to satisfy themselves as to the correctness of the position which, the Canadian government asserted, necessitated their taking appropriate action to accomplish the end in view, namely, the prevention of the frustration of the value of the preference to the exporter.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister objects to the citation of hypothetical cases. I mentioned one which was not hypothetical, that of Germany, which bonuses its exports. I believe South Africa does the same thing. Certainly that is direct action on the part of the state which may affect prices. I would ask whether action of that kind on the part of a state would bring it within the terms of this clause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only say that if that case ever arises it will be considered. It has not been considered yet by the two governments.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Apparently I am
entirely in error with regard to this whole matter. I thought we were entering into a treaty. If we are doing so it seems to me that this document should set forth certain definite principles which must guide the contracting parties in whatever particular circumstances they may find themselves. If the Prime Minister means that there is a particular country or a particular condition against which this article provides and that it does not have general application, that is a new phase of the matter altogether of which the house knows nothing. We have before us a distinct clause. I have not a great knowledge of law, but from what little knowledge I have I would say we have to deal with the meaning of this article which is before us. I think I am putting a perfectly proper question when I ask the Prime Minister if the action of Germany, or of South Africa, or of any other country which bonuses its ex-
ports, brings it within the terms of this particular clause. It is not a question of whether the matter has been considered; it is a question of whether such action would come under this clause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has read the clause, as I have; I have read it to the committee. This is a treaty between Great Britain and Canada, not between Great Britain and Germany or South Africa.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is a treaty that applies to foreign countries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just permit me to finish. This treaty is between Great Britain and Canada, and it makes certain provisions. If the conditions which are mentioned in this article obtained, suitable action would be taken by Great Britain or by Canada, if it were the converse of the case I have mentioned, for the purpose of prohibiting importations into the country of the commodities so affected. That is all. I decline to give antecedent interpretations; that is an unwise and a wrong thing to do, as no one knows better than the hon. gentleman. We are dealing with actualities and with those I shall continue to deal. I do not propose to give my interpretation on hypothetical questions which, when they become actual cases, in view of surrounding circumstances and facts, may necessitate action being taken along some line different from an interpretation which I might suggest. That brings the whole matter exactly within what was said a few days ago by the foreign secretary in Great Britain; to undertake to deal with oases that do not exist and to place an interpretation upon a bargain made between the United Kingdom and Canada is not my purpose. I do not think it is fair criticism or fair comment or fair inquiry to make at this time with respect to this bargain.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sorry the Prime Minister does not think it is fair, but we are discussing this article of the agreement and this is our only opportunity of arriving at what the clause really means. If I understand anything at all about the drawing up of agreements, there were certain definite matters under consideration when this article was drafted. If -the Prime Minister is not in a position to interpret the meaning of the article I do not know who would be in that position, because presumably he was there at the time. I -think it is a fair matter of legal interpretation that the men who had something to do with the drafting of a section should be asked

United Kingdom
to interpret its meaning. I repeat I am not giving a hypothetical case; I have asked with regard to a specific condition existing at the present time. I referred to the action which Germany now is taking, and asked whether or not that would bring that country within the terms of this section. If the Prime Minister refuses to answer of course that is his option, I suppose, although it does not seem very fair that when we are considering the article the Prime Minister will not state whether or not Germany comes under this article at the present time.
I would give another illustration. Suppose the Reconstruction Finance Corporation of the United States undertook some direct or indirect action which might encourage the exportation of goods from that- country. I should like to know whether or not, in that case, the United States would come under this article. Perhaps that is a hypothetical case; so far as I know that has not been done as yet, but such action might be taken by the United States. I do not think we should be asked simply to subscribe to this clause in a blind way without having any definite knowledge as to what it really means or in what it may involve this country. I still think my question with regard to Germany is perfectly proper. It is not hypothetical by any stretch of the imagination.


James Malcolm: Certainly I do not want to delay the proceedings of the committee, but I think the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in relation to foreign countries might well be applied to empire countries. I quite understand and quite agree with what was sought in the drafting of this clause. When a country operates a business such as state operated lumber camps, the state pays no royalties and no timber dues. When camps are operated in a capitalistic country such as Canada the state takes certain severe tolls in the way of dues from the private operators, and certainly it is not fair competition for a private lumber company in the Dominion of Canada to have to compete with a state operated lumber company, when that private company is paying to the state substantial taxation on the lumber which it cuts off state owned limits. It is quite possible that in the particular case of Russia, commodities have been placed upon world markets by the government simply for the purpose of securing foreign exchange. When such competition as this exists it is unfair to the normal operation of a business within the British Empire, and I can quite see the object of having an opportunity to enter a complaint against that sort of business.
The question, however, goes much further than that, Mr. Chairman. We in Canada have given state aid to agriculture by paying a bonus of five cents a bushel on wheat. We are operating in the British market in competition with Australia, but Australia has an export bonus scheme with regard to butter. The whole principle of bonusing exports of any commodity at all is in my opinion extremely vicious and wrong. Personally I have never subscribed to it, and I do not subscribe to it now. Bolstering up one particular industry at the expense of other industries by means of a bonus may lead to extreme state expenditure which, in the end, may not result in any definite benefit to the state.


Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: What is the difference between a bonus and a tariff?


James Malcolm: My hon. friend is entering into a controversy on a point which I should be very glad to discuss with him at another time, but that is not the question here. We also have another situation in Canada. We do a good deal of talking about Russia, but in this dominion we operate provincially-owned power enterprises which pay absolutely no taxation to the state, whereas the privately-owned power companies pay substantial revenues to the provinces for the use of water and very heavy taxation to the state and the municipalities in the conduct of their business, both as to percentage of profits and in the form of municipal taxation. Now, if the principle is to be adopted in this legislation we must remember that we have done and may again be doing a considerable export business in electrical energy with the United States, which will be coming into competition with electrical energy generated by the private capital paying taxes in the country in which it is generated. I say therefore that while the purpose of this legislation is to eliminate unfair competition in our trading with Britain on certain commodities, it opens up a very serious field of discussion. As regards the very commodity in which we are at the present time most interested, and in which the Prime Minister no doubt would argue that he is trying to support us, namely, wheat, I think it is pretty generally understood that the North American continent sold a great many million bushels of wheat to Russia. I believe it is also well known that a great deal of Russian wheat has been sold on the Cardiff market.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This year?


James Malcolm: Past years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, past years.
1398	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


James Malcolm: I think it was understood that a great deal of wheat came out of northern Russia, which was exchanged for Welsh coal that went back into northern Russia, and that a good deal of coal came out of the sea of Azov and was sold in competition with coal in England, wheat from America being taken back into southern Russia. The reason for this was the difficulty in the transportation system as between north and south in the Soviet Union. The fact remains that the possibilities of trade with Russia are not all one way. I admit that there are certain dangers, but while in principle I subscribe to the purpose of the clause, if and when it becomes necessary for the government to give notice, I do also submit that the references by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre are not so far out of line as the Prime Minister would have us believe, because I think it might be held that his action in connection with supporting the wheat market by giving guarantees to the banks might be interpreted as state aid in the principal industry in this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Bonuses are given to increase the price of wheat.


James Malcolm: Quite so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This aims at a case in
which unfair competition destroys the price.


James Layton Ralston: This is the maintenance
of price.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The words are these:
. . . are likely to be frustrated in whole or in part by reason of the creation or maintenance directly or indirectly of prices . . .
The word "creation" is there to meet a situation where, as pointed out the other day, one country had through its selling agency given a statement that whatever price was quoted it would quote a lower price. My personal view' is that it has no relation whatever, by any stretch of the imagination, to the bonusing of wheat as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Certainly that was not in anyone's mind when the matter was done. But may I point out that this is an agreement between two coimtries; there is not a third country. It has to be worked out by the two of them and not by somebody else, and the very provisions in the agreement that look towards the maintenance of good faith and mutual discussion and negotiations for the purpose of giving effect to it, preclude the possibility of anyone giving any hard and fast interpretation as to what might or might not follow if this wrere something of universal application. It

is not. This is a contract between two parties, and one of the terms of the contract is contained in article 21. It aims at securing fair competition against unfair state competition; that is all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Since the Prime Minister has admitted that this is aimed primarily at what he calls unfair state competition, I think it is proper that one should object to this parliament pursuing a policy of this kind. I am firmly convinced that in the years to come, indeed in the very near future, the state will more and more be driven to take action which will directly or indirectly affect business. We have, in fact, been doing it for a great many years in a small way and we are being forced now to do it on a larger scale. The only country which apparently has done it on a national scale is Russia. The Prime Minister says that, with regard to other countries, they were not in the minds of the parties who drew the agreement. I presume that everyone will realize from that statement that Russia was very definitely in the minds of those who drew the agreement, and Russia is the only country that has any form of state capitalism. I think we should consider carefully the results of this action. In the first place, we might very easily antagonize a great country that might be one of our best customers. I have again and again urged that we should trade with Russia. That was the policy of the late government in Great Britain. As I read the papers it is only a question of time until a new agreement will be drawn between Great Britain and Russia, so that trade with Russia is not a matter that can simply be regarded as a vague dream or fad of a few people in this country. We missed a great opportunity a year or two ago when we might have taken Russian coal in exchange for some of our agricultural implements. Now it would appear that we may sacrifice any chance of dealing with this great country which has been the first to go into state enterprise on a large scale.
I might take this opportunity to call the attention of the house to an article in the November number of Current History by Sidney Webb, now Lord Passfield. He points out some of the conditions which now prevail in Russia and which I think should afford ground for careful consideration of the whole situation.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is that relevant to the question?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think it is relevant. He said:
In Soviet Russia the aggregate volume of production is increasing year by year.

United Kingdom
That is something We have to consider- whether we regard Russia as a customer of ours or as a rival; because if we fail to enter into arrangements with Russia at the present time we may easily find her our competitor, and if it should prove that state enterprise is more economical than private enterprise, as I believe the hon. member for North Bruce suggested, we might encounter great difficulties in our wheat-producing industry in the near future. To continue:
Soviet Russia has been able, without popular outcry, for the past two years entirely to suspend its unemployment benefit simply because the government can and does find places at trade union rates of wages, either in productive work or in technical training, for every applicant.
There again the question is raised whether that would be unfair competition. We have in this country some 800,000 persons now under relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but the 800,000 are men, women and children.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, and I suppose there are some 750,000 altogether who are unemployed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, nonsense.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, 750,000 unemployed. Take the figures shown by the census returns, add the proportion which have come in since the figures were compiled, take into consideration the fact that nearly 200,000 young people have entered the labour market since that time, of whom only a very small proportion have been absorbed; take into account the fact that the census figures do not include the young people who had not yet had jobs and so were not out of a job or, on the other hand, those who have been working for themselves but whose business had gone down-* I think if hon. gentlemen will take the trouble to make a careful estimate they will find that my figure of 750,000 is conservative. If we have 750,000 unemployed and should choose to put them at productive work, paying them out of the state treasury, we might then be in a position to export more goods. If so, some will say that that would be guilty of unfair competition. It might be unfair in one sense, but unfair only from the standpoint of those who believe firmly in private enterprise. It certainly would not be unfair to the state or to the people who are unemployed. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man) suggests that it would not be unfair to those people who have to pay the taxes. Sidney Webb goes on to say:
Perhaps this may not be unconnected with the curious fact that the Soviet government
(central and local) is this year spending on the education of its far-flung population of
160.000.	000 actually a larger sum per head than the British government is spending on its
45.000.	000.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not think this is relevant.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The state of unemployment in Russia does not interest this committee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am trying to show that there is great difficulty in deciding what is fair and what is unfair competition. I have been pointing out that under state enterprise huge sums may be spent upon education, upon cultural opportunities for the masses and upon a great variety of other things, but when it comes to one particular item which may be produced at a lower cost than under private competition, the sale of that article when exported is considered to be unfair competition. In order to deal intelligently with the whole question you have to consider all the surroundings.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The statistics concerning unemployment in Russia and Great Britain would not seem to cast any light upon this article or be relevant to the question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think that they do. I should like to read another paragraph from Sidney Webb as follows:
The essential novelty in economic organization which Soviet Russia, alone among nations, has adopted, is that, from one end of industry to the other, no profitmaker puts a finger in the pie, and no rentier levies his tribute in return for allowing the land and capital to be used.
If we must produce at such great cost because of the heavy tribute which private industry levies upon our production, then I submit that there is no great unfairness in a country cutting out the middleman, cutting out the tribute and producing as nearly as possible at cost. Sidney Webb continues:
The object and purpose of Soviet industry is never pecuniary profit for the proprietor, but always to supply the nation with the largest possible output, of the best possible quality. This is the first great difference in industry between Soviet Russia and the rest of the world. The second is that production and distribution is not left to be decided by the whim or caprice of landlords; or by the calculation as to the likelihood of profit by hundreds of thousands of separate capitalists, or by their managers or their bankers; or even by the
10,000	official factory managers on behalf of the state, but is made the subject of a deliberate, nation-wide planning as to what is best, not for any particular citizen or section of citizens but for the whole community, present and future.
1400	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
If that is a fair statement of the situation in Russia it does not seem to me to be possible to say that the goods there produced are produced under unfair conditions. It has been claimed that Russia is dumping these goods at below cost and for that reason is not able to build up her reserves-forced sales, as it were. My last quotation from Sidney Webb is as follows:
Soviet Russia is year by year diverting from consumption by the present generation of consumers, at least a quarter of what its workers are producing, in order that the consumers in future years may reap the benefit in an assured higher standard of life.
That is a much larger proportion given to capital expenditure than prevails in any other country. Russia is putting aside those reserves, she is adding that much to capital, and any country adding to capital at that rate surely cannot be said to be producing its goods under unfair conditions.
It seems to me that we ought not to take action here which would place us in the position of advocating the perpetuation of our system of private competition, under which we are suffering from such tremendous depression at the present time and under which so many of our people are on the verge of starvation, when there is another system being tried out and from which we could derive some knowledge as to how conditions might be improved in this country. I do not defend everything that is being done in Russia, but I do say that an experiment is being worked out there which is worthy of our consideration. We might very well place ourselves in such relationship to Russia that she might send us some of her surplus goods which we need, and that we might in return export some of our capital goods which she needs at the present time. I think such a transaction would be beneficial to both of us. As it is to-day, we are deliberately setting out to make trade war upon any country that proposes to carry on state enterprises to a greater extent than we ourselves, at the present moment, are prepared to undertake.
Article 21 agreed to.
On article 22:
This agreement between His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's government in Canada is to be regarded as coming into effect as from the date hereof (subject to the necessary legislative or other action being taken as soon as may be practicable hereafter). It shall remain in force for a period of five years, and if not denounced six months before the end of that period shall continue in force thereafter until a date six months after notice of denuniciation has been given by either party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is
important to repeat what has been said with respect to the effect of this particular article. It differs from most of the articles that usually appear in agreements in that it seeks not only to impose additional taxation but to fix that taxation at a certain level over a period of five years. That, as has frequently been said, is a violation of fundamental principle of the control of the commons over taxation. My right hon. friend has been fond of quoting from time to time the Procedure of the House of Commons by Redlich, and I should like to quote for his benefit as well as that of the committee what Redlich has to say on page 126 of volume 3 of that work under the title of "Fundamental principles" :
With a view to maintaining parliamentary control over taxation from year to year, a constitutional practice has been established whereby at least one important customs duty and at least one important direct tax are made subject to annual renewal. Accordingly, whether the financial arrangements of any given year require the imposition of additional taxation or not, an act must be passed every year to continue these expiring imposts; and when the Finance bill, in which such renewal is proposed, is before the house it is competent for any member to raise the question, not only of the renewal of the particular imposts in question, but of the continuance of any other duty or tax, whatever may be the statutory time limit, if any, prescribed for it.
He goes on to say:
For many years the tea duty and the income tax have for this purpose been imposed year by year for one year only.
And elsewhere he says:
Apart, therefore, from the special cases of the tea duty and the income tax, it may be said that the presence or absence of a specific time limit in the act imposing a duty or tax has little practical importance, except as affording an indication of the intention of parliament at the time it was imposed.
I do not imagine my right hon. friend will take exception to that statement of the position by Redlich. It serves to emphasize how careful the British parliament has been to see that even with respect to duties which it is proposed to have maintained for a period of years, that the commons should assert its right to revise the entire schedule at any time that parliament might desire so to do by bringing up at least one item for discussion every session. Undoubtedly the intention of hon. gentlemen opposite is to have these duties continue for a period of five years. The intention, so far as 'this side of the house is concerned, is to preserve fiscal freedom in the matter of imposition of taxa-

United, Kingdom
tion, whether that be in the form of customs duties or in any other form, and to resist as strongly as we can anything that will seek to make permanent any rate of customs duty or to give rigidity or fixity to the customs schedule.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the right hon. gentleman is not serious in what he has been saying.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why does my right hon. friend say that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have a high regard for my right hon. friend's intelligence, wide experience and great knowledge, but when he stands in this committee and makes a statement such as he has just made with respect to taxation, I wonder whether he thinks the house has no memory. I wonder whether my right hon. friend realizes, for instance, that the Czechoslovakian treaty is for four years, and it touched every item of imports from that country. The treaty which Cobden made with France was for ten years. Our treaty with the West Indies was for twelve years. Our treaty with France, lasted nine. Similar consideration applied to treaties with Belgium and Italy.
These are the fundamental principles which I think we must remember: First, we have negotiated an agreement with the United Kingdom; second, the agreement is based upon the application of the principle of tariff preferences, free entry being accorded to the British Empire and a tariff being imposed against those who are not within the empire. The preference is the difference between free entry and the duties which run as high as 33i per cent. Then comes the question as to how long this agreement shall endure. A channel of trade thus created can be developed only within a reasonable time, and I suggest to my right hon. friend that he convert his former Minister of Justice before he tries to convert the rest of Canada and the house; for that hon. gentleman made it quite clear the other day that he realized there must be time with respect to the development of a channel of trade and that time is all important. The question how long might well be the subject of differences of opinion, but that there must be a reasonable time is clear. We have fixed it at five years. This is not taxation in the sense in which Redlich is using the term in the citation my right hon. friend made from him, but it is an effort by tariffs to provide for preference to Great Britain and the dominions.
Just one word more need be said, and that is all I shall have to say about the matter.
We believe these principles upon which we are proceeding are sound, and until this debate was precipitated I thought that all parties were desirous of granting these preferences. My right hon. friend says: We do not believe in a certain fixed tenure. If you apply the principle of landlord and tenant, he does not believe in a fixed rent for a certain period. I say that his government did the same thing. This very day I had to consider, because, my attention had been directed to it, the Czechoslovakian treaty, its date of expiry, four years from the day it was made, and what our rights were under it. What is the difference between the right hon. gentleman making a bargain with Czechoslovakia for four years and our making one with our kinsmen for five? That is the real point. I do not desire to be captious, but I do not think any principle is involved. This house was asked to agree and did agree to the right hon. gentleman's suggestion to adopt that treaty with Czechoslovakia and I am merely suggesting a period of five years with Great Britain is not different in principle from a period of four years with Czechoslovakia.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No one knows better than my right hon. friend that there are agreements and agreements, and that the scope, the terms and provisions of an agreement have everything to do with its general acceptability. The intention of parliament is usually made clear during a discussion of these matters. My right hon. friend talks about an agreement with Czechoslovakia, I venture to say that when that agreement was put through, the point that that agreement should not extend for the term of years it was stated it would extend was not so much as raised by the opposition of the day, the simple reason being that the agreement did not attempt to impose additional burdens of taxation on Canada over a period of years. What I wish to make clear at the moment is this: While the government may have one intention in this matter of the customs duties being fixed by this agreement, certainly, so far as the Liberal party is concerned, it has quite an opposite intention with respect to making permanent any increase in customs tariff at this time. It is just as well that should be made quite clear. There is a great difference again between agreements that are made for a period of years but which can be ended at any time upon so many months' notice, or agreements that affect a very small number of items in a customs tariff, and agreements such as the present one which under the guise of an agreement is in reality an upward tariff revision on a large scale. Our opposition to

1402	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
this agreement is that while it purports to be an agreement to further trade between Canada and Great Britain, it is in reality a means of increasing the Canadian customs tariff by a subterfuge, and one which we do not propose to countenance for one minute. It is an attempt to do something in the nature of an innovation in tariff matters which is being very strongly resisted in other free parliaments at the present time and which we intend to resist as long as we can in this, namely, an endeavour to institute permanent or fixed tariffs and that on a very high level.
May I point this out, that never before, so far as I can recall, in the history of this parliament, has an effort been made to do away with the benefits of an intermediate tariff. The tariff policy of Canada has for years contemplated three distinct tariffs, namely, the British preferential tariff at one level, the intermediate at another, and the general at another. The idea has been that through the intermediate tariff Canada would have an opportunity to make agreements with other countries, giving them certain favourable opportunities in our markets when they were prepared to give us like opportunities in theirs. That is now being destroyed by the way in which the present tariff, under schedule E, has been framed. As has been pointed out over and over again in committee, the agreement raises the intermediate tariff to the level of the general tariff, thereby doing away for the next five years with any advantage which might have been offered to a foreign country prepared to make an agreement with Canada. Hon. members on this side of the house are ready and anxious to trade with Great Britain as far as possible. We also desire, however, to trade with the rest of the world. The mere diversion of trade will not help to bring Canada out of a period of depression such as that from which she is now suffering. There will have to be an increase in the volume of trade, and that increase will have to be obtained not only through trade with Great Britain but through trade with the rest of the world as well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not wish to take up the time of the committee further than to repeat a view expressed by Mr. Runciman in the English House of Commons. The right hon. gentleman opposite says: "We desire to trade with Great Britain." If by that he means we desire to have a trade treaty with Great Britain, then he must mean a contract. Every contract with respect to trade imposes some restriction upon the freedom of action of both parties concerned. As Mr. Runciman pointed out, there cannot be a contract be-

tween parties which does not involve some restriction on our free will and general actions. If it is a contract for service, one must carry it out. If it is a contract to sell goods, one cannot sell them to someone else. Restrictions are clear and implied. But this is the point I wish to make: Is a contract for five years bad when one for four years is good? The right hon. gentleman suggests the answer is that the present agreement involves heavy taxation upon the Canadian people. What about the West Indies treaty? That treaty was for twelve years, not five, and imposed a taxation upon the Canadian people of $5,000,000 a year. We cannot relieve ourselves of that treaty, because it is there and we are not free. Why does the right hon. gentleman opposite condemn the treaty now before us when it is only for five years, when as the leader of a former administration he was the author of a treaty with the West Indies for twelve years which cost Canada $5,000,000 a year? The Czechoslovakian treaty, which is set out at page 234 of the consolidated copy of the Customs Tariff and Amendments was made for the purpose of securing certain benefits for Canada which, I am sorry to say, probably through no fault of the government, did not eventuate. Article 6 of the Czechoslovakian agreement states in part, as follows:
It shall come into force fifteen days after the exchange of ratifications and shall be binding upon the contracting parties during four years from the date of its coming into force.
Those are the provisions, and it seems to me under the present circumstances we are not asking too much, having at one time given assent to a treaty with our neighbours in the West Indies for a period of twelve years which involves us, in connection with the commodity of sugar, in taxation to the extent of about $5,000,000 a year, and having at another time entered into an agreement with Czechoslovakia for a treaty for four years-in the light of these facts it does not seem to me that we are asking too much when we ask for concurrence in a contract for five years with our kinsmen across the sea, comprising some 40,000,000 people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is true an
agreement was made, as the Prime Minister has said, with our kinsmen in the West Indies. My recollection however is that no exception was taken by him or other hon. gentlemen opposite at the time to the provisions of the agreements and in particular to the time for which it was to run.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not here at the
time.

United Kingdom


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All parties in the house were in agreement. That is a very different matter from an effort to bind subsequent parliaments on a matter in connection with which there are between the political parties fundamental differences of opinion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A few minutes ago the
right hon. gentleman opposite said that he objected as a matter of principle.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There can be no question as to carrying out anything for a term of years where all are in agreement. But, in this House of Commons at the present time there is a very distinct difference of view as to the merits of the agreement. Hon. members opposite think they have done something which is very much in the interests of Canada. Hon. members on this side feel that the agreement they have made will be detrimental to Canada. I believe we shall find that before it has been in force very long conditions which are now very bad will be intensified in virtue of the additional restrictions being placed upon trade by the agreement now before us.
I do not know that there is anything further to add; I think the position of hon. members on this side of the house has been made clear. The Prime Minister spoke about an agreement made by Great Britain with France. As he well knows, that was a treaty to increase freedom of trade not only between France and Great Britain but between all the countries of the world and Great Britain. In that treaty the same opportunities were given to other countries as were given to Great Britain. The agreement now before us seeks to deny to the world at large opportunities of trade and, as the Prime Minister himself has said, to make it necessary for every foreign country to pay tribute to any part of the British empire it wishes to trade with. He has said this is an agreement framed for the purpose of shutting out the foreigner. Certainly that is what it is for, as the text of it well discloses. Hon. members on this side of the house are certainly not going to become parties to an agreement which places on Canada an obligation to shut out other nations from trading with her.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall take only a
moment to reply to the right hon. leader of the opposition. I wish to be sure that the house and country clearly understands the principle upheld by him. A treaty for four years between a foreign country and Canada is submitted to this house, a treaty signed, as I observe, by the former Minister of Trade
and Commerce. A treaty between the West Indies and the Dominion of Canada, part of the British Empire, is made for a period of twelve years by gentlemen who are now in the opposition, and approved by the then opposition, now the government. But when the government now in power submits a treaty with the motherland for five years rather than twelve or four, the present opposition, then the government, must oppose it as being bad in principle. We are asked to believe that position is sound. Hon. members opposite suggest that having supported a four year and a twelve year treaty they cannot now support a five year treaty, because we are led to believe that the right hon. gentleman opposite who asked the house to accept the four year and twelve year treaties was wrong, and that therefore this treaty is wrong. You cannot trust an opposition very far, if it is an opposition of that kind, can you?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not going to allow the Prime Minister to place any such interpretation upon my words. Any one who will read the text of my remarks will see that he has placed an entirely wrong construction upon them. I am quite prepared to leave it at that. As the right hon. gentleman well knows my objection to the length of time for which the government is seeking to bind this country has been in respect to something which, fundamentally, is entirely wrong, namely, a further increase of duties at this time in addition to all the duties which have already been imposed and further an attempt in large part to rivet these higher rates upon the country for the next five years.


James Layton Ralston: The treaties to which my right hon. friend has referred were treaties which provided generous and assured preferences, and as such they were agreed to. I want for a moment, in connection with this article, to point out to the committee just what we have and what we have not in the way of assurance of preferences under this treaty. To what does this five years apply? What preferences do we get, and how many of these are unequivocally and unconditionally guaranteed for five years? First my right hon. friend says that we get free entry of our goods into the British market for five years. Well and good. There is nothing to say that every other country in the world does not get free entry also, except as to the few items to which I will refer. So I think we can leave the free entry out. I do not think my right hon. friend would argue that we have received
1404	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
a great concession on account of getting free entry, in view of the privilege of every other country to get free entry as well.
What else do we get? We get schedule C. Therein are listed six items on which there is a guarantee of unconditional, unequivocal preference for five years. That is to say, Great Britain undertakes that the duties on those six articles shall not be reduced without the consent of the Canadian government. What are those articles? Timber, fish, fresh, sea; salmon, canned; other fish, canned; asbestos; zinc; and lead. Putting them together, what they amount to is, timber, fish, fresh and canned, asbestos, zinc and lead. Now there are five articles. Let us look at these articles for a moment. Zinc and lead must be delivered at world prices before we get the preference-that leaves only timber; fish, fresh and canned; and asbestos, as the three items in this whole treaty as to which we are unconditionally guaranteed a five year preference at a certain rate, and the rate is ten per cent.
My right hon. friend will say: You are forgetting schedule B-


An hon. MEMBER:: What about apples?


James Layton Ralston: We will deal with that in a moment. Remember this schedule C, which is the only one as to which there is a guarantee that the duties will be kept up, deals only with timber, fish and asbestos, unconditionally; zinc and lead must be delivered to Great Britain at world prices or else the preference will not be allowed. Now what about schedule B? The provision of article 2 is that the government of Great Britain will invite the parliament of Great Britain to impose the duties set out in schedule B. I point out, as has been pointed out before, that there is no provision in this treaty which says that those duties having been imposed will be maintained for five years. On the contrary the provision which purports to fix the duration of duties follows after article 2; it is article 3, and it provides only that the duties in respect of schedule C are to be maintained for five years and says nothing about schedule B. Now what are the articles in schedule B? They are apples, raw and canned, pears, and dried fruits. It is provided that parliament will be invited to impose the duties mentioned in schedule B on these articles. But there are other articles, they are wheat and copper. Are they unconditional? Not a bit. You find that as to wheat and copper, the duties may be removed if they are not delivered at world prices on first sale. What other articles in schedule B? The right hon. Prime Minister

will say dairy products. Let us look and see what the provisions of the agreement are as to those. Butter, cheese, eggs in shell, and condensed milk; he will say the five years applies to those articles. But he forgets schedule A. Schedule A says that those articles, butter, cheese, eggs in shell and condensed milk, need only be admitted free for three years, and that after three years Great Britain may impose duties on those articles so long as she maintains preferential margins; and they are veiy careful to say, not "existing" or "the" preferential margin, but just "preferential margins." The Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other night that he understood that to mean that Britain would maintain the existing preferential margins. If so it is remarkable that they did not say so. You find "existing" margin expressly mentioned in article 7, but not here. As far as the letter of this agreement is concerned- I am going to deal with the spirit in a moment-there is no provision whatever that the British duties on apples, pears and dried fruits shall be maintained against the rest of the world for five years. Secondly there is no provision that British duties on butter, cheese, eggs in shell and condensed milk shall not be imposed against Canada so as practically to wipe out any preference to Canada.
That is the situation. I have dealt with every article there is in that schedule. Now what is the result of it all? After we have got through we find, coming back to what I said first, that there are just three items in this whole schedule, timber, fish and asbestos as to which this five years unconditionally and expressly applies and on which a definite preference, a definite margin of ten per cent for five years is given. And the only three items to which that five years might apply without any condition are apples, raw and canned, pears and dried fruit. Wheat and copper have the condition that they must be sold at world prices. The same with zinc and lead. And butter, cheese, eggs in shell and condensed milk, that is dairy products, all have the provision that at the end of three years the free entry may cease and we may have a duty imposed against us, so that there will be practically no preference at all. That is all there is in this treaty as far as assured preferences are concerned, and that is all to which this five years applies.
But the Prime Minister will suggest that there is something in regard to tobacco, bacon and cattle. As to tobacco, the provision is that Great Britain will maintain a preference on our tobacco as long as she maintains a duty, but she may take the duty off at any

United Kingdom
time. In regard to bacon we know what the arrangement is: if Great Britain puts its house in order, if after the report of the pig commission an arrangement is made in regard to domestic production, if regulations are made then Canada will have 2,500,000 hundredweight of bacon admitted free to Britain. But it is "as, if and when." With regard to cattle the provision says that the arrangement which has already been made-not an arrangement made by this agreement-will be carried out. That is what we get from Great Britain; those are the things for which we make certain concessions.
What are the concessions? I am only going into that for just a moment. We give a fixed preferential margin on 223 tariff items. On 159 of those items we agree that the duty will remain at least as high as it is today for the next five years, because we are giving Great Britain free entry and we are agreeing to maintain the preferential margin, which means we have to keep the duty where it stands or put it higher. On 139 of these items the duty has been increased in order to get the concessions, as my right hon. friend would call them, in connection with this treaty, namely a fixed ten per cent duty on the items to which I have referred, plus the additional concessions which I have enumerated.
My right hon. friend will say we are attempting to cross "t's" and dot "i's," and that it is too strict a construction of this agreement. There has been a good deal of talk during these debates about good faith and about the spirit of the agreement. My right hon. friend used the words "warp and woof"; he said that we would find in the warp and woof of the agreement thus and so. I say to my right hon. friend that the British businessman's word is just as good as his bond; everyone admits that-, but when you have required the bond from him, when you have got him to sign the bond, then he proposes to be bound by what the bond says and the bond is here. So far my right hon. friend has failed to produce a single sentence spoken by any statesman of Great Britain which changes or alters the construction which has been put upon this agreement from this side of the house. So far as we can learn everyone over in Great Britain believes that their tariff can be changed as to our goods going into Great Britain except the few I have mentioned. They believe that they can change the duties on these goods from time to time, if they so desire, and as a matter of fact they propose to change them. Even this tariff with regard to apples, pears and dried fruits can be changed; a newspaper article which was read the other night indicated that Great Britain
considers that she does not have to maintain these duties for five years.
That is the situation, and when we talk about good faith we must remember that the gentlemen who came over here are skilled draftsmen; they met our representatives who are skilled draftsmen also, and together they drafted the agieement. It is not just a friendly letter from one to the other; it is a real, definite, binding document intended to be such, and I have no doubt that many hours were spent over the phrasing of this document. I do not expect that it will lie either in their mouths or in ours to say, "Well, true the agreement says that, but we meant something else." Least of all will it lie in our mouths to say that Great Britain is bound to maintain tariffs against the world in our favour on a general list of goods when the only provision we have required with regard to their maintaining tariffs is contained in clause 3, which has reference only to these six items included in schedule C. On the other hand Great Britain has been just as careful; in article 9 it is definitely provided, in effect, that we cannot reduce the preferential margins given on the goods set out in schedule E, which comprise 223 items. There you have the bargain which we are considering tonight.
I had a good deal of sympathy with the Prime Minister when he suggested that it was hardly fair that he should be asked to interpret this agreement. Why? Because he knows it will be interpreted in accordance with the letter of the agreement; because he knows there will be differences in connection with the interpretation. If it were simply a friendly letter, a memorandum in general terms, then he could have dealt with the spirit of it, but this is the agreement itself. He said to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, "I have read it and you have read it; see what you make out of it." He did not attempt to suggest that there was something else in the atmosphere of the agreement which would assist in its interpretation. The agreement is there, and I think I have put on the record fairly and exactly the effect of that agreement in accordance with the way it is written. So I do not think we should say that we expect the British to live up to this agreement in "good faith" as if there were some understanding outside the agreement itself. They will live up to it in good faith; they will live up to what they have signed, and they will say that what they have signed is this agreement, and no one can blame them for doing so.
Having received these things and having given these other things, what is the result? The result is that during these five years Great Britain can go to Switzerland, if you
1406	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
like, and say, "We want to buy clocks from you." She can go to the United States and say, "We want to buy some of your electrical manufactures, and we will bring down our tariff in order to do so." They may ask, "Yes, but have you not made an agreement with Canada?" Great Britain can reply, "Yes, but we did not agree to maintain a duty against you; we can let in clocks and electrical goods from Switzerland and the United States just as we let them in from Canada." They can deal with Germany in regard to cutlery and with Belgium in regard to glass and glass bottles, to take a few of the items mentioned by the Prime Minister. They can deal with Austria in regard to optical instruments and with the Orient in regard to carpets. They can deal with France in regard to toilet articles, and so on. Their hands are absolutely free; they can go to the world economic conference and say to any countiy, "We will take your goods free," or "we will impose a tariff of five per cent or ten per cent," as the case may be.
What is our position? With regard to 223 items our position is that we can make no bargain whatever with any other countries which will interfere with the margin of preference to Britain. This is the difference between the agreement now before us and other trade treaties, to which my right hon. leader has referred. We must say to any other country, "We cannot make any agreement with regard to these items; our tariff is fixed for the next five years. Britain is free; our hands are tied. Let us take our lumbermen when they go to sell their products. The other night my right hon. friend the Prime Minister intimated that this ten per cent preference would help the lumber business of Canada. I wish it would, but I am afraid that as against Finnish lumber, because of the exchange situation, our lumber will not get into the British market. Why are we looking for a market in Great Britain? The Prime Minister told us that formerly we sent
1,446,000,000 feet of lumber to the United States, and what did he say about our market in that country? He said that because of the United States import tax of $3 per thousand that market was practically closed to Canada. Why is it closed? Because of the tariff which my right hon. friend put on in 1930 and 1931, the red-blooded tariff which was talked about by the Minister of Railways. That led to the United States putting a duty of $3 per thousand and another duty of $1 per thousand against our lumber. The result is that we are frantically scurrying around looking for a market in which we can sell our lumber.
[Mr. Ralston.1


Mr. CANTLEY:: There is nothing to that at all.


James Layton Ralston: No, I suppose there is
no relation between the two circumstances except that they happened to about synchronize. We put on the duty against the United States, and immediately the United States came back at us with a duty of $3 and SI per thousand feet, and as a result we are looking for a market for 1,446,000,000 feet of lumber. Does my right hon. friend believe a ten per cent preference is going to find a market for that amount of lumber? According to the figures he gave us the most we ever sold to Great Britain under normal conditions was 186,000,000 feet, yet he expects that we are going to be able to market this vast quantity of Canadian lumber under a ten per cent preference. The same thing applies to fish. The Prime Minister said the United States market was closed to us; he said, "The United States high tariff makes wider markets elsewhere imperative". That United States high tariff is due in no small part to the tariff attitude of this government taken in 1930 and 1931. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance knows that the United States has been seriously considering imposing a duty on our live lobsters because of the attitude we take towards that country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, I know my hon.
friends do not want to be responsible for their acts at all. They rvant to be able to shut out the foreigner; they want to close the door against the world and still be able to sell our goods everywhere. I say that cannot be done, and that is all there is to it.
That is the situation, Mr. Chairman, and that brings out the real difficulty facing us. We have tied our hands. We have lost the goodwill of good customers all over this globe. We are going to find it difficult to sell our wheat in competition with the man from the Argentine. He can go to the man in Europe and say, "Are you going to buy wheat from Canada? That is the country where they are shutting out the foreigner. We will give you a run for your money, but you cannot get Canada to take any commodities in exchange for their wheat. They are shutting out foreign products." With regard to our paper and wood products we must face competition in the United States market from Scandinavia. They will be able to tell their customers that we are the people who want to shut out

Unemployment-Mr. Heaps
foreign produets. The same thing applies to cattle, to furs and to minerals. Here are two important objections to this agreement. In the first place it ties our hands completely in regard to any arrangements we might wish to make in order to sell our goods. In the second plaoe it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of our customers and loses to us their goodwill.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the analysis I have made of the schedules contained in this treaty indicates that this five year provision means that we do all the giving for five years and get very little in the way of benefits. As my right hon. leader has said, we have used the United Kingdom agreement in order to tie ourselves definitely to a tariff higher than we ever had before, at the same time closing the markets of the world to us because we insist on closing our markets to the products of other countries.
Article 22 agreed fo.
On article 23:
In the event of circumstances arising which, in the judgment of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or of His Majesty's government in Canada, as the case may he, necessitate a variation in the terms of the agreement, the proposal to vary those terms shall form the subject of consultation between the two governments.
Signed on behalf of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom:-
Neville Chamberlain.
Signed on behalf of His Majesty's government in Canada:

*
R. B. Bennett.

20th August, 1932.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Prime Minister whether this article really concedes anything more than would be conceded if it did not appear in the agreement at all?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The fact is that the British advisers were of the opinion that, having regard to their experience, some such clause as this would serve a very useful purpose. The general legal principle is that where two parties to a contract agree to any variation or change, that variation or change may be made by reason of that agreement. This merely crystallizes in the form of an article in the agreement what would be an ordinary principle of law.
Article 23 agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to on division.
Bill reported.



WAYS AND MEANS-UNEMPLOYMENT PROPOSED COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION TO CONSIDER ECONOMIC SITUATION

Richard Bedford Bennett: That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire as a member of this house to direct attention to certain grievances and to ask redress from the government. We have now been in session about seven weeks, discussing important matters arising out of the Imperial economic conference. It is not my wish in any way to belittle the importance of that conference or to dispute the value of the agreements that have been arrived at and the discussion that has taken place thereon, but I do believe that there is at the present time something that is of far greater importance to this country, something that is agitating the minds of the people of Canada to a greater degree now than even these agreements which have been under consideration from the 6th day of October to the present moment.
We are going through a very severe economic crisis, the effects of which are being felt by all sections of the community, and in my opinion the house would better serve the interests of the people by discussing the economic conditions that prevail in this country than by engaging in such discussions as we have had during the past few weeks. In the course of the debate this evening the question of unemployment arose and figures were submitted to the house by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), who made the statement that in Canada at this moment there are about three-quarters of a million persons out of work. From that statement there was a certain amount of dissent. I have attempted to analyse the figures given to the house recently by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) from the census returns and by every ordinary mathematical calculation I have made to arrive at the number of persons unemployed in Canada today, I have reached approximately the same figure as stated by my colleague. In view of the fact that some hon. members seem to dispute the figures given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, perhaps it might be well for me to suggest the method I have followed in my computation.
It is stated in the census returns that as at June 1, 1931, there were 392,809 persons unem-
Unemployment-Mr. Heaps

ployed in Canada. That was the total number. In addition to that, there was a temporary army of unemployed of 42,443, making a grand total of 435,252. Now, if that was the total as at June 1, 1931, how are we to arrive at the unemployment figure today? This is the way in which I arrived at the present figure. If I take the employment index figure as at September 1, 1929, which was the peak of employment in Canada, I find that it was 126-8, and on June 1, 1931, the index figure was down to 103-6. That meant, by percentages, that there was a reduction in employment in that period of approximately 18 per cent. If 18 per cent represents the difference between the index figures on September 1, 1929, and June 1, 1931, the question is, how shall we arrive at the figure at the present time? About September 1, 1929, there may have been out of work in Canada approximately 35,252 persons, and if at that time there were that number out of work, then there has been an increase of 400,000 between that date in 1929 and June 1, 1931. Now, between June 1, 1931, and October 1, 1932, the index figure of employment has dropped to 86-7, which means a further reduction of 16 per cent. If 18 per cent represents 400,000 unemployed, then an additional reduction of 16 per cent would bring the total number of unemployed to approximately 750,000.
I am not stating these figures in order to make capital out of them but simply in order that we may have the facts clearly before us; it will then be easier for us to adopt a more intelligent attitude towards this question than has been adopted for a number of years past.
I hope the party flavour will not be permitted to enter into this discussion. When oa-rty passions rise we are apt to lose sight x the importance of the matter under consideration, and at times we indulge in the sport of one party getting after the other. This is probably the most serious unemployment situation ever faced by this country, and I hope hon. gentlemen will not forget the vast number of unemployed and those who are dependent upon them.
As I have stated, the unemployed number about 750,000. The census figures show an employable total of 2,500,000, so it would appear that more than twenty-five per cent of our total employable population is without employment. If we discuss the past, I hope we will discuss it in such a way as to be a guide to our future actions. If we learn from experience, we should be better equipped to guide ourselves in what we may do for the 
future. There have been many discussions in this house in the past upon unemployment. Going back to 1925, when I was first elected to this house, I cannot remember a session when I did not raise this problem in one way or another. Therefore, I do not feel that I need to apologize, especially under present conditions, for raising this question and asking redress from the government.
It has been stated in some quarters that this problem is of a temporary character. But it has been confronting us ever since the crash and debacle of 1929; from that time onward things have been going from bad to worse until today we have reached a situation where no one can predict what will happen in the immediate future. When a condition such as this has prevailed for about three years, I do not think anyone will be bold enough to say it is temporary in character. Prosperity has been promised to us for many years, but it seems to be as far away as ever. We have been told it is "just around the corner," that we have "reached the bottom," that there are "signs of a revival," but I do not think these statements are taken seriously now by many people in the dominion.
The government has attempted to deal with this problem; only the other day the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), informed the house that there were 800,000 souls being fed by the government. That is a stupendous number, about eight per cent of our total population, yet it does not take into consideration those who are being looked after through other sources. The old manner of dealing with the unemployment problem apparently has proved to be inadequate. We have failed to find a solution of the problem; we have failed to improve conditions, and I think it is about time we looked in other directions for relief. As one branch of parliament we have great responsibilities which cannot be overlooked, even though some would like to overlook them. The people of this country are looking to parliament for redress; they have elected us as members of the House of Commons in the hope that we may be able to improve conditions. I have no doubt that every hon. member of this house said something about unemployment when he stood for election a little over two years ago. He promised he would try to bring about better and improved conditions for those whom he hoped to represent in this house. If the unemployed of this country cannot look to parliament for redress, I wonder in which direction they will look? In my humble opinion this parliament is the only place where the vast masses of our people

Unemployment-Mr. Heaps
can look to for redress at the present time. We were sent to this house by the votes of human beings, we are here to represent human beings more than we are here to represent property rights or property interests. When we deal with questions so important as unemployment, the human element should receive our first consideration.
As a nation I believe we are today wealthier than ever before in our history, yet, paradoxical as it may seem, in this year 1932, the more bread we have, the more breadlines there are; the more shoes we produce, the more shoeless there are; the more clothes we manufacture, the more there are without clothes; the more homes we build, the more there are looking for shelter; the more wealth we produce, the greater is the poverty. If such conditions exist, then it is up to parliament to study these problems, perhaps from a different angle than that from which they have been studied in the past, and discuss them in the light of newer methods than have been adopted in the past in Canada and other parts of the world.
I think the people of this generation have more understanding. They have a little more education than our fathers or those who have gone before us, and they see the things to which I have just referred. They see this tremendous abundance accompanied by great poverty. This unemployment problem is one which this parliament ought not to attempt to shelve; it is a problem which should be dealt with and this parliament should not adjourn until it has been dealt with.
Even with this tremendous accumulation of wealth and commodities, because of the lack of opportunity to the average person in this country to have access to this consumable wealth, our workshops are more or less at a standstill and men and women in large numbers are out of employment. Not only are there large numbers out of employment but there are hundreds of thousands of people who are today working short time and earning hardly sufficient to keep body and soul together. We have idle men, idle women and idle factories as well as a tremendous amount of consumable goods lying idle in our warehouses. It would appear that industry and finance under their private ownership have failed completely to function and have been responsible for bringing about the present crisis. I think it is the duty of parliament to attempt at least to find a way out of the difficulties which confront us. The financial debacle of recent year's has not affected our wealth one iota. It is quite true that paper fortunes have disappeared; that people who a few years ago thought they
were wealthy find today that they may not be as wealthy as they thought they were; but that does not mean that the real wealth of the country has disappeared from our midst. The real wealth of the country lies in our factories, workshops, warehouses and natural resources. It is only when those natural resources have applied to them the labour power of the people that real wealth is produced, and today we have that in abundance. We have more up-to-date equipment in our factories than we have ever had before in our history, but at the present time, as a result of the chaotic conditions through which we are passing, we are not producing anything for the benefit of the great masses of the people.
I might cite as an example of what I have just stated to the house a case which occurs to my mind. I refer to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I am citing that, not because I have anything in particular against that institution, but because it comes to my mind at the moment. A few years ago the shares of that company reached a value of something like $250 each, and at that time the people who owned them thought they possessed a great deal of wealth. Those shares have dropped to about S60-I am speaking approximately-and those who thought they were wealthy found the largest part of their wealth had disappeared; what they thought was worth S250 is worth today only about $60. No real wealth however has disappeared; the only thing that disappeared was the value oi those shares, and it did so because the. railway was not utilized to the same extent as it was in previous years and is not able to pay the dividends it formerly did. But in spite of the fact that the shares may be only a quarter of what they were previously, the whole of the rolling stock, equipment, roadbed, hotels, steamships, are here today exactly as they were a few years ago. What applies to the Canadian Pacific applies to practically every other industrial concern in the dominion. What has disappeared, to a very large extent, is values, but the wealth of the country is present today-in probably greater abundance -than it has ever been before in our history.
If our industries are not functioning-and we know they are not-one of the duties of parliament should be at least to attempt to see that they function and that the men who were formerly employed in them are again employed and given an opportunity of earning a decent livelihood. For many years all these industries which have been under private ownership and control have to a certain degree been able to accumulate profits; they have
Unemployment-Mr. Heaps

continued to operate as long as profits were in sight, but the moment profits are not available, those industries naturally cease to function. Then the question immediately occurs to my mind: What should be the purpose of industry? In my opinion the purpose of industry should be primarily to satisfy the wants of the human beings within the community. But such is not the case. Today the primary purpose of industry is not to supply the needs of the human beings in the community, but to see that those who own the industries reap their rewards and profit from them.
There is no doubt that at the present time we are facing an acute economic crisis. This is not the first time in the history of Canada that we have faced a crisis. My mind goes back to the time of the war when we were facing a very severe external crisis, and when the government of the day mobilized, so far as it could, the man power of the country and found that under the circumstances it had the right to call upon human beings to give their lives, if need be, in coming to the rescue of the state. If in a time of crisis the life of a human being is not too sacred for the government to lay hands upon, I think we can at least afford to take courageous action in the present circumstances, and even if we go to the extent of doing something which might impair property rights, we would be quite justified in taking such steps. I believe the present emergency is in many respects even greater than that of 1914. We have today not an external crisis, but an internal one where three-quarters of a million people find themselves without employment and, what is even worse, without any prospect in the immediate future of their being absorbed into any kind of industry. I want the house for a moment to attempt to realize what that means-three-quarters of a million people, men and women, tramping the streets day in and day out, week in and week out, looking for a job when there is no job, and then perhaps after a time, against their will, being compelled to seek public assistance in order to keep body and soul together 1 I know many of those men who are out of work; I know the difficulty and the tremendous ordeal it must be for them, probably for the first time in their lives, to be compelled to go to a public body and ask for assistance. The first time it is done with extreme reluctance; the second time is not so hard as the first; the third is not so hard as the second and the fourth is even easier than the third. Finally they reach a stage where we ourselves, as a result of our inaction in this internal crisis, have de-
moralized perhaps hundreds of thousands of our own people. I should like to impress upon the house the seriousness of that aspect of the situation-hundreds of thousands of people in this dominion, so rich in its resources and wealth, with no hope or prospect of being able to accomplish anything in the immediate future in the way of earning their own livelihood.
We have been told many a time in this house about the courage and fortitude of our Canadian people. I wish a little courage could be shown in this house and that we would take courageous action in order to meet the existing crisis. Parliament has a duty; it also has certain functions. I believe the first function of parliament is to govern, and the second is to see that our people are fed, clothed and sheltered. I am not going to say how the latter function is to be fulfilled, but I believe these are two of the main functions of government. The state is supposed to be the guardian of public rights and public wellbeing. If we at this juncture in our history admit our impotence to deal with the present economic situation, then this is an admission of our total unfitness and inability to govern. Parliament in its supremacy has allowed institutions to grow up that are more powerful than parliament itself. It is high time that parliament, having over a period of years allowed those institutions to grow up and become as powerful as they are today, should re-assert its supremacy and be what it ought to be, the sovereign body in the land.
During the past fifteen or twenty years production in Canada as well as in other parts of the world has increased by leaps and bounds. One would have thought that with the enormous increase in production during the last fifteen or twenty years there would have been increased happiness and increased contentment among the great masses of people. Unfortunately that has not been so. Increased production has merely meant an increased spread between wages and production, and the benefit of it has gone to comparatively few people in Canada.
For a few moments I should like to direct my remarks to production, consumption and wages. Statistics show that during the past few years the average production of a person in employment has increased approximately 50 per cent; in other words every person working in industries over a period of fifteen years has shown an increase in his productive capacity or efficiency of approximately fifty per cent. During that same period wages have increased comparatively little, and the whole advantage from increased productivity has

Unemployment-Mr. Heaps
gone to comparatively few people. It has also been shown that wages today in relation to production are only about twenty-five per cent; in other words, I think our statistics show that a person receiving $1,000 per year in wages is producing $4,000 worth of commodities. I claim therefore that unless that spread between wages and production is narrowed down, made much smaller than it is, there is no hope of solving the problem of unemployment, because the money received by a person in wages represents his purchasing power. If he can buy back only one-quarter of that which he produces there is bound to be an accumulation of commodities which will not be consumed, and the greater the accumulation the greater ultimately is the problem of unemployment.
When I refer to production and wages, and say that I ivant to narrow down the spread, I do not wish hon. members to think that I would narrow it down by reducing production. First of all, I wish to see real wages increased. Secondly, I wish to see production kept at a high level, because I still believe the more capital goods we can produce, the more consumable goods we can produce, the better it should be for all concerned. I do say, however, that there ought to be a reasonable level between production and consumption, otherwise we shall continue to be faced with problems with which we are confronted today. I do not wish to cut down production; far from it. I want to increase consumption. Some people in recent months have advocated cutting down production. I am opposed to cutting down in any way our productive capacity; on the contrary I should prefer to begin at the other end of the problem and make an effort to increase the consumptive opportunities of the Canadian people. Therefore when I speak of balanced production, or reasonably balanced production and consumption, I imply an opportunity to increase our consumption to an extent much greater than obtains at the present time.
At this point I am pleased to observe that in recent weeks the Prime Minister himself has been discussing the matter from a very different angle than usual. It would seem that recently his views are changed from those he held in past years. I note that on November 4 the right hon. gentleman spoke in the city of Montreal and discussed briefly the problem of unemployment. The heading in the Montread Star is as follows:
Accusations answered in fighting speech here.
Then follow the Prime Minister's remarks:
The cataclysm that has struck our civilization is a catastrophe of a universal scale, it has touched every country in the world and the
hundreds of thousands and millions of unemployed that we find in every part of the world are the direct result of overproduction, underdistribution and buying, the lessening of purchasing power and the development of all those tendencies that are attributable to the Great war and its after effects.
I must congratulate the Prime Minister on the great advance he has made, and I hope he will continue to show the same progress in the future as is reflected in his speech delivered in Montreal. However there are some further comments attributed to him about which I am not so enthusiastic. He said:
When that was once realized, we then understood clearly that no action of Canada with its
10,000,000 souls could make any perceptible dint on this terrible catastrophe.
That was also part of the Prime Minister's statement concerning the problem of unemployment, but with this latter assertion I cannot agree. True, we are suffering from a world condition; true, again, people in Canada are no doubt suffering in part, from conditions prevailing in other parts of the world. But if we have in Canada hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat, and if the people in China, Japan or other parts of the world cannot buy our wheat, that is no excuse for people within our own borders being without bread. If we have a surplus of all commodities and people in other parts of the world are unable to consume those commodities, that is no reason why our Canadian people should do without the things produced within the dominion. If other countries cannot buy our goods, at least we should put that purchasing power into the hands of our own people and give them the opportunity to buy the things which we are producing in superabundance.
The crisis through which we are passing has not been visited upon us by some supernatural force. This is a man-made crisis, and if it is man-made, if we are in some degree responsible, I think there should be, and I have no doubt there is, sufficient intelligence among our own people to enable us to get out of it. This government and other governments have made efforts to deal with the unemployment problem. A good many remedies have been tried. The present government has put into effect a great deal of legislation designed to meet an emergent situation. I state frankly that the government has done a great deal by way of direct relief and creating relief works but relief and relief works are not a cure for unemployment.
I do not wish to take up too much time of the house, but I should like to deal with one or two aspects of the question of unemployment. First, there are the men, women and children who are without any visible means
Unemployment-Mr. Heaps

of subsistence at the present time, and to whom immediate attention must be given. In connection with them there is a necessity for direct relief pure and simple. For their comfort the government have done a great deal, but its activities have been purely administrative. If the amount of relief is not sufficient-and many people say it is not- then we are faced with a question of administrative action to raise the amount of relief sufficient to meet the needs of the unemployed. At the moment, however, I am more deeply concerned with the problem of unemployment than in the relief of the unemployed. I think I am not limited, Mr. Speaker, to forty minutes on this occasion, as I intend to move an amendment which will perhaps give me the extra time that I desire. A few moments ago I said I wanted the house to take courageous aetion on this question of unemployment. I know the amendment I am about to move will not at first sight look so very courageous, 'but I think that before we take action we should at least have more information before us, and under the circumstances I would hardly expect the whole house to sit and discuss in detail this very important question. Therefore I think it desirable to have a committee or commission go into this question of unemployment in the most thorough way possible, and my amendment will deal with the question of the appointment of such a committee or commission. Then I will deal with what I should like to be the terms of reference to such body. I therefore move the following amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted:
That in the opinion of this house it is desirable that a committee or commission be appointed to consider the economic situation in the dominion with special reference to unemployment and to report back during the present session of parliament.
I have said that in dealing with this unemployment question we have tried the method of relief, we have tried public works, and neither of these has been found to be a remedy for the situation. We have tried tariffs, and tariffs have not solved the problem. We have tried reductions in wages, and that has only accentuated the problem. We have tried dismissing men and women from employment, and our lead was followed by a great many other people, but that again has only aggravated the problem and in no way tended towards a solution. In Great Britain, where they are faced with a somewhat similar situation, they thought a year or so ago that their solution lay in remaining on the gold standard. Then when they went off the gold

standard they thought that by doing so their problem would be solved. But neither remaining on nor going off the gold standard has proved to be a solution. In view of all the efforts made in this parliament and in other countries, I think it is obvious that there is something radically wrong with the whole of our economic structure, that the conditions which have existed for three years will not yield to the methods which have been adopted by this and other governments. Therefore I claim that it is the duty of this- parliament to attempt to find a way out of the difficulty. Many men and women today are expressing keen dissatisfaction with the existing order of things. They feel that perhaps we have to look for a new social order to provide the way out. For these reasons I ask that this matter be referred to a committee or commission for investigation.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: What is your suggestion for the cure of unemployment?


Abraham Albert Heaps: My hon. friend has heard
me speak in this house on many occasions and I have put forward many a time my own *method of dealing with this question. If I had not moved this amendment I would have been very happy to deal more exhaustively with what I would suggest as a way out. In putting my amendment, which is seconded by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) I would like to refer to that committee or commission eight items which I suggest should be the terms of reference.
First, I would like it to consider ways and means of eliminating unemployment-a rather tall order, I admit. Second, I would like it to consider the question of jurisdiction as between federal and provincial governments; third, seasonal unemployment; fourth, technological unemployment; fifth, reduction of hours of labour; sixth, increase of real wages; seventh, annual productive capacity and consumption in relation thereto, and also the potential productive capacity of the Dominion, of Canada; and eighth, the spread between wages and production.
I do not know whether at any previous time this House of Commons has ever appointed a committee or commission to consider questions of the kind to which I have just referred. I know that in 1919 a commission was appointed by this parliament that dealt with the internal unrest. They made an exhaustive investigation, lasting approximately two months. From the time the order in council was passed until that commission reported back to parliament less than three

Unemployment-Mr. Bennett
months' time was consumed. In their report they said that the chief causes of unrest were, first, unemployment and the fear of unemployment. That was away back in 1919. Later in the report they recommended an immediate inquiry into the question of state insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity. During all the intervening period of about thirteen and a half years this parliament outside of the couple of years that we inquired into the question of unemployment insurance, and the promise which the right hon. Prime Minister made to introduce legislation during the life of this parliament dealing with the question-and I hope that promise will be carried out in the near future-except for that we have done nothing fundamental with the unemployment problem, and today we are faced with the most serious problem that we have erver been faced with in the history of Canada. Therefore I think it is time this parliament took action.
I know it may be said by some that this is a provincial question. But I do not think so, because already this parliament has footed a very large part of the unemployment costs. I know that in the election of 1930, as well as on previous occasions, unemployment was the chief issue, and it was that on which the people of this country voted as they did in 1930. Now we have to go back to our con-situeneies when this parliament adjourns in the next week or so, and face our constituents. We have got to face people who are out of work. I know that when I go back to my own constituency, or almost any constituency in Canada, and address the people on questions of the hour, the first question that is always put to me is: What is parliament doing about economic conditions? What is parliament doing about the unemployment situation? So far this session what could I tell them? We have done practically nothing. We have been in session six or seven weeks and up to now have not discussed in any fundamental or even ordinary way the question of unemployment. Therefore I would ask the house to give to my amendment that consideration which I believe it deserves. I have not put it before the house with the idea of attempting to shelve the question of unemployment, I would like the government to understand that. I have asked that the committee or commission deal with this question immediately and in a fundamental way, because I believe that if they do that, they would be bound to come back with some fundamental suggestions to deal with the problem, which so far we have not faced in the w'ay it ought to be faced.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the people of this country together with the people in other parts of the world are going through a very difficult period. In other countries we see governments tottering, we see upheavals, we see men and women hungry and appealing in one way or another for the chance to earn a decent, honest livelihood. For many years the great masses of the people in this country, as well as those in other parts of the world, put up a stern fight for what we might term a political democracy, for the right to vote and have their own representatives in parliament to express their opinions. That fight has been won; it is almost history today. Now there is another fight to be won; we are entering upon another phase of civilization. Today it is a question not of a political democracy but of an industrial democracy in which the great masses of the people of this country will have the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labour, to work and help build up a state worth while, a state in which every ablebodied man and woman can do something, in his or her own way, for the good of the country, which will look upon the individual as a part of the state and give to him an opportunity of working and living in decency, comfort and happiness. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will accept the suggestions I have made and start to deal with this very important question in a fundamental way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise merely to direct attention to a
rule that has been observed in this parliament since we have had a parliament. I refer to the rule that a matter debated and disposed of should not be raised again during the same session. Rightly or wrongly the matter was presented in an amendment to the address, moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition, in these words:
Whilst reserving any expression of view upon the merits of the agreements concluded at the recent Imperial economic conference, this house is of the opinion that the tariff policies of the present administration have seriously injured the trade of Canada . . .
Then later:
The house regrets that, except the dole, the government has no policy with respect to the relief of unemployment.
That will be found at pages 80 and 81 of the votes and proceedings. Then a subamendment was moved in which the currency question was under consideration, and it was alleged that the effect of the changes recommended by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), would be to provide employ-
Unemployment-Point oj Order

ment for our people. That was the substance of the subamendment. On those motions the house divided; on the subamendment the vote was 18 to 66, and on the amendment 30 to 60.
There is no more salutary rule than that once the debate is concluded and the vote taken, the same question shall not be again raised during the same session. The matter was debated at very considerable length on the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition, and it was competent to those who now have moved this amendment to have moved a subamendment, because in either event the motion is one of want of confidence. May also lays down the rule that inasmuch as in the estimates there is an amount of $976,000 in this connection, the motion is out of order.
But whether you invoke the first or the second rule, the one thing clear is that opportunity for discussion has been offered. That opportunity w'as availed of, with the result that the amendment and the subamendment to which I have referred were negatived. The government has no objection to the fullest possible discussion of any question, within the rules, on going into committee of ways and means or supply, but it is another thing altogether when a motion of want of confidence is raised in this manner. Therefore I regard it as my duty to direct attention to the fact that the rules of the house do not contemplate more than one debate on the same matter during the same session, involving in either case a motion of want of confidence in the administration.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Would you please read, Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) ? I did not hear it very distinctly.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member moved:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted:
That in the opinion of this house it is desirable that a committee or commission be appointed to consider the economic situation in the dominion with special reference to unemployment and to report back during the present session of parliament.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can say that the subamendment dealt *with the question of unemployment except incidentally. The word unemployment was mentioned; the fact that we had unemployment, depression and a number of other things was set out in the preamble of that subamendment, but it would require a long stretch of the imagination indeed to

rule that the question of unemployment in Canada was threshed out in connection with the subamendment. I submit that the rule invoked by the Prime Minister does not apply to the subamendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that; I said it might have been discussed. I did not say it was fully discussed. I said it was debated and that it could have been discussed to the fullest possible extent under the amendment and subamendment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But unless it was
discussed and voted upon the rule would not apply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was discussed on the
amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, my submission is that the motion made by my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) is entirely different from the substance of either the amendment moved by my right hon. leader on November 4, or the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod. Both the amendment and the subamendment dealt with the failure of government policy in regard to the unemployment situation, but as I understand the amendment now being moved it is an entirely new matter. It asks that a committee or commission be set up to investigate the economic situation in regard to unemployment and has nothing whatever to say in regard to government policy or lack of policy. It is an entirely new matter that has not been discussed in the house this session, and therefore is entirely in order.


Ernest Lapointe: I will not repeat what my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) has just said, but I wanted to raise the same argument. I refer your honour to page 330 of Bourinot, to show that even if the present amendment were part of a former motion it would be in order. On the question of the renewal of a question during a session Bourinot says:
If a motion has been negatived, it cannot be afterwards proposed in the shape of an amendment. In case a motion has been withdrawn it may be again proposed, as the house has not previously determined the question, and it is only in the latter event that the same question may not be revived. If an amendment has been negatived, a similar amendment cannot be proposed on a future day. It has been decided, however, in the Canadian Commons, that an amendment is in order when it comprises only a part and not the whole of a resolution previously voted on by the house.

Unemployment*-Point oj Order
This is not even a part of the amendment moved to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and I submit that the point of order is not well taken.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: There is one aspect of the objection which has been raised by the Prime Minister which should not be disregarded. The Prime Minister says in effect that this is a motion of want of confidence. Not having May or Bourmot at hand I must rely on my memory, which I think is pretty good. It will be seen, both in May and Bourinot, that a motion in amendment to a motion to go into supply or into committee of ways and means is not of necessity a motion of want of confidence. More than that, I was a witness myself to the government accepting an amendment to that effect, if the wording of the amendment and the spirit of it were not in condemnation of the government's policy.
Now, the basic difference between the motion made by the hon. member for North Winnipeg and that part of the motion made by the leader of the opposition in the debate on the address is this. Reference to unemployment in the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition was a condemnation of the government for their neglect; this is a suggestion which bears no signification of blame whatever. Therefore the government is at liberty either to accept or to reject it. Suppose the government in their wisdom found that the working of such a commission would help them; by accepting this suggestion they would be doing what Mr. Fielding did on one occasion which I related to this house a few weeks ago, the occasion upon which a friend of the government, Mr. Russell, the member for Halifax, offered a suggestion the effect of which was to induce the government to change their policy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That happened in connection with the Australian treaty.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes. I remember also another occasion when Mr. Costigan-I think it was he-made a motion which came very near condemning the government; nevertheless it was accepted by Sir John Macdonald because the government found in it some suggestion which they thought might be useful to them.
I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Prime Minister that the basic difference between the present motion and the motion which was made by the leader of the opposition lies in the fact that this suggestion is not by way of condemnation of the government, but is rather advice to parliament to adopt a certain measure. I think that for the future, as well as in this instance, the Prime Minister would be well advised to withdraw at least that part of his objection to the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I mention to the Prime Minister that when the government of the day was considering the reciprocity agreement with the United States, or to proposed changes of the tariff in relation thereto, the house was about to be moved into committee of ways and means, and the Hon. Mr. Monk at the time introduced an amendment which was accepted by the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. And that was an amendment not altogether different in spirit from the one which has just been made; is was declaratory of certain rights of the commons in one or two particulars, and it was accepted by the government of the day. The government was about to consider tariff items, just as we are at this very moment, and I think that precedent is a complete answer to what my right hon. friend has said.


Hugh Guthrie: I hardly think a government could accept the present motion as anything but a motion of want of confidence. The motion is a tacit condemnation of the government. It calls for a committee to do something which the government has not seen fit to do and therefore, as I say, it is a tacit condemnation of the policy of the government, and as such is a vote of want of confidence which must be resisted. Now, the question of unemployment has actually been discussed and voted upon during the present session. That is the main, thing to consider. The subject has been under discussion and a vote of this chamber has been taken in regard to it. That, Mr. Speaker, rules further discussion, either by way of this amendment or by any other motion, out of order during the present session. The other point raised by the Prime Minister is one which is worth considering too. This whole matter will be under discussion on the estimates; there is an item for unemployment in the estimates. Surely there is some termination to discussions in this parliament.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the minister before he sits down whether that item in the estimates does not relate to one particular class of the unemployed?


Hugh Guthrie: It is called to my attention that it is a vote for unemployment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It has reference only to pensioners.

Unemployment-Point oj Order


Hugh Guthrie: However, I am not going to dwell on that point. I merely emphasize the main point, namely, that the matter has already been discussed and decided during the present session and cannot be discussed again.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that it would be quite possible, under the interpretation which the Prime Minister has attempted to give to the rules of procedure, and in accordance with what the Minister of Justice has said, to shut off discussion of this very item at any time during this session. It would make the speech from the throne comprehensive enough to embrace every question, and the speech having been voted upon no question discussed thereunder might be brought up again. There is no one in this house, may I say, who has availed himself more freely in the past of this very opportunity which I am now seeking than the Prime Minister. I have in my hand Hansard 1930-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question now before the house, Mr. Speaker, is a question of order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am dealing with the question of order. In 1930, I remember, a similar motion was made and was discussed, and there was no question as to the propriety of the motion, after the speech from the throne had been voted upon and an amendment somewhat similar to the one now before us had been discussed. On the motion to go into supply an amendment was moved dealing with unemployment. I will read the amendment to show the difference between the motion made two years ago and the motion now before the house. That motion read:
That all the words after "that" be struck out, and the following he substituted:
"in the opinion of this house the government should take immediate action to deal with the question of unemployment."
I was glad to observe on March 31, 1930, that the present Prime Minister voted for that amendment. I submit that if the interpretation which the right hon. gentleman now endeavours to put upon the rules of procedure is accepted it will narrow discussion to the point where private members will have practically no redress whatever.
The Minister of Justice has referred to the item in the estimates dealing with unemployment. May I read the item, which appears under administration of justice. There are the following headings: penitentiaries, legislation, agriculture, pensions, mail subsidies and steamship subventions, miscellaneous. Then:
Pensions and National Health-unemployment relief-further amount required, $975,000.

It is for unemployment relief only so far as pensioners are concerned, and when we are in committee on that item the Chairman may quite possibly confine the discussion to that one particular aspect of the unemployment situation. We have not yet reached that item in the estimates, but if the interpretation which the Minister of Justice puts upon the rule is sustained, when the general estimates come before the house it will be impossible to raise any question that is not strictly relevant to that particular item. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that on this occasion, as custodian of the rights of private members, you will come to our assistance and rule the amendment in order.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I would remind the Minister of Justice that when a similar amendment was before the house in 1930 he took a view diametrically opposite to that which he has expressed to night, because I recall his words, wherein he stated that the government need not accept as a motion of want of confidence, the amendment then proposed. I just wish to remind him of that fact.


Hugh Guthrie: It all depends on the motion.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Anything was good
enough to get into power in those days.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: As this is a very important question affecting the interpretation of the rules of the house, I will reserve my decision until three o'clock tomorrow. Only twenty minutes remain of this evening's session and I shall compare the amendment moved earlier in the session with the amendment now before the house before deciding upon the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the meantime, the discussion can proceed on the motion to go into ways and means. It is only the question of the amendment that I am directing attention to, but there is no reason why the discussion should not proceed for the next twenty minutes.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is no reason why
the debate on the motion to go into committee should not be continued regardless of whether or not the amendment is found to be in order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Under the circumstances, would your honour call it eleven o'clock?


Ernest Lapointe: The Minister of Labour wanted to speak.

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
Mr. WOODSWORTH; Have I a right to spgak?	;	*	-	[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: The minister has.the floor.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Have I a right to
speak now?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is in
order in speaking.


James Shaver Woodsworth: - My colleague has discussed the extent to which unemployment has grown in this country. I do not think anyone can doubt the seriousness of the situation. . The census figures:as at'June 1, 1931, show 471,668 unemployed, but this figure may have included some who were unemployed through sickness. However, I submit that it does not include those who were working for themselves or those who never had. jobs. There must also be added the large numbers of young people who have not as yet been absorbed into industry. I submit that there is no prospect of improvement in the immediate future. The indices of business conditions are not favourable. It is true the Prime Minister as a professional optimist, along with Mr.-Hoover, another professional optimist, may. tell us that everything is on the mend, but that viewpoint is not borne out by a careful study of business indices. I think we are safe in assuming that there is no sign of relief upon the horizon; indeed the primary causes of unemployment would seem to be permanent. I should like to call the attention of the house to a very suggestive article which appears in the New Outlook of November, 1932. This is an article by Wayne W. Parrish and is entitled "What is Technocracy?" Since there are certain hon. members who do not read these articles upon the economic situation, I propose to read a few extracts. The first is:
. The ancient miller of Athens or Rome ground out in a day, between his two crude milling stones, a barrel to a barrel and a half of indifferent (lour. A modern flour mill in Minneapolis produces 30,000 barrels a day per man with a much shorter day and a much better flour. But for whom?
A shoemaker of ancient Rome took five and a half days to make a pair of shoes. The 7,200 shoemakers in the shoemakers' guild of Roman days would make only 7,200 pairs of shoes in five and a half days. The same number of employees in a modern shoe plant in five and a half days would produce 595,000 pairs of shoes. But for whom?
The brickmalcers for over five thousand years never attained . on the average more than 450 bricks a day per man,-a day being over ten 53719-90
hours. A modern straightline continuous brick plant will produce over 400,000 bricks a day per man. . . .
A photograph of a modern steel rolling mill in full operation will show a large plant without' a human being on the floor. . . . Machines were recently installed which produce 2,500 to 2,600 cigarettes a minute, compared with the previous maximum of 500 to 60.0 cigarettes a minute. . . . A still more fantastic illustration is in incandescent lamp manufacture, where one man is doing today in one hour as much as it took him 9,000 hours to do only so short a time past as 1914. It required only a force of thirty-seven men six weeks to build this high-speed machine.: ... In pig 'iron production one man working one hour can do what it took him 650 hours to, accomplish fifty years ago. In agriculture one man can do in one hour what it required 3,000 hours for him to accomplish in 1S40. A still more striking example is a Milwaukee plant with its daily output capacity of 10.000 automobile chassis frames and 34 miles of pipe line with a total of 208 men in the plant. . . . Technocracy tells us that with what is known now about the application of technology, the adult population of this nation would have to work only four hours a day for four days a week to supply us with all our material needs.
If the statement of these technicians is at all correct, it is manifest that our present way of dealing with unemployment is nonsensical and that we must find some fundamental solution of this problem. I quote again:
The steam engine was introduced, electric power came into being; and within one hundred years we have multiplied the original output rate of the first, or human, engine by 9,000,000, as expressed in. a modern energy transversion unit! But most significant of all is the astounding fact that most of this advance, or 8.766,000 of the 9,000,000 increase, has come within the last thirty years. Is it any wonder that our ancient political system is hopelessly incompetent to furnish the rigorous and exacting technical control necessary to save our highly powered industrial system from collapse?. . . It is after sober, scientific review of such facts that our engineers report that we are faced with the threat of national bankruptcy and perhaps general chaos within eighteen months. .	. .We have been attempting to
operate the delicate controls of a high-powered energy civilization with methods that were crude enough in the ox-cart days when almost every home was self-sufficient and independent. . . . We are faced with the problem of having to desert a system that has become obsolete and at the same time of designing a system to take its place.
I submit that the present relief policy is wholly inadequate, resulting as it does in hardship and demoralization. Indeed, I do not know that it can be said that the government has a policy on relief matters. It had when it came into office, and I think that policy can be summed up in three sentences uttered by the Prime Minister, as appear in


Mr. ROBINSON:: And food and clothing, don't forget that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Men to be given this without doing any work at all. They are to be fed and clothed for forty cents a day. I mean they are given forty cents a day.


Mr. MALONEY:: With board.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, without board.


Martin James Maloney: Terrible.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman is facetious. I wonder whether he knows what it means to try to live on forty cents a day. I hope he will return to his constituents and endeavour to tell them he expects them to live on forty cents a day when even members of parliament get considerably more than that, when high officials in this country get a great deal more, when great industrial magnates receive thousands of dollars a day.


Martin James Maloney: That is some argument.
{Mr. Woodsworth.1


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wonder whether any man can live on forty cents a day; and I believe the government is not willing to provide even that.


An hon. MEMBER:: More raving.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I understood a few minutes ago I was given the floor. If I am to be constantly interrupted it this way I shall have to ask your intervention. At least if I am to be interrupted I must ask your honour to allow me a reasonable time for interruptions. Am I to be given an opportunity to present my case before the house without interruption?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have not heard any interruption that seriously prevents the hon. member from continuing his address. I have called for order several times when interjections have been offered, and I hope no more will be made.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I thank you. The question is: What can be done? I should like to enumerate briefly some things that can be done. First, the Canadian people can be decently fed, clothed and housed, and no government has any claim upon the loyalty of the people that does not provide at least that for them. Second, I would say that socially necessary work may be provided. The Prime Minister should come back to his original idea and provide for people work at which they can earn wages and thus be enabled to live. Third, the hours can be reduced without reducing wages. That may cause laughter in seme quarters. Unless wages are maintained at the old scale, it would be useless from an economic standpoint to reduce the hours; it would simply mean a few more people would be put to work and the economic situation would not be helped. But I submit that if 750,000 people, or practically a quarter of the people engaged in gainful occupations in this country, are out of work, the work should be spread around. I know some will say that industry cannot stand this and I am quite willing to admit that industry as now constituted cannot stand it. Then I would say that industry must be put upon another basis. I am quite convinced that industry today cannot at the same time provide dividends and also decent living wages, and under those conditions we must consider the possibility of the reorganization of industry.
The next question may readily come:	How
finance any such arrangement as I have suggested? I admit that that is a difficult thing for any government, because I believe again we have arrived at the position where we cannot at the same time pay the interest on our debts and give services. That is the dilemma

Unemployment-Speaker's Ruling
which faces almost every government today. We cannot at the same time pay interest on our indebtedness and give the services needed by the people. This government seems determined that whatever else happens we must pay interest on our bonded indebtedness. I would point out that in England they are adopting a process of conversion under which they are securing money in some cases for less than three per cent. The interest on our national debt is somewhere about $125,000,000 and the interest on the Canadian National debt is $57,000,000, or a total of about $182,000,000. If this were cut in two, it would give us some $90,000,000, and why should it not be cut in two? If the wages of the people are having to be cut; if large numbers are going without work at all; if very large numbers even of our business men have their incomes more than cut in two, I cannot see why those who have accumulated large fortunes ought not to have their incomes cut down by reducing the interest which they receive on their bonds. My colleague spoke of the conscription of men at the time of a national crisis. I cannot see why at the time of this national crisis we should not conscript wealth.
I am not very keen, I may confess, on the amendment as offered by my colleague. I think it has certain advantages in that it would call public attention to this problem not merely during the time of one sitting of parliament but during the whole of the sittings of the commission, and for that reason I was willing to second it. But, after all, what we want at the present time is not so much further investigation, further consideration, as action. We have had consideration for years and years. The Prime Minister told us at the time of the taking of the last census he would have to wait until the results of the census were published before he could bring down an employment scheme. The results of the census are now made public and there is no reason why we cannot act upon those at this session of parliament. I recognize there is a good deal of truth in what my colleague said, that we should have a full investigation of the whole situation, but no investigation can be final in a condition such as that in which we find ourselves today. The world has never before faced such a crisis as is upon us; and I believe all the economists, technicians and financial experts might be brought before that commission and yet at the end of the investigation we would not be very much further ahead than we were at the start. That is my only objection to the setting up of a commission, but anything that will bring the matter before the public I favour. I would 53719-90a
have thought the government would be well advised to adopt this resolution; it would have been advisable politically to do so, because this would have given them a chance to place a certain responsibility upon the commission. But they have turned it down; they have even tried to prevent us from discussing the matter at this time. Under these circumstances the only thing for us to do is to hold the government responsible for immediate action.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, November 22, 1932