[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River) moved
for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, to amend the Bank Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.

International Conventions-Mr. Bennett


Mr. SPENCER:: My object in introducing this bill, Mr. Speaker, is similar to that I had a year ago when I introduced a bill with regard to the limitation of interest that may be charged iby a bank. The main difference in this bill, as compared with the one of a year ago, is that the penalty clauses are somewhat milder. This has been done because of the criticism made in this house a year ago that the penalties then suggested were too severe.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the international convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armies in the field, Geneva, July 27, 1929, signed on behalf of Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein, on January 29, 1930, subject to the following reservation:-
"That the government of the Dominion of Canada will interpret article 28 of the convention in the sense that the legislative measures contemplated by that article may provide that private individuals, associations, firms or companies who have used the arms of the Swiss confederation, or marks constituting an imitation thereof, for any lawful purpose before the coming into force of the present convention shall not be prevented from continuing to use such arms or marks for the same purpose,"
and that this house do approve of the same, subject to the said reservation.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the resolution which
has been standing on the order paper for some few days asks this house to ratify and confirm, with the reservation indicated, the convention signed at Geneva on the 27th July, 1929, and finally executed as far as this country is concerned on the 29th January, 1930, by Doctor Riddell on behalf of Canada.
I suppose there are few instances in history of the influence of one man having such far-reaching consequences as is the case of Henri Dunant who, after the battle of Solferino, viewing the results of war close at hand, seeing wounded left to die in pain and under conditions almost indescribable, concluded that some action should be taken by which agreements would be arrived at by those at war to prevent a recurrence of conditions such as those he saw. The result was that on the 22nd day of August, 1864, at Geneva, a convention was signed whereby practically all the nations of the world agreed that in the event
of war the wounded would be cared for under conditions that to some extent at least would ensure the possibility of their recovery.
That convention was subsequently amended on July 6, 1906, but the experience of the great war made it desirable that further amendments should be made, and conferences of the International Red Cross Association and of the parent Red Cross organization established by Dunant made it essential that those changes should be considered by all the nations of the world who were signatories to the covenant of the League of Nations, and indeed those who were not. The result is the international convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, which was laid upon the table of this house a few days ago. I may say that the convention has been signed by the following states: Germany; the United States of America; Australia; Belgium; Bolivia; Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League of Nations; France; Greece; Hungary; Italy; Japan; Latvia; Luxemburg; Mexico; Nicaragua; Norway; Netherlands; Persia; Poland; Portugal; Roumania; the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; Siams; Switzerland; Czechoslovakia; Turkey; Uruguay and Venezuela. The order in which I have read the names of these countries is the order in which the convention was signed.
I do not think it desirable to take up the time of the house in referring to the particular provisions of the convention, for I assume that members of the house have availed themselves of their opportunity to read the convention as a whole. I may say shortly, however, that this convention provides for care and attention being given to the wounded and sick and their removal from the field of hostilities, under the protection of the Red Cross flag, and the establishment as far as may be possible of a neutral zone during the period in which those who are sick and wounded are being so removed, at least to some safe portion of the battlefield. I will not do further than read the heads of the chapters. After providing for the care of the wounded and sick officers and soldiers, it is provided that the occupant of the field of battle shall take measures to search for the wounded and dead and protect them against pillage and maltreatment and that wherever circumstances permit a local armistice or a suspension of fire shall be arranged to permit the removal of the wounded remaining between the lines. It provides for medical formations and establishments which are intended to ac-
358	COMMONS
International Conventions

Mr. Bennett
company armies in the field, and that the fixed establishments of the medical service shall be respected and protected by the belligerents. Then there are provisions as to personnel, as to buildings and materials, mobile medical formations, buildings of aid societies, which shall be regarded as private property; the provision of medical transport, and then this provision which gives to the operations of the Red Cross organization its peculiar effectiveness. Chapter 6, article 19, deals with the distinctive emblem:
As a compliment to Switzerland, the heraldic emblem of the red cross on a white ground, formed by reversing the federal colours, is retained as the emblem and distinctive sign of the medical service of armed forces.
Nevertheless, in the case of countries which already use, in place of the red cross, the red crescent or the red lion and sun on a white ground as a distinctive sign, these emblems are also recognized by the terms of the present convention.
Article 20
The emblem shall figure on the flags, armlets, and on all material belonging to the medical service, with the permission of the competent military authority.
The application and execution of the convention are provided for, as well as the suppression of abuses and infractions, to which I shall make reference. When Great Britain signed the convention a limitation or restriction was placed upon its operation, and' the same may be said with respect to the signature by Canada. I shall read article 28:
The governments of the high contracting parties whose legislation is not at present adequate for the purpose, shall adopt or propose to their legislatures the measures necessary to prevent at all times:-
(a)	the use of the emblem or designation "Red Cross" or "Geneva Cross" by private individuals or associations, firms or companies, other than those entitled thereto under the present convention, as well as the use of any sign or designation constituting an imitation, for commercial or any other purposes;
(b)	by reason of the compliment paid to Switzerland by the adoption of the reversed federal colours, the use by private individuals or associations, firms or companies of the arms of the Swiss confederation, or marks constituting an imitation, whether as trade marks or as parts of such marks, for a purpose contrary to commercial honesty, or in circumstances capable of wounding Swiss national sentiment.
The prohibition indicated in (a) of the use of marks or designations constituting an imitation of the emblem or designation of "Red Cross" or "Geneva Cross," as well as the prohibition in (b) of the use of the arms of the Swiss confederation or marks constituting an imitation, shall take effect as from the date fixed by each legislature, and not later than five years after the coming into force of the present convention. From the date of such coming into force, it shall no longer be lawful 
to adopt a trade mark in contravention of these rules.
It will be observed that the signature of the British representative, Sir Horace Rumbold, at page IS of the convention, follows these words:
I declare that my signature of this convention in respect of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League of Nations is subject to the understanding that His Britannic Majesty will interpret article 28 of the convention in the sense that the legislative measures contemplated by that article may provide that private individuals, associations, firms or companies who have used the arms of the Swiss confederation, or marks constituting an imitation thereof, for any lawful purpose before the coming into force of the present convention shall not be prevented from continuing to use such arms or marks for the same purpose.
And when Canada signed, the following declaration was made by Doctor Riddell:
I declare that my signature of this convention in respect of Canada is subject to the understanding that the government of the Dominion of Canada will interpret article 28 of the convention in the sense that the legislative measures contemplated by that article may provide that private individuals, associations, firms or companies who have used the arms of the Swiss confederation, or marks constituting an imitation thereof, for any lawful purpose before the coming into force of the present convention shall not be prevented from continuing to use such arms or marks for the same purpose.
The same reservation was made for Australia, New Zealand, the Irish Free State and India. The legislative provision contemplated by article 28 is contained in the bill which was introduced a few days ago by the Secretary of State in connection with unfair competition. So that the use of the heraldic device, to which reference is made in the convention, and from which as a matter of fact it derives its ordinary name, Red Cross convention, will now be prohibited except with respect to those who have used it prior to the date of the convention.
I do not think it is necessary to make a more lengthy explanation with respect to this convention, for I take it that all those who contributed to the activities of the Red Cross during the great war realize the tremendous amount of work that was done in Canada for the sick and wounded; and there are many in this house, medical men, who participated in the medical services that are protected by the convention. Under the circumstances it is not necessary that I should do more than move the adoption of the resolution standing in my name.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

International Conventions-Mr. Bennett

Richard Bedford Bennett: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the international convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, Geneva, July 27, 1929, signed on behalf of Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein, on January 29, 1930, and that this house do approve of the same.
He said: It may be said that the history of the convention relating to the treatment of prisoners of war has to some extent followed, and been parallel with, the history of the measures that have been taken for the alleviation of the condition of the sick and wounded in war; but there are perhaps some principles to which reference might be made dealing with the treatment of prisoners of war, which the experience of the great war made it essential should be adopted in the convention that was signed on July 27, 1929, and to which Canada became a party on the 29th day of January, 1930. I will not read the names of the signatories who signified their approval and acceptance of the provisions of the convention. It is sufficient for my purpose to indicate that the same nations that signed the Red Cross convention, so-called, also executed the convention which I am now asking the house to ratify. A few observations might be made, however, of a historic character, with respect to this convention.
The principles which now govern the treatment of prisoners of war were laid down in the second convention of the Hague conference in 1899 and were entitled, "Rules respecting the laws and customs of war on land." They were revised in 1907 at the second conference, being the fourth of such conventions. These conventions and the regulations annexed thereto cover the subject matter very extensively. They were adhered to by nearly all the nations and may be considered to some extent the basis of the international convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war now before the house. After the war, however, it became apparent, in the light of the experience of the combatants and the knowledge that was gained by neutral countries, particularly Switzerland, that some improvement should be made, and accordingly inquiries were instituted and matters were discussed very carefully at the tenth international conference of Red Cross societies held at Geneva in 1921. This undertook the preparation of an international code relating to prisoners of war. Regulations were prepared by an international committee under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Younger,
the present Lord Blanesburgh which sat at the Hague in 1921, and at the eleventh convention of the International Red Cross Society at Geneva in 1923 the Red Cross societies put forward an elaborate draft convention on this subject. In 1924 the International Red Cross committee proposed that the question of preparing an international code relating to prisoners of war should be laid before a diplomatic conference, and in the meantime the proper authorities of the British and Canadian governments were giving attention to the report of the Younger committee to which I have just referred. In August, 1925, the Swiss government inquired -whether the governments concerned would be willing to take part in a conference for the ratification of the Geneva convention of July 6,	1906, and
whether they would agree to entrust to a diplomatic conference for the ratification of the Geneva convention the task of preparing a code for prisoners of war. In 1929, the year in which this convention was executed, the proposals of the Swiss government were accepted. The diplomatic conference to which I have referred was held at Geneva for the purpose of revising the Red Cross convention of 1906 and preparing a code relating to prisoners of war. As I have indicated, this convention was signed by the Canadian representative in January, 1930.
The convention with which we are now dealing covers the efforts to be made to take care of those who may become prisoners by capture or otherwise during the progress of hostilities. I do not know that any good purpose will be served by taking up further the time of the house except to say that no legislation will be necessary at the present time. Practically all the countries have -ratified the convention.
I hope -the time may be long distant when we -Canadians will be again called upon to deal with the complex problems which arise out of our nationals becoming prisoners of war. The exchange of prisoners, the care of prisoners, the providing of food and comforts, the inspection as -far as it may be possible through the aid of neutrals of the facilities provided -for t-heir care, all -these are matters of which I think every h-on. member of this house has some knowledge. I do not think there is any hon. member who during the period from 1914 to 1918 had not to deal with some -phase of the question arising out of Canadians becoming prisoners of war, or who through the Red Cross societies did not give some support or succour to prisoners.
In this regard all countries owe a great debt to Switzerland. The Swiss republic has taken the lead in connection with matters of this
360	COMMONS
International Conventions-Mr. Woodsworth
kind and since the first convention at Geneva held in 1864, to which the experience of the British gained in tlhe Crimean war was very important, this republic has continued to make a great contribution to these subjects. The organized efforts which have been made by the head of the Red Cross organization, very frequently a Swiss citizen, and the work which has been done at the Hague in connection with prisoners of war, merit the thanks of every country in the world. I bear gladly this testimony to the zeal with which the Swiss statesmen and public men and women have devoted themselves to this matter.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this convention would appear to be somewhat of an anachronism. There may have been the necessity of caring for the sick in the field and the proper care of prisoners during the last war, but I understood that nearly all the civilized nations of the world had signed a solemn pact that they would abandon war as a means of settling international disputes. It would seem to me that the putting forward of conventions of this kind is evidence that we, together with other nations, do not take our obligations very seriously. I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett)" if he does not consider that there is a very decided danger in introducing conventions of this kind, that it might weaken our confidence in the obligations which we have undertaken under the Kellogg and other pacts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The fact that nations have taken this precaution to care for the sick, wounded and prisoners in the event of war must be considered along with their declarations that there will be no wars as acts of national policy. It is well to remember that even in the covenant of the League of Nations there were certain, shall I say, punitive provisions which indicated the possibility at least of a police force finding it necessary to maintain the position taken by the league. In any event, in the two conventions to which I have alluded in the event of human nature not being perfect and the imperfections of mankind being manifested by war in the manner indicated, that antecedent provision has been made to ensure that the calls of humanity shall be observed to the greatest possible extent as against the weaknesses of frail mankind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Bennett. 3


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask
leave of the house to move the adjournment to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance in connection with the dismissal of between two and three hundred officers and men of the Royal Canadian Air Force without regard to their families, their overseas service or period of enlistment, and the embarrassing situation which may arise if they are forced by the necessity of employment to accept service with another nation. I submit that the matter is one of urgent public importance because of the lack of notice given and the necessity with which this great body of young Canadians is faced in order to make arrangements for employment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The leave should precede the speech.


James Layton Ralston: I am making only a
statement.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The rule requires an hon. member making such a request to state the matter, not to argue it, and the time has arrived when a written statement should be handed to the Speaker. The house knows that I allow as much latitude as possible in debate but I cannot find that this application is in order nor that it is of urgent public importance. May provides for this procedure as follows:
Though the responsibility of bringing forward a subject as a definite matter of urgent public importance rests with the member who desires to exercise the right given by the standing order, there must be a prima facie case of urgency.
I do not think a prima facie case of urgency exists. I quote again from May at page 248, as follows:
Motions for adjournment regarding matters for the discussion of which the committee of supply or other appointed business would afford an early opportunity or a matter which is under the consideration of a select committee have been ruled to be out of order.
Last evening upon the adjournment of the house the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) gave notice that to-day the house would go into supply, and this matter could be discussed when that motion is made.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Is it not true that on Fridays Your Honour leaves the chair without motion being put?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The next time it will be necessary for a motion to be made for the

Air Force-Dismissals
Speaker to leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply is not so far distant, and at that time this matter can be discussed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Am I not right in saying that to-day the house will go into supply without an opportunity being afforded for discussion?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It will be necessary some day early next week to move that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply, and that will provide an opportune time to discuss this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I point
out that Monday of next week is private members' day and in all probability there will be no opportunity of moving to go into supply on that day. It is for the government to determine what day they will move to go into supply. On Tuesday they may decide to bring up other measures. Wednesday and Thursday of next week are again private members' days, and it is very difficult to know how long it will be before an opportunity will be afforded for bringing up this matter on going into supply.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In view of what the leader of the opposition has said, I still adhere to my first ruling.


James Layton Ralston: With all deference, Mr. Speaker-and I am accustomed to bow to your ruling-I feel that the matter is one of urgent public importance from the point of view of Canada and of this large body of citizens. Therefore I am going to take this opportunity of respectfully appealing from your ruling.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have always had some doubt as to
whether there is an appeal from a ruling on this phase of our procedure. I am putting this to my hon. friend not at all as a conviction but merely as a suggestion by way of question as to whether there should be or not. In order that leave may be granted to a member to move to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, two factors must be considered. First, the Speaker must make a decision. Then the house, by a number of the members standing in their places, indicates, that the matter shall be proceeded with. I do not think the first, touches a question of order; it is a question of discretion pure and simple, and I should say under ordinary circumstances it is not appealable. That is the view that I entertained when I was on the opposite side of the
house. Whether or not it is sound, I cannot say, because apparently, as far as I have been able to ascertain there are no authorities respecting the matter. But to determine whether or not it is appealable, first the Speaker is charged with the exercise of the discretion which he must exercise as a condition precedent to the house saying it will proceed. Then, instead of a majority of the house saying:	We shall proceed, it is merely essential
that a limited number stand in their places, and when they do that, the two factors combine to bring the motion before the house. If we apply the ordinary rule touching similar cases, it does not seem there should be an appeal from the exercise of that discretion, because that would appear to be intended at least to give to the presiding officer of the chamber a power to say that in his opinion a matter is of urgent public importance, but it does not ask the majority so to decide. Once the presiding officer has exercised his discretion in that way, then as I have said, a limited number, I think twenty, exercising their right, permit the debate to proceed. If twenty do not stand up, then of course there is no motion and the debate does not proceed. In other words, it is not a question of procedure with respect to the conduct of the business of the house, but rather a matter of another character entirely.
I am raising the question only in order *that iit may be indicated in the records of the house as to that being the correct procedure. So far as the rest of it is concerned, if it is a matter on which an appeal can be taken as regards that phase, it follows that if the appeal succeeds-and that is the point I am making now-the debate will not proceed, because twenty would have to stand up even after the Speaker had been overruled and that would negative the necessity of the two factors combined to make it possible, for the house has acted in both cases. In other words, a majority of the house has decided that the Speaker shall decide that the matter is of urgent public importance. Therefore you have substituted for the discretion of the Speaker under the rule, that of the majority of the House of Commons, but that majority cannot carry it alone, for after that there must still be the motion put to the house and twenty, not a majority, signify their approval. It therefore follow's that it makes it nonsensical to say there should be an appeal from the Speaker, because otherwise all that would be necessary in the rule would be to say: If the majority of the house so decide in the first instance, the debate shall be proceeded with. I am putting the matter only
Air Force-Dismissals

as it appears to me now and as it has done on several occasions when I have been discussing whether the rule does not contemplate first of all the exercise of a judicial discretion by the presiding officer of the chamber, from which discretion there is no appeal in deciding that it is a matter of urgent public importance; after which the house, not by a majority, but by twenty of its members standing in their places, say that the debate may proceed.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I was a member of the committee that drafted that rule. The purpose was that the question should first be brought to the attention of the Speaker and if the Speaker had any doubt in the matter he could ask whether the hon. member making the motion or asking for that leave had the permission of the house. Then if twenty members rose in their places, that was sufficient for the debate to proceed.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would respectfully refer hon. members to standing order 31, and particularly to subsections (2) and (3):
(2)	The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter.
That has been done.	.
(3)	He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who. if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.
If the Speaker does not think it in order or does not think it of urgent public importance, then he does not read it out nor ask the house whether the member has the leave of the house. I think that ends the matter If the Speaker felt it was of urgent public importance and in order, and read it to the house; then if an objection were taken, notwithstanding the Speaker's opinion, it would be put to the vote of the house.


Mr. POWER:: May I point out that no
objection has been taken.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I quite agree with that.
The matter has not come to the stage where an objection can be taken. The Speaker has dealt with it himself.


James Layton Ralston: That is the ruling from
which I am respectfully appealing.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I submit there is no
appeal from that ruling.


James Layton Ralston: May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the point of order? I 
understand the Prime Minister has indicated that for one purpose at least there is vested in you some power that is not subject to the control of the house at all. I submit fundamentally-and it is almost an elementary principle-that that view cannot prevail. Speaking with all deference, I submit that you, Mr. Speaker, in making that prima facie decision, because that is what it is, are substituting yourself, for the time being, for the house, but subject always to the house deciding by a majority whether or not they shall overrule your decision in that respect. The situation cannot be otherwise. I do not think you will find in the rules anywhere a place where Mr. Speaker is given a discretion which is not Subject to the direction of the house by majority vote. The only 'thing one would have to do would 'be to appeal from the last ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, have made, to the effect that you will not permit this appeal. This of course leads to exactly the situation which the Prime Minister mentioned, namely, an absolutely nonsensical position, because, after all, the second ruling that you have made is that you will not submit this to the house. There is no suggestion anywhere that there is no appeal from that ruling.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member
indicate the rule providing for such an appeal?


James Layton Ralston: I am referring to the
general rule which provides for appeals from decisions of the Speaker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On points of order.


James Layton Ralston: This is only a point of
order. The question is whether this motion shall be discussed now. Surely that is a point of order as regards the procedure in the house. There is something which has to be decided in connection with that, and that is a question of fact or of opinion whether the matter is of urgent public importance. . You, Mr. Speaker, think not. If a majority of the house think otherwise, then it seems to me that the matter is perfectly in order and should be discussed. I can find nowhere in the rules that you, Mr. Speaker, are vested with authority to substitute your judgment for the judgment of a majority of the house if they choose to exercise their right in that respect. I submit with all deference that this is a very important ruling which is being sought, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that you reconsider in order that the house may exercise its usual right in connection with an appeal.

[DOT]363
Air Force-Dismissals


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: There are one or two points which
should be kept in mind in regard to this ruling. Rule 12 is the one that applies to Mr. Speaker's rulings on questions of order, and it is in this language:
Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the house without debate.
Rule 31 is in the nature of an extraordinary proceeding. Subsection 3 of that rule provides :
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order-
That is the first consideration:
-and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.
I understand that in this case the Speaker does not think it is a matter of urgent public importance, and that, I submit, is hardly a question of order. When a question of order is involved, there is no doubt that there is an appeal from any ruling of the Speaker. But here is discretion vested in the Speaker to say whether or not the matter is of urgent public importance. I contend that there is no appeal in that respect because it is upon that point that I understand the Speaker has ruled.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: I beg to call attention, Mr. Speaker, to page 74, a few paragraphs beyond that quoted by you in dealing with this subject. Paragraph 249 reads as follows:
In doubtful cases-
This is a doubtful case:
[DOT]-the question of urgency and of importance are left for the house to decide by giving or withholding its support.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Speaker has to say whether it is doubtful or not.


Alan Webster Neill: It is doubtful because the Speaker is of one opinion and the members are of another.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not make it doubtful.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: If the contention of the Prime Minister is right I submit with all deference and respect that there would be an appeal now from your ruling on the point of order raised by the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I only put the matter to the house. I say that I have no conviction about it one way or the other. I want to be perfectly frank about it.


Alan Webster Neill: Then it is doutful.


Mr. EULER:: If it is doubtful it comes under this rule.


Ernest Lapointe: I share the views of my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) that there is an appeal to the house from any ruling or decision of the chair. Otherwise it would place Your Honour in the position of a dictatorship over the majority in the house, which has never been contemplated. I do not think there is any difference as regards a point of order and a point of procedure. I will quote from Bourinot, page 366. After saying that the Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order subject to an appeal to the house, Bourinot proceeds:
Instances have occurred in both the English and the Canadian houses of the Speaker's decisions on points of procedure or order having been overruled.
Even if there might be some contention that this is not a question of order as contemplated by rule 12, it is at least a question of procedure, and from your decision and ruling I respectfully submit that there is the right of appeal.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must abide by the rules. It is very distasteful to me to have to give this ruling. However, the rules as they are were framed by the House of Commons, and it seems to me that the house had in contemplation placing a matter of this kind entirely in the discretion of the Speaker, or otherwise the rule would have been worded differently. I cannot see it in any other way. I would prefer to leave it to the house, but I take it that under the rules I have no discretion in the matter.


James Layton Ralston: I appreciate and I take in all sincerity Your Honour's assurance in that respect. I feel that you would rather leave it to the house and that you consider this ruling is one which ought to have been made. But I can relieve You.r Honour in that respect because I can now respectfully appeal to the house from your ruling that there is no appeal from the ruling which you have just made to the effect 'that this is a matter entirely within the discretion of Your Honour. That certainly is a question of order which the Speaker has now decided.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member put that in writing?


James Layton Ralston: Certainly.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I with all deference and every respect offer this
364 [DOT]
Air Force-Dismissals

suggestion? Inasmuch as there would appear to 'be some doubt what the proper procedure is in the circumstances, would it not be wise in order to give Your Honour ample time in which to make a thorough survey of the authorities to permit an appeal without prejudice to your decision and without prejudice to the rights in the matter, thus disposing of the situation for the time being, and when Your Honour has had ample time to study the authorities a final decision on the point might be given.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If it is the wish of the
house I am prepared to disregard the rule on that understanding, but I have not altered my opinion as to the meaning of the rule.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has addressed himself to me more or less in connection with the matter of taking the vote on the appeal "without prejudice".


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was addressing myself
strictly to the chair.


James Layton Ralston: Addressing me through
Mr. Speaker. I would not want to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend if it were not effective in this respect: Supposing the appeal were sustained, I would not want it said by any member of this house that the appeal was asserted without prejudice and therefore it is not binding and I have not the right to discuss the matter. The decision of the house must be binding for the purposes of this resolution, I submit, and I think my hon. friend so intended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the appeal succeeds,
the discussion goes on.


Charles Gavan Power: May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, following the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), that when you are studying this question you also study the broader question as to whether or not there are any decisions of the Speaker which cannot be appealed. After all, that question transcends in importance anything which has transpired here today. The contention of a great many of us is that the Speaker is an officer of the house-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the hon. member
speaking on a point of order or just giving advice?	*


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, I expected a
little better treatment than that.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I submit that the house
and the Speaker are entitled to better treatment from the hon. member. If the hon. 
member wishes to speak on a point of order and does so, in order, I shall be very glad indeed to hear him, but for him to get up and suggest that the Speaker should study this and study that is out of order.


Charles Gavan Power: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
I was simply following on the suggestion of the Minister of Finance to the effect that you might take some little time for consideration of the points that have been put before you this afternoon, and I wish to suggest with all deference and respect that the important point put before Your Honour


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I should like to know
upon what the hon. member is basing his remarks. There is nothing before the house for discussion.


Mr. VALLANCE:: There was the suggestion by the Minister of Finance.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That does not put the hon. member in order. The Speaker having decided that the question submitted by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) for leave to adjourn the house is not in order, and the question proposed to be discussed is not one of urgent public importance, Mr. Ralston appeals from that decision. Is it the pleasure of the house that the Speaker's decision be sustained? Those in favour will please say "aye".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Those against?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNieol). Had I voted, with deep regret I would have voted against Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent (Ontario, Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted for Your Honour's ruling.

Messrs:
(The list of pairs whips.)
Anderson (Halton), Arsenault,
Arthurs,
Baker,
Barrette,
Bell (Hamilton),
Bell (St. Antoine), Black (Halifax), Bowen,
Cahan,
Cantley,
Casselman,
Cotnam,
Dorion,
Duguay,
Dupre,
Edwards,
Fortin,
Fraser (Cariboo), Gagnon,
Geary,
Gott,
furnished by the chief
Factor,
Thauvette,
Hanbury,
Bertrand,
Rheaume,
Mercier (St. Henri), Raymond,
Dubuc,
McKenzie
(Assiniboia),
Rinfret,
Cardin,
Howard,
Hur.tubise,
Vervilte,
Dumaine,
Ferland,
Elliott,
Fafard,
McMillan (Huron), Boulanger,
Mercieir (Laurier-Outremont), Rutherford,


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: I was paired with the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan). Had I voted I would have voted for Your Honour's ruling.


John Vallance: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted against Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. SHORT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted I would have voted for Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. McPHEE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). Had I voted I would have voted against Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted I would have voted for Your Honour's ruling.

Air Force-Foreign Enlistments
Mr. MeINTOSH: I was paired with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted I would have voted against Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins). Had I voted I would have voted against Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the
hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted against Your Honour's ruling.


Ernest Lapointe: May I respectfully ask whether the suggestion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has been accepted, that this vote be taken without prejudice and not considered as an authority guiding Your Honour or the house in the future, until Your Honour has looked into the matter further?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My understanding of the situation is ithat the hon. member for Shel-burne-Y armout'h	(Mr. Ralston) appealed
from the decision of the Speaker that his ruling under subsection 3 of standing order 31 was not subject to appeal. The appeal of the hon. member has n-ot been sustained and therefore the decision of the Speaker that his ruling under that standing order is not subject to appeal, stands.



ENLISTMENT OF CANADIANS IN NAVAL OR MILITARY FORCES OF FOREIGN POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Layton Ralston: Apropos of the subject to which I referred a few moments ago, I noticed in the Toronto Globe a despatch dated February 18, in which the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is quoted as giving the law with regard to what is known as foreign enlistments.
I feel satisfied that the Prime Minister has not seen the article because I am sure he would have corrected it. The statement is this:
The Globe sought comment from the Prime Minister, who revealed his profound knowledge of the law. Mr. Bennett said that enlistment of Canadians in the Chinese army or the army of any other foreign country at peace with Britain was forbidden by the Foreign Enlistment Act.
I would call the attention of my right hon. friend to the fact that there is evidently an omission of some very important words, and these words are contained in section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act, which forbids the enlistment of Canadians in the military or naval service of any foreign state "at war" with any foreign state at peace with Her Majesty, and not, as is purported to have 
been stated by the Prime Minister, the enlistment of Canadians in the naval or military forces of any country at peace with this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is entitled to my thanks for directing attention to the article in the Globe. As I was going out the door the other evening a correspondent asked me whether or not there was objection and I recalled the Foreign Enlistment Act and made a statement with respect to it. This morning I looked at the act which, as the hon. gentleman knows, was passed in 1870 by the imperial parliament, extending "to all the dominions of Her Majesty, including the adjacent territorial waters". Section 4 reads:
Penalty on enlistment in service of foreign state
If any person, without the licence of Her Majesty, being a British subject, within or without Her Majesty's dominions, accepts or agrees to^ accept any commission or engagement in the military or naval service of any foreign state at war with any foreign state at peace with Her Majesty, and in this act referred to as a friendly state, or whether a British subject or not within Her Majesty's dominions, induces any other person to accept or agree to accept any commission or engagement in the military or naval service of any such foreign state as aforesaid,-He shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall be punishable by fine and imprisonment, or either of such punishments, at the discretion of the court before which the offender is convicted; and imprisonment, if awarded, may be either with or without hard labour.
Then there is in section 5, "Penalty on , leaving Her Majesty's dominions with intent to serve a foreign state."


James Layton Ralston: Again, foreign state "at
war."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is as it appears in the section; that is the rubric. The section reads:
Penalty on leaving Her Majesty's dominions with intent to serve a foreign state
If any person, without the licence of Her Majesty, being a British subject, quits or goes on board any ship with a view of quitting Her Majesty's dominions, with intent to accept any commission or engagement in the military or naval service of any foreign state at war with a friendly state, or, whether a British subject or not. within Her Majesty's dominions, induces any other person to quit or to go on board any ship with a view of quitting Her Majesty's dominions with the like intent,-He shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall be punishable by fine and imprisonment, or either of such punishments, at the discretion of the court before which the offender is convicted; and imprisonment, if awarded, may be either with or without hard labour.

Unemployment Relief
As I have said to my hon. friend, I was just leaving the building and I merely made reference to the Foreign Enlistment Act without intending in any sense to speak with respect to the definite provisions of any particular section. I observe further that there has been a despatch published indicating that a number of Canadians were contemplating employment with the Chinese forces. A cablegram has just been received from the trade commissioner in Shanghai directed to the ministry of trade and commerce, reading:
Reference Reuters Ottawa despatches which state airmen offering to come to China absolutely no chance of employment. Five who came to Shanghai stranded.
I think perhaps the house is entitled to the information just received.


Mr. DUFF:: Those five must have gone on a ship that got stranded,.


James Layton Ralston: Will my right hon. friend permit me one question further arising out of this. I may say that the Globe's report is also inaccurate in this respect, that it purports to quote the section after it has quoted the statement of the Prime Minister, but again leaves out the words "at war". My question to the Prime Minister as Minister of External Affairs is this: Is the Chinese nation at war with the Japanese nation within the terms of the act to which reference has been made?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know the hon. gentleman is not serious in 'asking that question of me. It is a question which is being discussed in many quarters and doubtless the Hague tribunal might be able to offer an opinion that might be authoritative. At least I am expressing none.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend knows
there is no question about it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is not?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the hon. gentleman is of that view.


James Layton Ralston: I am asking the Prime Minister, because he is quoting the section. I am asking him for his opinion as Minister of External Affairs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not propose to endeavour to answer the question. That is the short and simple way of putting it.


James Layton Ralston: I suggest that this section be not quoted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quoted the Foreign
Enlistment Act; the section was not quoted by me. I have just read it for the information of the house and if the hon. gentleman has any difficulty in the matter he will settle it with the Globe.


James Layton Ralston: I have none.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), and to ask the indulgence of the house while I read a short telegram which I received at 12.30 today. It reads:
No action as yet by Victoria. Phoned them fifteenth and eighteenth instant, answers just the same waiting action by Ottawa. Situation daily growing worse now spending more than one thousand dollars daily on direct relief. No direct relief accounts paid by us for January. Tradesmen seriously affected. No payment from Victoria for direct relief accounts for latter part of December. Some action must come from Ottawa. Preparing further statement for you. Please take immediate action, situation desperate.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: 

SITUATION IN FAR EAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: In view of our obligations
Situation in Far East

under the covenant of the League of Nations, I should like to ask the Prime Minister what is Canada's policy with regard to the present situation in China.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sent me a note yesterday indicating that he proposed to ask the question he has asked, and in view of the importance of the matter I thought it well to submit the following statement.
The Canadian government has followed with grave concern the situation in China, of which it has been kept fully informed by cablegrams. Our friendly relations of long standing with both parties to the dispute, and our position on the Pacific, give an especial interest in the success of the efforts for the preservation of peace which the council of the league has undertaken. These efforts have not yet succeeded but they will not likely be given up. The Canadian government is hopeful that ultimately they will result in the restoration of that good understanding between the peoples, upon which the peace of the world depends. In view -of the fact that the council of the league is still continuing its efforts at mediation, and the possibility that a special session of the assembly may be called to deal with the situation, in which Canada would be represented, I think I am within the judgment of the house when I suggest that it would be premature to attempt to make a statement now as to what would be the policy of the Canadian government in the event of failure of these efforts for settlement. If a special meeting of the assembly is called it will be the duty of the Canadian government to instruct its representatives as to the position to be taken in the light of the situation as it will have developed at that time. I need hardly add that every step that His Majesty's government in Canada can take for the maintenance and preservation of peace will be taken.



THE PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) a question in connection with a telegram which I have just received from the Civil Service Association of Montreal, and which reads as follows:

Dr. J. A. Denis, M.P., Ottawa, Ont.
At a huge meeting held last night, February 18, the civil service employees of Montreal were unanimous in stating that the Dominion government was not justified in their proposed cut of the salaries by 10 per cent during this period of depression through which they are bound to subsist by means of their present salaries. There was an unanimous vote of protest.
(Signed) Owen Finn,
Vice-President, Quebec,
The Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada.
I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether this telegram will be favourably considered by the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman's reading of
the telegram will be taken as an inquiry and the question will be treated accordingly on Monday.



FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: For the information of the house I have been asked to communicate the following telegram which has been received from Mr. J. J. McGurran, secretary of the Saskatchewan Association of Municipalities, addressed to me from Regina.
Press reports of debate in parliament on wheat bonus indicate certain western members creating inference that government action in paying five cent bonus criticized by those sponsoring bonus payment on acreage basis. Campaign for acreage bonus payment carried on almost wholly by Saskatchewan association rural municipalities. At no time was any such criticism made from platform or through public press. Those conducting campaign at all times endorsed the excellent motives which prompted parliament to pay bonus and merely asked for extension of system to include those who had lost crop through drought conditions. Respectfully suggest this information be conveyed to parliament.
J. J. McGurran,
Secretary,
Saskatchewan Association Municipalities.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I would point out that every western -member on this side has said only what Mr. McGurran, in this telegram, says he wants.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the record indicates -clearly what was said.


William Richard Motherwell: I object.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think so.


William Richard Motherwell: Turn to the records.

Presentation oj Paintings



PRESENTATIONS OF PAINTINGS

[Stage Direction]
LONGSTAFf's VIMY RIDGE-GIFT OF CAPTAIN JOHN ARTHUR DEWAR
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have now a much more /pleasant duty to discharge. When I was in Great Britain in 1930 Captain John Arthur Dewar intimated his willingness to acquire the painting of Vimy Ridge by William Longstaff of Australia, who had given valiant service during the war, and to present it to the government of Canada. In December last Captain Dewar presented this painting, excellently framed, in the artist's presence in the High Commissioner's office in Canada House, Trafalgar Square, and asked me to accept it on behalf of the government of Canada. The painting has arrived and is now in the railway committee room, where I trust it will be inspected by every hon. member of the house.
I propose at a later date to place upon the records of this house an expression of thanks for the magnificent gift presented by Captain Dewar.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
when my right hon. friend makes the motion to which he has referred, it will then be time to speak to it. In the meantime I wish to ask him if there is any policy on the part of the administration which governs the acceptance of gifts for the houses of parliament? Is there a committee of the cabinet which has laid down any rules as to what will and what will not be accepted, and also governing from whom presentations may be received?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Answering my right hon. friend I can only say, (1) no committee of the cabinet has been appointed; (2) no rule has been laid down; (3) His Majesty's government in Canada has been pleased to exercise its best discretion in accepting gifts offered to the Canadian people which may prove to be of historical interest.



PORTRAIT OF THE LATE RIGHT HON. SIR GEORGE FOSTER

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, during the closing days
of his life, the late Right Hon. Sir George Foster, who for so many years was a member of this house, intimated his very strong desire that his portrait, which is a very excellent likeness and painted by an eminent artist, should find a resting place in this house of 41761-24
parliament and that it should be conveyed there as soon after his demise as was possible. The portrait has now been placed near the office of the Minister of Finance in the lobby of the House of Commons. Inasmuch as Sir George Foster had spent the major part of his public career as a member of this house, it was thought that his wishes would be best served by placing his portrait upon this side of parliament, although at his decease he was a member of the Senate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
again without prejudice, if I may employ a
phrase used earlier in the day, to the appropriateness of the gifts which have been presented and which gifts I am sure will be deeply appreciated by both sides of the house, may I say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that I am rather surprised at his statement that no committee of the cabinet has been appointed to deal with matters of this kind. My recollection is that an order in council was passed while Sir Robert Borden was Prime Minister making provision for the appointment of a committee of the cabinet to deal with all matters affecting the monuments on parliament hill, the acceptance of paintings by the government, their disposition and the like. These matters naturally should come before a committee of the kind. The recent administration had such a committee ,of the cabinet and I think it most necessary and desirable that there be such a committee, otherwise great embarrassment will be experienced an the matter of the accetpt-ance of some offers and the rejection of others, and also as to the suitable placing of works of art. I am not speaking in a critical way; I am speaking simply in regard to what in itself is a matter of general interest; and is of special interest to hon. members on both sides of the house.



VALIDATION OF ORDERS IN COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 13, relating to the submission to parliament of certain regulations and orders in council.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Certain orders in council and regulations to be valid.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Have the
orders in council been laid on the table?

Admiralty Act


Mr. MURPHY:: They were tabled in the
house, and I have them here in order to table them again.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 15, to amend the Admiralty Act.
$159,378.86. That, however, gives no accurate information of the current revenue up to March 31.
Mr. HEENAN:: Is it the policy of the government to grant licences to export power without the consent of the province in which the power is developed?


Mr. STEVENS:: No; I am informed that in all cases the consent of the province is secured.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ernest Lapointe: Before this motion is carried, I wish to congratulate the government and the house in that this is the first time parliament has acted under the new Westminster Act. We are taking advantage of it in assuming the power of managing our own affairs in admiralty courts, something which could not be done until a few months ago. To those who have worked and fought to attain that end, this is a very welcome bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, $750.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why the increase in this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a slight increase
in the business. It is a little additional in the way of travelling expenses. It is all travelling expenses of an officer.


Peter Heenan: Has the minister under
his hand information as to the amount of power that is being exported at the present time?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The revenues derived
under this act are as follows:
Year
1925-	26..
1926-	27..
1927-	28. .
1928-	29. .
1929-	30..
1930-	31. .
Amount $288,992 41 358,071 89 374,351 21 351,783 78 318,792 36 395,544 58
The current year is of course not yet complete, but prior to January the amount is 
International Customs Tariffs Bureau, $1,800.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is this
bureau?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is an international
bureau of which the Dominion of Canada is a member and which compiles the variations and so forth in the customs regulations and laws of ali countries. We find it a very valuable service. Occasionally, if we have an officer in the neighbourhood, he attends their meetings. A year ago last fall Mr. Gilchrist, who was with us at the Imperial economic conference, attended the meeting in Brussels.


Charles Gavan Power: He must have a difficult
time keeping track of the Canadian government's variations in the tariff.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Whatever gyrations we
achieve, we find other countries have even more rapid ones.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad, $173,500.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister give us an assurance respecting the creed in connection with this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My right hon. friend has repeatedly asked assurances regarding the creed. I answer him with pleasure in one respect, and with deep regret in another. I am glad to be able to please him by saying that no more of the creeds are being issued out of .this appropriation. My regret, however, is that we are not doing so, because there is a wide demand for the creed which we should like very much to be able to supply. But the sensitiveness of my right hon. friend has made an appeal to me, and rather than wound him further I have refrained from recommending any expenditure out of this vote for that purpose. I have an inclination, however, to appeal to him personally, thinking that he and I might together make up a private subscription for getting out the creed as private Christmas cards. Perhaps he would join me in that.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no intention of doing so. Might I ask my hon. friend if I am not right in saying that the creed cost the country something like $100,000?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mercy, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment.
I mean combined with the advertisements which were inserted in the newspapers relating to the same subject. What I want to draw the minister's attention to is this:	It is expenditures of that kind which are in part responsible for the government at the present time finding it necessary to cut down the salaries of the civil service and dismiss a number of employees. It is one evidence, and only one of a great many, of the way in which public money has been wasted during the first two years of this administration, for which the government, and not only the government ' but a great many innocent members of the public service, are paying to-day.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sure the right hon. gentleman will not expect me to associate myself with that sentiment. I appreciate his pleasantries in these matters and will not quarrel with him. I merely wish to say, however, that I sharply differ with his opinion in regard to the matter.


Mr. YOUNG:: I want to congratulate the minister, not on the creed itself, because it is a vicious, pagan creed, and can have no other result than to breed a narrow, sectional spirit in our own people and engender international ill-will, but upon the success of the advertising campaign which he conducted in putting the creed across. I see that the creed has been adopted by one of our great Christian churches. I have in my hand an advertisement of one of our churches urging the people to buy its wares because, forsooth, they are made in Canada. Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin, and all the great religious reformers spent a lifetime trying to get their creeds adopted by different churches, but my hon. friend has succeeded in doing in a single year what it took them a lifetime to do. Again I must congratulate him on the success of his advertising campaign.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Thank you very much.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have an item which I 'think bears upon this vote. I should like to read a paragraph from the annual report of the Ontario board of censors of motion pictures for the year 1931:
Since last April there has been a distinct falling off in the percentage of Canadian items in the news reels exhibited. Previous to that, news cameras, with their sound-recording equip-41761-24J
ment from the United States, were admitted for limited periods on permits issued by the federal authorities. Under these permits news reel organizations came in at different points to "cover" Canadian events and thus fulfil the board's requirements for a percentage of Canadian news. Requiring these concerns to pay duty on their equipment each time it was brought into Canada has had the effect of shutting them out as the payments were deemed prohibitive. As the Canadian supply of such equipment of necessity is limited and confined to the central region, Canada has almost been banished not only from its own screen but also from that abroad.
I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether it would not be possible for him, in order to get greater publicity for Canada abroad, to move to have this customs regulation altered. It seems to me that that would be a very practicable step and would do away with the necessity of subsidizing other advertising agencies.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sorry I have not under my hand the necessary information with which to deal with the subject brought up by any hon. friend. The matter would more properly come up in a discussion of the estimates of the customs department, under which the regulation was made, or in a discussion on the tariff when the budget is down.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is not this directly related to advertising Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. My hon. friend is referring to the customs regulation governing the admission into Canada of advertising news reels or equipment for the making of advertising news reels from the United States or other countries. There is quite a brochure on the subject, but the matter is not in -my department and I have not control of it, consequently I am not in a position to discuss it intelligently. I know something about it. There are two sides to this, as there are to all questions, but in the absence of the material I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend much information on the subject.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not immediately concerned with the alteration of the custoims regulations at this time, that can come up on another occasion. But I should like to impress uipon the minister that it is practically useless for us to go on expending money advertising Canada in one way while at the same time we are preventing the natural advertising which might come if a regulation of this kind were removed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister give some particulars as to how the $250,000 was used last year on advertising and publicity, just indicating the nature of it.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have the details here. The expenditure, following the practice for a great many years, is in two divisions covering expenditures in Canada and expenditures in Great Britain through the office that was established there some years ago. I have in considerable detail the information with regard to expenditures in Canada, and I was wondering how much detail my hon. friend requires. The first item is dailies and weeklies, trade papers, financial papers and magazines. I have the details covering the last four years if my hon. friend would like to have the comparison.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wanted the figures for the current year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is incomplete.
Under the first heading the expenditure was $2,895.95 for 1931-32 to January 31. Then for special advertising, including Five Thousand Facts about Canada, British West Indies Year Book, and some South American advertising and Canadian press broadcasting, there is the sum of $8,278.02. For Japanese advertising, an issue in the Japan Times, there is an expenditure of $169.25. For advertising in Planters Punch of the British West Indies there is an expenditure of $200. For miscellaneous advertising such as those appearing in the Canadian Gazette in connection with foodstuffs, South America and Northland cruise, and for advertising in Canadian Progress, there is the sum of about $8,000. Following that there is an item of office expenses totalling about $2,500. A number of miscellaneous items, which I could give, total $21,845.02. The corresponding total for the year 1930-31 was $113,879.17, and for the year 1929-30 was $94,194.42.
I have before me the details of some further expenditures for advertising in Great Britain. The expenditure for advertising in newspapers and regimental journals was $10,002.29; apple campaign, $7,201.21; advertising at Antwerp, $282.90; shop window displays, $184.53; catalogues and programs, S563.80, and miscellaneous items, $1,526.81, making a total of S19,761.54. Admittedly, of course, these are not the complete expenditures for this year, but include those up to the month of January. In addition there are certain office expenditures for printing, stationery, and so forth. Under the heading of printing and stationery is included miscellaneous printing put out by the advertising office in Great Britain. The sum expended in that connection is $11,468.76. Then, for rent and salaries there is the sum of about $7,000; for travelling, about $4,000, making a grand total for the current year so far as British advertising is concerned of about $61,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have taken down the figures the minister has given. About $19,000 were allotted to different publications and exhibitions and about $22,000 for other expenditures. The minister however has given a grand total of afoouit $61,000, whereas I make a grand total of only about $40,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My deputy informs me that the figure he has before him is $41,272.30. The officials in my department however have stretched out that figure and in place thereof have inserted the figure $61,033.84.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that not a grand total for Great Britain and Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Probably so; that is about what it would amount to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the appropriation for 1931-32 was $250,000. Of that amount, according to what he now tells us, up until January of this year only $60,000 has been spent, and assuming that the same ratio is maintained, we may take it for granted that when the fiscal year closes about $75,000 will have been spent. It seems to me that the estimate now before us might be cut very considerably.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have cut it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it has been cut down to $173,500. But if my hon. friend spends only $75,000 from an appropriation of $250,000 I should think he might get along with an appropriation of $100,000 for the next year. I submit that in this type of expenditure there is more justification for cutting down than there is for the cutting down of staffs and salaries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite agree with my right hon. friend. As he will observe, however, we have made a very considerable cut.
There are one or two matters to be remembered to which I .might direct the attention of the committee. In the first place, of course, the expenditures for the two months yet to come have to be considered. Some of our expenditures include contracts which have been running for two or three years. For instance there are several comparatively small contracts in Great Britain which were entered into three or four years ago. We expect however that the total will not reach within $75,000 of the appropriation for last year. For the coming year we are asking for $173,500. Possibly we will not expend that amount, but we have under study at the present time a very considerable advertising

Supply-Trade and Commerce
campaign in connection with our wheat and flour in Great Britain. I do not wish to make any definite statement in that connection because, frankly, our investigations have not reached the point where I can intelligently discuss the matter. Some of my officers are directing their attention to this campaign, and within a few weeks I expect a report from which we will decide whether the necessary expenditures are warranted. I can assure the committee that we purpose keeping the expenditure down, but at the same time there are advertising movements which are thoroughly justified. It is possible that a careful study this year of the prospects for tourist trade into Canada might warrant expenditures along that line. We cannot therefore say exactly what our expenditures will be. I can assure the committee that the tendency is to keep them down as low as possible, having due regard to the vast interests of the country and what we might term the necessary expenditures in such matters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
has mentioned one phase of advertising which affects the country as a whole, namely that directed towards tourist traffic. I, for one, believe the government might go very much further than it does in advertising Canada. There is no doubt that a great deal of money is brought into the country through tourist travel, and I should think that money judiciously spent to make known the advantages to tourists visiting Canada at the different seasons would be warranted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite agree.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The type of
advertising, however, which, it seems to me, the government ought to view with great caution is that which relates to the favouring of particular interests, rather than those of the country as a whole; and that form of advertising which is in the nature of what may be termed political propaganda. For example, I would like to ask my hon. friend whether any part of this money will be used for such advertisements as "Buy Made in Canada Goods." I do not say it is not perfectly proper for any consumer to prefer made in Canada goods and for any producer by advertisement or otherwise to try to encourage him to buy them, but propaganda to that end is the business of consumers' leagues, business houses and others who are manufacturing or producing in Canada. Where there is an important division of opinion in the country as to whether one should be at liberty to buy wherever and whatever he pleases, as against being obliged to buy only those things which suit the policy
of the government of the day, there is very good reason for every supervision being exercised over public moneys being spent in that kind of propaganda. I would ask my hon. friend whether any part of this money is to pay for those signs which one sees on the streets and around the country, advising people to "Buy Made in Canada Goods."


Henry Herbert Stevens: So far as I know there
are none at the present time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it the intention to use any of this money for that purpose?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Without answering my
right hon. friend's question with yes or no, I must, in deference to himself and I think in justice to myself, say this: At present we have not in contemplation any advertising campaign of the nature he suggests. On the other hand, I do not subscribe to all that he has said in condemnation of the promotion of the sentiment of stimulating the purchase of Canadian goods.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I took great
care not to condemn the sentiment; I said it was very laudable if promoted by business houses, but that the government of the country was not justified in using the taxes of the people to support those who are trying: to further their personal business ends byputting forward that sentiment, to the exclusion of others who are equally entitled to consideration in the matter of their trade.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have a strong feeling
that the sentiment is a laudable one. But I agree that it should not be carried to any bitter extreme, and in my personal utterances and in all my activities as administrator of this department I have sought to keep within reasonable bounds. I would not like to say that not a cent of this money would be used in the support of such a campaign. Let me give an illustration. Last year certain women's organizations promoted an exhibition, which was highly commended and the objects of which were sound. Out of this vote I think we subscribed $100 in support of that form of publicity. I have not in contemplation anything of this character at the moment; I question whether it will arise during the year, but I would not like my right hon. friend to come back next year and cite some instance where we had subscribed to a fair of that kind and say I had broken my word. Generally speaking, I think I can satisfy him by saying that there is not in contemplation this year a campaign of that character.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I
might make clear what I have in mind when I say that one of the reasons those engaged in the great basic industries of agriculture, lumbering, mining and fishing are not as prosperous as they should be, is that they are dependent upon a world market and an export trade. We know that one of the reasons why export trade has fallen off so largely is that there is so little in the way of import trade. In order to further trade, it is necessary that vessels should have cargoes both ways, because you cannot go on shipping goods from a country always in one direction. The inability to get return cargoes from Great Britain and Europe has been responsible, as I am sure the minister knows very well, for the failure of exporting firms in this country to get large orders from overseas which otherwise they would have been able to place. I submit that it is most unfair to those who are engaged in this country in business related to these great basic industries, for the government to use public money to further a campaign which may help one class in which they may be especially interested, but which may at the same time be helping to work a grave injury to other classes equally entitled to consideration.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My right hon. friend is
not quite correct, though I am sure not intentionally. Last year we spent considerable sums in the apple campaign and in supporting the advertising campaign with regard to grapes, which was very successful and which I think might be referred to at this stage. The marketing of Canadian grapes from western Ontario this year was a remarkable success in everything except the price, which of course was very low in common with all prices. The whole crop was marketed in a way that never had been previously attempted. I think from four hundred to five hundred carloads of those grapes rolled out to the prairies, and we subscribed to that advertising campaign, which was directed by the horticultural council. Then we carried on a very considerable campaign for the marketing of Canadian fish in Great Britain, and a substantial measure of success attended our efforts. Our apple campaign, which is conducted year after year in Great Britain, and which is one of the major expenditures under this item, has been attended with splendid success also. We are well satisfied with the results of our expenditures and efforts along that line.
Then, as I intimated a moment ago, we have in contemplation, as I have had for some time, a campaign in Europe to demonstrate IMr. Stevens.]
the merits of our wheat in the making of flour and for the baking of bread. We hope perhaps to stimulate in that way the demand for our wheat. So I think I am safe in saying that whatever may have been spent for the so-called made in Canada campaign, our expenditures along these other lines are larger than the amounts spent to which reference has been made from time to time.
In regard to the other point brought up by my right hon. friend on numerous occasions, I have in preparation now a statement which I hope to have an opportunity of making to the house during the present session, arising out of a survey I am trying to make personally, in the time at my disposal, and of course with the assistance of our staff, of the trade of Canada. I would not like the statement of my right hon. friend to pass without comment, but at the same time I do not wish to go into details. However, I may say there are other factors than merely the question of the old theory, very widely accepted and held by many people, that to sell you must buy. That sounds simple and clear, but when one gets close to the intricate factors actually dominating the situation he begins to realize that they cannot be dealt with by the mere adoption of a theory. While I subscribe in part to what my right hon. friend says, namely, that it is desirable to get cargoes moving both ways, I hope to be in a position very soon to show that the movement of cargoes both ways sometimes is interrupted by factors entirely apart from those to which my right hon. friend has referred. But I would prefer not to enter into a discussion on that point at this moment, because as I say I hope to have under my hand material which will enable me to make a much more accurate and complete statement a little later on in the session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This effect of cargoes both ways 'is not mere theory. Quite recently I was shown some important correspondence which indicated that very large orders might have been placed in Canada iby firms in England had it been possible for them to secure return cargoes, which would have enabled them to secure transportation at figures that would have made it worth while to do business here. lit was not a matter of thousands but of hundreds of thousands of dollars; and what is true in one instance is, I have no doubt, true in a great many others.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is another
matter which, although it does not come directly under the minister's department, has a very distinct bearing on advertising. I refer to the deportation of people from this coun-

.	Supply-Trade and Commerce
try to England. We have always said that the successful immigrant was the best advertisement Canada could have; I think it is equally true that the unsuccessful immigrant is our worst advertisement. I am not charging the government with direct responsibility for a large number of these deportations; I know that the government has been urged to take this course by various municipalities who find it hard to keep these people. But looking at the matter from the standpoint of Canadian welfare it seems to ime most undesirable that we should deport people from Canada simiply because they temporarily come under relief, (because they are poor. They go back to the old country and spread the idea that this is a very poor place in which to live. I would impress upon the -minister the danger of another department entirely undoing the work his department tries to do. There is always a danger of our carrying forward government in watertight departments. We might very we-ll iconitirilbuite larger sums to keep people here -rather than have them deported and then putting on an advertising 'campaign in an effort to offset the report which they carry back with them to the old country.


Edward James Young: The minister is taking a little more credit than is his due for the success of his advertising campaign. He told us that the department last year put on a very successful campaign advertising grapes, and that as a result they were able to sell in the prairies this year between four and five hundred carloads of Canadian-grown grapes. There is another reason for this than the minister's advertising. Eong ago we used to buy in the west a small basket of Canadian grapes for 35 cents and -the 'price advanced regularly every year until we were charged a dollar a basket for these small blue grapes. Naturally very few people bought them. This year, for the first time in many years, the price came back to the old level of three baskets for a dollar. That is the reason the people bought grapes this year; it was not because of any advertising the minister's department did.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will agree to that and let it go.


Edward James Young: If the minister would devote his energies to devising means of placing Canadian products on the market at prices which the people can afford, it would not be necessary for him to spend -money on advertising.


Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: In what
European countries will advertising take place?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I said we had in contemplation a campaign to present to the countries in Europe 'the merits of Canadian wheat for
breadmaaking, but I added that the officials were still studying the -matter and I was not in a position to make a definite statement at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- Canada and the United Kingdom, on the Atlantic, service between, $535,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Before we proceed with this item, and in order to be absolutely frank with the leader of the opposition and his followers, I may observe that it was generally understood that we would not bring forward an estimate in which salaries are involved. The only expenditure for wages involved in this item is in connection with one inspector, and that involves a salary of $3,000. I wanted to make it clear that it was included in this vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will be without prejudice.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so.


William Duff: How is the reduction arrived at?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is an arbitrary reduction in the interests of economy and is part of the many reductions we have tried to make in the estimates.


William Duff: That is not quite clear. The minister must certainly have a list of the items that made up last year's amount, which was $802,000, as well as a list comprising the present vote.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The subvention covers, of course, the various sailings from Montreal and Quebec and from Halifax and St. John in the winter to the United Kingdom. There are two sailings a week in the summer and one sailing a week in the winter, and we are giving that much less this year per sailing than -last year. It will be scaled down per sailing and the obligation is imposed upon the company to carry the mails, which vary so far as weight is concerned. I have not the details at the moment, but it runs into a very large amount.


Thomas Reid: What steamship line carries these mails?


William Duff: Are there not certain contracts with different lines, and how long do the contracts run?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just for one year. I have a partial report in regard to the mails, showing 184,800 sacks.


William Duff: What steamship line had the contract last year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Canadian Pacific.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Mr. ELLIOTT:: What portion of the
$802,000 of last year's vote will have been expended by the end of the fiscal year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: All of it. There may be a few thousand through the missing of one sailing or so between now and the end of the year.


John Campbell Elliott: Is there any reduction in the service?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The contract, of course, has not yet been made, but I understand not.


John Campbell Elliott: The service will be the same?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


William Duff: What line is it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Elder-Dempster.


Mr. DONNELLY:: If they refuse to take the contract what course is followed?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They do not get the money.


James J. Donnelly: And there will be no service.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not say that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia and Australia, and/or China, service between, $31,000.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: In regard to each of these items on the Pacific ocean, what company has the contract, and is it from year to year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: From year to year. This is a renewal of the existing steamship service. We are hoping to get an improved service on that Canadian-Australian line, that is, faster ships. That, however, is a matter of negotiation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that the company that gets this subvention?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Possibly I did not understand my hon. friend; I was speaking of the Canada-New Zealand service.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was
confining my question to the first item.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The first item, amounting to $31,000, is to cover the completion of a contract now in existence.	[DOT]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With
whom?


Henry Herbert Stevens: With H. R. MacMillan; it has been in existence three years and runs out in June.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Canada, China and Japan, service between, $659,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I ask the
same question in regard to this item.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the Canadian
Pacific Steamship Company.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will this service take care of the aviators who desire to go to China?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They may do so at their own risk.


Mr. CAYLEY:: Why is this item larger than the first item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The question of mileage i? largely responsible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada and New Zealand, on the Pacific, service between, $75,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
company is this?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Canada-Australia line.


James J. Donnelly: What service is given?


Henry Herbert Stevens: A monthly service.


James J. Donnelly: What is the difference between this and the Chinese service?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The China, Japan and
Vancouver service is fortnightly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In view
of the New Zealand treaty does not the hon. minister think this subvention should be increased?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should have liked to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Prince Rupert, B.C., and Queen Charlotte island, service between, $15,750.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the company in this case?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Canadian National
steamship line.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vancouver and the British West Indies, service between, $37,350.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the company in this case?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Canadian Transport Company, Limited; it is an existing contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Vancouver and northern ports of British Mr. DUFF: I notice this service is reduced Columbia, service between, $18,600.	from $40,000 to 830,000, but I was under the
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the company in this case?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Union Steamship
Company.


Thomas Reid: Could that not be handled by the Canadian National Railways?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend should be sufficiently posted on the Pacific coast to know that there are innumerable inlets and bays upon which are located canneries, logging camps and villages where calls must be made which cannot be made by the boats of the Canadian Pacific or Canadian National which run to Prince Rupert and Alaska.


John Campbell Elliott: I have a question to ask arising out of the first and third items. I notice that the first item covering the Australian service is only about one-third of the vote for last year, while the New Zealand service is about three-quarters of the vote of last year. Why the difference?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the first instance, it is the completion of an existing contract which ends in June. This item does not provide for the continuance of that contract, and if it is continued it will have to be provided for in the supplementary estimates. In the meantime, consideration is being given to the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Victoria and west coast Vancouver island, service between, $11,250.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the company in this case?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Canadian Pacific.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Local services-Charlottetown and Pictou, service between, $30,000.
Mr. JOHNSTONE:: Is the service carried on by the steamship Pearl Cann to be continued?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not provided for in the estimates of this year.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: Is it to be discontinued?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the intention at the present time.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: How will the mails be handled?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The post office will provide for the mails.
impression that the contract had a number of years to run. Has that contract expired or is it still in existence?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The contract is still in
existence but it is subject to a yearly vote by parliament. Our intention is to review these contracts in the light of these votes.


William Duff: In other words, the government has the power to cancel the contract.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is subject to the vote of parliament.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I notice in all these items there is a considerable cut; how was the minister able to get these companies to accept the reduction? Did the minister tell them that was all they were going to get?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not quite as easy as that, as is evidenced by my bald head; it is quite a task. Generally speaking we find that people are not too unreasonable and the exigencies of the times appeal to them.


Alfred Speakman: Some years ago and
for a number of consecutive sessions a number of us doubted the value and wisdom of these subsidies. They were discussed at length but we were always assured that the contracts were untouchable and beyond the power of the government to alter. Apparently they were not as sacred as former ministers indicated, and the fact that there has been a diminution in the payments will prove to be a valuable lesson.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Halifax, Canso and Guysborough, service between, $6,750.
William Duff: The service between Halifax
and the ports in Halifax county and Guysborough county extending to the town of Guysborough is a very important one due to the fact that the people served by the steamship Chedabucto have no railway communication. These people are located anywhere from 60 to 100 miles from the railway and unless they drive that distance to Antigonish or New Glasgow to catch the train, they have no means of transportation. These people as taxpayers are helping to pay for the railways of Canada although they have no railway transportation of their own, and the government has been ill-advised in reducing this amount, especially in view of the fact

Supply-Trade and Commerce
that the company has a contract with the government. My idea is that a contract should be held sacred.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It expires on March 31 of this year.


William Duff: If it does, I am very much
afraid that if the owners of the boat do not get the amount which they received previously, the people in the district will be without this service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Halifax and Sherbrooke, service between,
William Duff: This is in exactly the same
position. This service starts at Halifax and calls at certain ports. The junior member for Halifax will bear me out when I say that this is a very important service for part of his constituency and also part of mine. I have no personal interest in the matter, but I certainly think the government will not get any boat to perform this service for $1,000. The junior member for Halifax, who is a supporter of the government, should use his influence with them in an endeavour to have the amount of this item restored to $1,500.


Mr. QUINN:: I was just about to point
that out. This is a very drastic cut, out of all proportion to the others. The sum of $500 has been taken off a subsidy of $1,500, or a reduction of 33J per cent. I would ask the minister to let the item stand in order that we may see if we cannot do something better for this service between Halifax and Sherbrooke.
Item a,greed to.
Mulgrave, Arichat and Petit de Grat, service between, $11,250.


William Duff: I can understand the Minister of Finance in his new position is desirous of economizing and it might be embarrassing for him to get up and ask his colleague to reconsider this matter, but this is a very important service to the people living in that part of Cape Breton island and in part of my own constituency. The amount has been reduced from $12,000 to $11,250. My impression-and I think I am right-is that this contract was entered into two or three years ago for five years at $15,000 a year. Of course if the owners of this steamer accepted the $12,000 which was voted last year, that was for them to decide. Now I notice there is another reduction of $750. Have any representations been made to the minister with regard to this cut?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My information is that after careful consideration which has been given to all of these items, the amount of [DOT] $11,250 will be sufficient.


William Duff: Do I understand the owners of the steamer are satisfied with this reduction and will carry on the service?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am justified in saying that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mulgrave and Guysborough, calling at intermediate ports, service between, $10,500.
William Duff: Are the owners of this boat satisfied with the reduction? I understand there is a contract with them also.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The same answer applies to that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like for a moment to address myself to the leader of the opposition. I have a number of other items which involve salaries in a substantial degree. I was not intending to proceed with them uritil the bill to which reference has been made is before the house and there is full opportunity of discussing it, unless hon. members are agreeable to proceeding. In putting this forward I am merely placing myself in the hands of the members of the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend is in a position to say that the government will not take up items involving salaries in any other departments until the government have brought down their bill, we might, if all agree, allow him to proceed conditionally since we are now in committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the right hon. gentleman object to any other department being introduced? It is understood we can take up other departments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was understood that the estimates of no other departments than Trade and Commerce and Public Works would be taken up to-day, but in regard to opening other departments on or after Tuesday, it is understood that the ministers of those departments will introduce no -items affecting salaries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But only such items as are not -affected by salaries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do I understand we are to g-o on with items involving salaries?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Henry Herbert Stevens: I addressed myself to the committee a moment ago in this sense, that I had now reached the stage where I had no more items that I could call except those involving salaries. But with consent-and I place myself entirely in tihe hands of the committee-we might proceed with several such items in my department. It will be understood that the passing of such items will not in any way prejudice the views that members may hold regarding salaries or the provisions of the bill which will be before the house in the course of a few days.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is the very procedure to which I took objection the other day. We cannot pass these items without more or less deciding salaries. This may be considered a formal matter, but there is something deeper underlying, and for my part I object to passing a single salary estimate until we decide the principle underlying the proposed cut in the salaries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Iif there is
objection, I do not see how the minister can very well proceed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want my hon. friend to feel that we are not at all seeking to put anything over. We are trying to be as courteous and as fair as we can. There is an important item here relating to the commercial intelligence service. It involves salaries, of course, but also considerable amounts for other than salaries. If the committee would agree to discuss that item and make some progress with it, we could do so. The salaries in this case are all paid outside of Canada to our staff in different parts of the world. There might not be the same feeling involved in that that there would be in regard to salaries paid in Canada; I do not know.


William Duff: Are these salaries paid outside Canada also being reduced 10 per cent?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I cannot see that it makes any difference whether the salaries are paid outside Canada or to people within Canada. The principle involved is the same, and as far as I am concerned, if these are higher paid officials, I would say that if the lower paid civil servants are going to have their salaries cut 10 per cent these higher officials should have a cut of 20 or 30 per cent.


The CHAIRMAN:: We are not discussing that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But we are discussing the matter of procedure, and we decided
the other day that we would not go on with items involving salaries until the principle was decided.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sorry the hon. gentleman has taken it in the spirit he has. I placed myself in the hands of the committee, and I have no desire to proceed if hon. members are not agreeable to my doing so. I do not think there was any call for the heat shown by my hon. friend.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There was no
special heat.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: On numerous occasions
not only in committee of the whole but in the house itself,-for instance, when a bill is up for second reading-a member who does not agree with its principle consents to the bill going to a committee, reserving his right not to accept the principle. Similarly in this case my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre may not agree with certain provisions in these estimates, but surely on that account he does not take the attitude that he is going to prevent a discussion of the items. He will be in precisely the same position to object to the principle when the bill itself comes before the house. Of course, if hon. gentlemen opposite-I do not say this unkindly, but with every respect-will not permit us to proceed further with any items which involve the question of salary, we should be only wasting our time discussing them. It is for hon. gentlemen opposite to say, but if that is their position, we might far better take the evening off than waste it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was the position taken two or three nights ago and the government had it within its power at that time to call another department if they wished to do so before adjournment, but they did not. The government had and has control of the business. They were free to arrange as they pleased. We spent a couple of hours discussing the same item in trade and commerce after the decision had been arrived at. The government instead could have gone into the Justice department or some other department. I think the general feeling is that these items which involve salaries should not be discussed.
Progress reported.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The remainder of the government program for the day consists of estimates, and the only items we can take are those which involve incidentally the discussion of salaries. Since hon. gentlemen opposite have taken the position that we cannot make progress, rather than devote the evening to a discussion in which we shall make no progress
380	COMMONS
National Railways and Shipping
at all, I think it would be far better for the house to adjourn. I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, that the house do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 5.55 pm.
. Monday, February 22, 1932