PRIVILEGE-MR. BENNETT QUESTION OF RULES ARISING OUT OF DISCUSSION OF FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ON LIVE STOCK

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: On a question of privilege affecting the rights of members of this house I desire, Mr. Speaker, to direct your attention to the telegram that was placed on Hansard yesterday purporting to be sent by the minister of agriculture of the province of Saskatchewan.
In so far as the telegram deals with a contradiction of statements made in this house I do not propose to raise any question at the moment except to say that it may be questioned. On that phase of it which reflects upon one of the members of this house and casts aspersions upon his conduct and his bona tides, I desire to raise a question which I shall not discuss at this time in view of public business, but I ask you, sir, to deal with the matter, and I direct the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the language of the closing part of the telegram. I think the minister himself will agree that it is not a document that should be placed upon the record; for no one outside of this house has a right, without contravening the privileges of a member of this house, to cast aspersions and reflections upon his honesty or his conduct. However much a man not a member of this house may desire that a misstatement be corrected, the moment he engages in argument in the message he transmits through a member of this house he contravenes the rules of parliament and one of the privileges of this house and of every member of it.
I shall discuss the matter at a more convenient time, but I desire to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of the Prime Minister, to the matter, which is one of very serious moment as far as the privileges of the members of this house are concerned.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I should like to point out through you, Mr. Speaker, that in his speech the other night the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), called attention to the fact that a certain man who was known to myself as a minister in this government had been given some special consideration by the government of the province of Saskatchewan. For
Privilege-Mr. Bennett

that reason I think I was justified in calling attention on the floor of this house to the representations made, and to have those representations put in a clear light before this house. That is all the telegram does which was read to the house yesterday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what it does.


James Garfield Gardiner: In order to confirm what I have just stated I would say that if my right hon. friend will look at page 290 of Hansard and read the reference which was made to Mr. Laidlaw he will find that the hon. member declared that Mr. Laidlaw on account of his financial position was not entitled to any consideration at that time. In reply to that statement the telegram merely says that the hon. member himself together with Mr. Laidlaw made application to the government for consideration in relation to seed in the spring of last year. I think that is an answer in full to the suggestion that this gentleman was not entitled to consideration after he had lost another crop. The facts are very clear, as outlined both in the remarks of the hon. member and in the telegrams replying to those remarks.
As to whether it is within the rules of the house to have the reply placed upon Hansard in the manner in which it was done yesterday, that is another matter upon which you, Mr. Speaker, will rule. So far as the facts are concerned, nothing has been produced to indicate that they are other than as I have stated them to the house at this time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I did not read the telegram, but it was the latter part of it with which I was dealing, not with any question as between the minister and any member of this house or any person outside of this house. I was dealing solely with the privileges of this house and of every member of this parliament. I did not read the telegram because I did not wish to take the time at that moment, but I shall have to do so now:
. . . Laidlaw until recently tenant of Perley but declines to continue. Municipality advanced seed and supplies to value of four hundred eighty-two dollars fifty-four cents in 1937, being about half amount desired by tenant and landlord. Termination of tenancy by Laidlaw may partly explain criticism. Understand tenancy has been unprofitable throughout to Laidlaw which reduced him to circumstances necessitating aid in shipment of live stock out.
That is the part to which objection is taken and which I think should be dealt with by you, Mr. Speaker, for the future guidance of this house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the section to which I referred a moment ago,
fMr. Gardiner.l
which was not read but which is answered by the part of the telegram now referred to, is as follows:
Another man I know well shipped 100 head to Gladstone, Manitoba, where they are being wintered. This man is well known to the Minister of Agriculture because he was a contractor who from the government which held office prior to 1929-
That is the government of which I then was the head.
-had received many contracts. He built bridges north of Wolseley across the Qu'Appelle river, and built an overhead bridge at Roche Percee.
That, by the way, happens to be in the constituency I now represent in this house.
He went out to British Columbia this year, in company with his two sons and a nephew, and made money. One son told me that his father had drawn $12 a day all summer and that the boys had drawn $7. That man had one hundred and ninety head of cattle, and did not sacrifice any of them. They shipped three carloads, with free freight, to Gladstone, Manitoba, and are wintering at that point.
Then I put in a remark which was intended to be in the form of a question. It is not so reported, and I would suggest that it might be put in that form.
Mr. Gardiner: We paid the freight?
Mr. Perley:	Yes, you paid the freight; I
am glad the minister mentioned that. That man was no more entitled to free freight than the man in the moon. He had been a contractor all his years; he had built the bridge at Roche Percee.
Again referring to my own seat.
He had one hundred and ninety head of cattle, three cars of which he had shipped to market, and certainly was not entitled to free freight on the others.
I wish to point out that the facts are these: This man does not now and to my knowledge never did live within the one hundred per cent drought area. He lived outside the one hundred per cent drought area but within the area from which cattle are shipped free of freight for anyone who wants to ship cattle out and bring them back again to their present location next spring. The references to myself, and to a section of my constituency that has no relation to the matter under discussion, apparently are made with certain intentions, and I think I am within my rights in this house in drawing the attention of the house to the fact and to indicate that they do not apply to the discussion in any way whatever. I would suggest that the latter part of the telegram in question is a complete reply, in that it indicates that the gentleman who is being discussed, although known to myself, previous to July

Diversion of Water
last was a tenant on lands owned by the hon. member who was discussing this matter in the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He so stated in his speech.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the speech does not state that clearly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It makes it clear to me.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is what the speech states:
Two of my tenants shipped stock there; one shipped six hundred sheep and the other shipped all his stock, including horses and cattle. All are wintering there.
Then notice this:
Another man I know-
And it is the other man he knows who is the gentleman named Laidlaw who, previous to July, was a tenant on these lands and who asked for and received seed grain under the government guarantees last spring. The argument of the Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan is that if he was a person entitled to receive seed and other supplies one spring, having lost another crop surely he was still entitled to receive consideration from the government of the province of Saskatchewan. That is all that the telegrams indicate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not deal with the question at issue, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Does any other hon.
member wish to speak to the matter?



ELECTRIC POWER


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, to amend the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.
He said:	While this bill in form constitutes a general amendment and recasting of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act which has not heretofore been amended since it was passed in 1907, in substance its object is to transfer to parliament itself the power at present legally vested in the governor in council to control the export of electrical power from this country.
The bill does not affect the licences to export power which have already been granted, nor does it take from the governor in council the right to renew or cancel the existing licences. It does provide that no further exports of power may be made unless they are specifically authorized by a private act of parliament.
An exception to this rule is made only in the event of a temporary international emergency and only for the duration of such an emergency.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the first reading of the bill.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not a debatable
motion, but the right hon. gentleman used the words "private bill." I should hardly think it could be designated a private bill. It would be a public bill of a private nature, but in any event it would be a public bill that granted the right to export electricity from this country, I should think.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The point
raised is a matter of terminology.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DIVERSION OF WATER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have a
further reply to make to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol); not with respect to the question of privilege he raised yesterday but with respect to the question he raised the day before on the orders of the day, concerning the diversion of water from lake Michigan.
The treaty to which the question refers is doubtless the one commonly known as the Boundary Waters Treaty signed in 1909. It was ratified in 1910, but the customary practice is to describe a treaty by reference to the date of signature.
I do not think it is advisable to enter upon a detailed explanation of the government's position upon a legal or international question merely because of some controversial statement. The Canadian position has been indicated in a number of official publications containing correspondence and other material, such as sessional papers numbers 101 c-d-e-f-g, 157, 180. session of 1924, "Papers relating to the St. Lawrence waterway project and the Chicago drainage canal"; "Correspondence relating to diversion of the waters of the great lakes by the Sanitary District of Chicago, from March 27, 1912, to October 17, 1927"; No. 227-1928, "The Senate of Canada-Proceedings of the special committee appointed to inquire into the development and improve-
362	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
ment of the St. Lawrence river," 1928. Beyond saying that no Canadian government has ever accepted the interpretation to which the hon. member's question refers, I do not think I need do more than direct his attention to those publications.
As is well known, the diversion in question has occupied the attention of Canadian and United States governments for many years. There have been various stages in the negotiations and the effort has been to work out practical solutions which might afford reasonable safeguards to the various interests concerned. The immediate subject of the question of the hon. member for Davenport has come to the attention of the departments concerned, and the house may be assured that such matters are taken into account and carefully considered.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. N. Francoeur for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Bennett.
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, before the house adjourned last night I had not completed my observations, and I should like to speak first with respect to a matter which has been referred to on one or two occasions, namely that having to do with elections, and levies made from certain contractors.
It may be said that I am following the pattern or the insinuations left by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), but notwithstanding that I must refer to the observations of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as they are reported at page 156 of Hansard. He said:
To the hon. member for Peace River-
Referring to Mr. Pelletier-
-I would say that when he has been longer in the house, or it may be in some other house, he will realize that when a man across the floor throws out vague insinuations in his remarks he is not making a charge.
It may be true that some of the younger members of the house cannot clearly distinguish between insinuations and charges, but notwithstanding that, I think it would be well to recall to the house the exact words of the right hon. the leader of the opposition.
A contribution is one thing, but a levy of a certain per cent is another. The time has come when this must stop because the contractors themselves are complaining.

That part may be the insinuation. However, I shall read further:
Mr. Howe: As one who places a great many contracts for this government I ask the right hon. gentleman to give me a specific instance of a levy.
Mr. Bennett: I can give the minister as many as he wants, but I am not going to do it here and now.
And this is the point I wish to emphasize:
What is more, I know of levies being made in connection with Canadian National Railways contracts.
Mr. Bradette: That was under Mr. Manion.
Mr. Bennett:	No; it was not; it was in
the last few months. Let us have no misunderstanding about that.
Mr. Howe:	The right hon. gentleman has
said either too much or too little. This matter must be threshed out.
Mr. Bennett:	It can be threshed out any
time you want any committee of this house that you desire to appoint to go into the matter.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the reference here made by the leader of the opposition in connection with levies is no vague insinuation, in my interpretation of the word. I believe it is the charge of a man who apparently knows of such illegal practices in connection with these contracts. I say this house should know whether such things are being done. It is not a question of trying to avoid the issue; rather we must come out clearly and show, not only to the public but to hon. members, whether such a charge is true or false.
I think any hon. member would be only too willing to have a committee set up, as I understand it may be, and to have the matter investigated. I know from actual experience in the west that the money being sent in there is not received by contributions from the people. This brings up a serious question, of which I think hon. members must take serious notice. There is a condition arising in the west caused either directly or indirectly by this very thing. Last year when speaking to the house I said that unless something was done in the next session at Ottawa there would be serious consequences, and that a serious situation would arise for which the government would be directly responsible. I wish once more to draw the attention of the house to that very fact.
There is a condition arising between the west and the east which is of great importance, and it is imperative that the house take these matters into consideration. The feeling in the west is becoming greatly intensified by such conditions as I have just pointed out, in connection with elections, and they are wondering where the money comes from for election propaganda. We know that thousands of

The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
dollars are being spread out through the west for propaganda purposes. The question every honest citizen is asking is this: Where is that money coming from? How can we expect the people of Canada to express a conscientious and sincere vote, when money is being taken presumably from the east and sent out to the *west to be devoted to all sorts of propaganda? That is not the way to induce good citizenship.
In the west we have conditions which are not found here in the east. In Alberta there was an election in which the majority was the greatest of that found in any province, and it was not done by graft on the part of political parties or by contributions from organizations. It was done by nickels and dimes given by those poor people out there who realize that something must be done.


Mr. McPHEE:: 
Charles Edward Johnston: If the leader of this Liberal government had kept his promise they would have got their $25 a month. Do hon. members know that the leader of this government said, "I wish with all my heart that social credit may succeed"? His policy was "hands off Alberta". Any hon. member knows that Alberta has had every obstacle put in its way, and chiefly right from the Liberal party in this house.


Mr. REID:: The hon. member knows that is false.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: It will be something more serious, and will not be laughed off so easily. It would do hon. members of the Liberal party good to go through the western provinces and see some of the conditions out there. If they did they would realize that the people of the west are sincere in their desire to rid themselves of the condition in which they find themselves.
Hon. members ask about what the Social Credit government has done with respect to its promises. I say that Alberta has been discriminated against on every hand. To-day Manitoba is bringing down legislation which will increase bank taxation to the extent of about $50,000. I venture to say that the Manitoba bill will not be disallowed. They are increasing the corporation tax to the extent of $350,000, but that bill will not be disallowed. The province of Ontario is increasing taxation in connection with banks, but that bill will not be disallowed. Why not? Why are these bills not disallowed? The padlock law of Quebec was not disallowed. Why not? The answer is only too obvious.
As was pointed out by the right hon. the leader of the opposition, the banks should stand on their own feet. That is all we ask out there. One of the members of the Liberal party-I believe it was the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) is reported to have said that banking institutions were the biggest swindle in the Dominion of Canada, or anywhere in the world. Why not let the banks stand on their own feet? If that were done we would soon find that Alberta would take care of itself, and that no favours would be asked from eastern Canada.
I do not think it is in the interests of Canada that there should	be set	up differences	between the people	in the	west	andthose in the east. It is my belief that we should make every endeavour to bring these two parts of the dominion together. We must make an effort to save the Dominion of Canada. The actions of the present government	have done more to	disrupt	our	confederation than anything that has been done in the past, or is likely to be done in the future.I should like to refer briefly to the statement	of the Minister of	Justice	(Mr.	Lapointe) with reference to certain laws in Quebec. He is reported on page 182 of Hansard as follows:
I wonder how my fellow citizens of Quebec would like it if we had a system under which the provinces would disappear, where a nazi or totalitarian form of government in Ottawa would direct everything and everybody?
Thank goodness the people of Quebec have some intelligence and are able to see in which direction things are going. Why do they oppose this amendment to the British North America Act? Because they see that the purpose of the government is to form a centralized government and take all power from the provinces. The provinces will not be legislators in any sense of the word, they will be mere administrators. How can the government expect the provinces to agree to a bill the terms of which they do not even know? This reminds me of the loan council which it was proposed Alberta should join. Alberta did not know what it was all about and refused to join. Then Saskatchewan and British Columbia came and asked for a loan and got it without being asked to agree to the loan council. No wonder the provinces are trying to save their autonomy. The purpose of this government is not to have a united Canada, but a united dominion government. The provincial governments will become mere administrators. I think the province of Quebec should be congratulated upon seeing that far ahead.
364	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
Some reference has been made to the proposed amendment to the British North America Act. I do not intend to speak on this matter at any length as I think it has been covered quite ably by my colleague, the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl). The point is that the provinces are being asked to agree to an amendment about which they know nothing, and about which they have no way of knowing unless this government gives them the desired information. Anyone can see that the purpose of the government is to centralize power, to take all power away from the provinces, and, as I have said, leave them as mere administrators.
Why is it necessary to have so much governmental expense? There is no question that we are over-governed. I agree with the hon. member for Jasper-Edson when he says that what we need is not an amended constitution but a new constitution under which no province will be left with a grievance. I believe that we could do away entirely with our present form of dominion government. I suggest that there should be fifteen members in each of the provincial legislatures to loot' after provincial affairs. Then the premiers of all the provinces could meet for six or eight weeks, or perhaps three months in every year, as a dominion government. In that way more work would be done and there would be more unity in the dominion. The different premiers would know more about the problems which face the provinces than we do as members of this House of Commons. A great deal of trouble between the provinces, would be avoided, and the tendency would be to hold them more closely together. We would then have a properly constituted confederation.
Mention was made the other day of the distribution of relief in the west, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the government for what has been done. This work was carried out in a most admirable way, although there were some abuses about which the government may not have information. It is a wonderful thing that the people of eastern Canada saw fit to come to the assistance of the people in the west. However, in some instances, perhaps through laxity of administration, abuses did occur and advantage was taken of this distribution of food.
When carloads of apples, cheese and beans arrived at places in my constituency and outside of it, every solitary person in the particular town got some relief. An hon. member of the government, from what constituency I have forgotten at the moment, referred the other day to the fact that everyone was more than satisfied. I know of cases where everybody in a town, including the doctor, lawyer

and storekeeper, got boxes of apples and other foodstuffs. The food was never sent out west with that intention, and I am sure those who sent it would not be at all pleased if they knew that some of it had been distributed to people who had an over-abundance. In conclusion, I express the hope that the government will check up on this matter more closely and 6ee that these things are not distributed in that way.
I intend to support the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of my constituency and the province of Alberta I should like to join with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) in thanking the people of the other provinces of Canada for the help extended in our recent need. The supplies sent in were very much needed by the people and they certainly were appreciated. We are hoping that conditions in Alberta and throughout Canada will improve to such an extent that everyone will be able to stand on his own feet and provide himself with a livelihood without applying for help from other parts of the dominion.
The speech from the throne referred to the fact that there has been a further substantial advance in Canada's economic recovery. I am sure we are all glad to hear it, but I am sorry to say that some of us have not been able to share in that prosperity. We find evidence of a large increase in the output of our mining industry, but we also find a considerable decrease in our agricultural production. Wheat production has been one of the mainstays of the dominion in years gone by. In 1937 the production amounted to approximately 182,000,000 bushels. At one time we figured on an average production of around sixteen bushels per acre, but the average production last year in my district amounted to only eight bushels per acre, and this year it is down to between three and four bushels. The farming communities of Alberta have not felt the benefits of improved economic conditions in Canada.
The mining industry is gaining ground quite steadily, but, if I may use the phrase, this gain has been abused to some extent. Several million dollars' worth of war materials have been exported, and it is possible that in the near future these materials may be used to kill our young men who may be called to defend the country. A short time ago I was reading a book entitled Merchants of Death, and I read the following at page 254:
In England the Imperial Chemical Industries (I.C.I.) monopolizes the chemical industry.
FEBRUARY Id, 1938
The Address-Mr. Fair
It, too, owes its real importance to German patents which it secured after the war. It is very closely tied to the government and frankly acknowledges its readiness for war. It was this company in which Sir John Simon held 1,512 shares which he sold during-the far eastern disturbances. Sir Austen Chamberlain was at the same time shown in possession of 666 shares, and Neville Chamberlain the holder of 11,747 shares. In order to guarantee its national character, it is provided that non-Britons may never hold more than twenty-five per cent of the total shares.
I have often wondered whether war can be prevented by governments or whether it is encouraged by governments. I find from that same book that the press has been used to a very great extent for the promotion of war and, at the same time, the sale of large quantities of armaments. If we are selling war materials for the purpose of maintaining wars or making large profits out of the manufacture of armaments, I should like to see our economic recovery retarded a little by withholding the sale of these materials for war purposes.
In the speech from the throne no reference is made to reductions in taxation. Two years ago we were asked to increase the sales tax from six to eight per cent, and we find now that boasts are being made of the large amount of revenue that is being collected. I should very much like to see that sales tax reduced, if not removed entirely, so that people who are in the bread line or on the border line between the bread line and something just a little better may have an opportunity to get the necessaries of life without having to pay a tax of eight per cent.
It is also proposed to increase our radio licence fee by fifty cents. Personally I do not kick about an increase of fifty cents, which means only one cent a week; but the house must remember that there are in this country many people who have not money enough to buy necessary food and clothing, and to whom this increase of fifty cents will mean quite a little.
The youth training movement is something which I believe everyone is glad to see advanced. Personally I should like to see a little more money spent for this purpose. For the last eight or nine years at least we all know that thousands of young men and women who have left school, and some of them universities, have been unable to find work when they got out and have been having a hard time of it. Many of them have hopped on freight trains, if they could dodge the police, and set out to look for work wherever they could find it. As a result of these conditions crime has been on the increase, and it is not the fault of these
young people, because they have to eat, and being refused help, they have to do something for themselves.
I think changes should be made in the regulations governing the youth training movement so as to permit young men from the farms to take up other lines of work. At present a young man who has his home on the farm, no matter how poor that home is, cannot go into one of these training schools unless he is able to pay for his own board and lodging. I do not think that is fair. It excludes many young men on our farms who are not satisfied with farm life, and who would be only too glad to learn some trade which they could be taught under the youth training scheme.
There are quite a number of royal commissions at work throughout the country at the present time, and we hope to have some of their reports for study in the near future. The national employment commission is, I believe, about wound up, and it finished its labours without making a complete registration of the unemployed and those on relief. For instance, you could pick out family after family in western Canada, and in eastern Canada as well, where there are young men and women unemployed, but because they have a home they do not register as unemployed.
We are expecting very soon a report from the royal commission that is inquiring into the textile industry; also a report from the veterans' assistance commission. A number of us are hoping that something radical will be done for the veterans this session. It is now nearly twenty years since they came back to Canada. Before leaving for the front they were told that Canada would take care of them when they returned, but up to the present this has not been done to the extent we desire.
The wheat commission is also sitting; and then there is the Rowell commission, as to which all the provinces do not agree. We have also on the table before us the report of the committee that inquired into prices of agricultural machinery. The report was tabled last session, and I understand still lies on the table. I hope drastic action will be taken to reduce prices when that report is finally adopted by the house. In 1935 the tariff on farm machinery amounted to 25 per cent. At that time an 8-foot International Mc-Cormick-Deering binder, delivered at my nearest station, cost $272.50 cash. In the 1936 session legislation was passed reducing the tariff from 25 to 7i per cent on agricul-
The Address-Mr. Fair

tural implements, but still anybody who wanted to buy a binder to cut his 1936 crop had to pay $290, or an additional $17.50 even after the tariff had been cut by 17i per cent. We have gone to school, some of us perhaps longer than others, but by no system of mathematics can we figure out just how the price could increase that much with a reduction in the tariff of 17| per cent.
The profits of the International Harvester Company amounted in 1935 to $19,618,000, and in 1936, apparently taking advantage of the tariff reduction and an increase in their prices, their profits were $29,760,000. An investigation at that time showed that the company had also a secret fund of $40,000,000, which had not been disclosed up to that time. In view of this and other information brought out, we are hoping that the government will carry out at least one of its promises and do something in connection with farm machinery prices.
Turning now to prices of motor cars, you have your automobile factories in Ontario, and your car prices are not very much affected by freight rates. Just the same, car prices here, as all hon. members know, are far higher than they should be, much higher than they are in'the United States; but on account of the subsidies given to manufacturers, those prices are allowed to continue. Those of us who live in the west have to pay heavy freight charges on the ordinary light car. Take for instance the Chevrolet; it costs us for freight $135 in addition to the price paid in Ontario, so that residents in the east are a little better off in this respect than we are. Considering the price we have to pay for our cars, and the tariff protection provided for car manufacturers in Canada, I was interested to read the following in the Edmonton Journal of January 10, 1938:
Washington, Jan. 10. A congressional committee, giving the public a peek into the 1936 pay envelopes of the United States' highest paid industrialists, movie stars and financiers, disclosed Sunday Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., of General Motors, tops the list with $561,311. Thirteen men received in excess of $300,000 each for the year, the report showed, and nine of them were officials of the General Motors Corporation. William S. Knudsen, its vice-president, ranked second to Sloan, with $459,878. . . . The report showed that 336 General Motors Corporation officials received $15,000 or more and 56 of them got at least $50,000.
In view of the conditions existing in Canada to-day, of the millions of dollars which have been handed out in relief or are to be paid at some future day, and of the salaries which I have read to the house, is this not another

place where the government might consider tariff reductions and give the people another break? Most of us are pretty well broke at the present time; give them the other kind of break for a change.
It costs quite a lot for the gasoline required in the operation of an automobile. In this connection I was interested to find the following report of what took place the other day before the tariff board. I quote from the Ottawa Journal of February 5, 1938:
Widespread cheating of Montreal motorists as they buy gasoline was alleged before the tariff board Friday by Charles E. Austin, representing the Joy Oil Company, operating in Toronto and Montreal.
Austin said his company had sent a test car to seventy-five Montreal stations. The car was operated on a special gasoline tank. Purchased gasoline went into another tank. At 68 of the 75 stations short measure was received, in many eases the shortages ranging from one to three gallons on five-gallon purchases.
He charged the alleged evil became apparent when the major oil companies abandoned direct operations of their retail stations and leased them to individuals.
"It is what I vmuld expect in the long run and over the whole picture unless the number of stations is greatly reduced," said Chairman George Sedgewiek. "If the load is put on the boys running the stations, then the loss is there. Somebody's got to pay for the fool distribution system and if the companies won't then the lessees of the stations must.''
Here, again, is an abuse which I believe can be remedied if the proper action is taken. We have laws on our statute books regulating weights and measures, and such a glaring case as this, where in sixty-eight of seventy-five stations short measure is received, sometimes ranging from one to three gallons on a five-gallon purchase, looks like rampant short measure operations. Or, to go a little further away, if the government intend to do anything about this I suggest that they check up on barrel measures being supplied in different parts of Canada. In the past I have bought quite a lot of gasoline in barrels, and it is nothing new to find that the gas comes only within six or sometimes eight inches of the top, when in order to get full measure it should be close to the top of the barrel.
I understand that the elections and franchise acts are to come up at this session for amendment. Here, also, something radical should be done. In view of information which has been received during the past two weeks and commented upon on both sides of the house, it seems to me that drastic amendments should be brought in, and if we are not able to rectify the wrongs by amendments to these acts we should proceed to amend whatever are the appropriate statutes. I do not think

The Address-Mr. Fair
there is any doubt that wrongs exist, and the common people again must pay the shot. If our people were treated with the justice to which they are entitled, probably relief could be cut to a considerable extent.
Another matter in which I am very much interested is the wheat board. At the last session a number of protests were forwarded to Ottawa. To those protests the government has turned a deaf ear. One hon. member of this house, speaking before the royal commission, is reported to have said that "the government have sterilized the Wheat Board Act." That is about what it amounts to. It seems strange that they should have done so. We know that many farmers, particularly in the west, were depending upon that board to obtain for them a square deal. We know that very little reason is apparent at times for the price of grain on the exchange going up or down. Here is an instance of a prediction which looked very foolish but nevertheless had the desired effect and, I assume, enabled certain people to make large profits. I read from a market letter sent out by the Searle Grain Company, February 3, 1938:
A few days ago the world wheat advisory committee issued a formal statement to the effect that if the present world wheat acreage is maintained, and if average yields should occur, and if the demand for wheat does not increase, then a disastrous glut of wheat would appear by August 1st, 1940. The committee estimated that on that date the world wheat carryover, or surplus, would be not less than 1,370 million bushels.
The immediate effect of this news was to unsettle wheat markets. Price dropped two cents at Chicago, with corresponding drops on other markets. World wheat buyers and millers could not be expected to be over-anxious about stocking up their bins when the London wheat committee suggested there will probably be a disastrous glut of wheat in the near future.
That is all supposition. I read three "ifs" there and on the strength of those ifs, which we know might be shattered by several different circumstances, the price of wheat dropped two cents a bushel.
We find also that as soon as the farmer starts to haul his wheat the price goes down and stays down during the time he is delivering his grain. Commencing August 1, 1936, and continuing until December 12 of that year-the period that most of the wheat is delivered by the farmers-the low at Fort William for the period was 96| cents and the high SS1.14J. Commencing again with the week ending December 19 we find that the low from that period until the end of the 1936-37 crop year was $1.20$ and the high $1.50a. The purpose of the wheat board is to level up the average selling price and give those who are compelled to sell immediately after threshing just as good a price as is received by the man who is able to hold until a later day. It is also meant to take some of the speculation out of wheat, but perhaps that would make the farmers too prosperous, so we are denied the right to use that board unless the price of wheat gets below the cost of production.
Last season we had the very strange condition of both price and grade of wheat dropping. I know one man who at the end of August, started to haul less than 2,000 bushels of wheat; when he started it was grade No. 1 but by the time he had finished it had dropped to grade No. 3. That is a serious matter and one that should be taken care of by this government. We find also that the difference in price and grades ran as high as at least 294 cents that I know of between No. 1 and No. 3, and as high as 20 cents between No. 2 and No. 3. For quite a number of years we were accustomed to the spread between No. 1 and No. 3 running around 8 cents. In the past elevator companies by keeping their elevators nearly full were able to make quite substantial earnings on the storage of grain. But this year, because the grain was not there, apparently some other way had to be found, and I suggest that this spread in price is to help pay the overhead of the elevators. It seems very strange that at the beginning of the season the grade of practically all kinds of grain, whether old or new, dropped down to No. 3. I know one small town from which eight cars of No. 1 were shipped last season; samples were taken of that grain and sent in and came back in some cases No. 2 and in some cases No. 3. So it looks as though the graders this year do not know their business or else those last year did not know it. Again, after most of the grain had left the farmer's hands we find the grading has eased up to a very considerable extent. For some weeks before I left to come to Ottawa some farmers were getting No. 2 again, although that was impossible at one time when the grain was going in from the farm.
Now I should like to read part of a speech delivered here by the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on March 30 last, reported at page 2294 of Hansard. Replying to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the Minister of Justice said:
With regard to disallowance, I am surprised that the hon. member should suggest the disallowance of provincial legislation.
Mr. Woodsworth: I did not suggest it.
Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East):	Ordinarily
the hon. member is very much opposed to arbitrary measures.
The Address-Mr. Fair

Mr, Woodsworth:	May I say I did not
suggest it. I said there was a power of disallowance, but I made another suggestion.
Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East): For many years the power of disallowance has not been resorted to by the government of Canada. The same power of disallowance existed in connection with federal legislation in the hands of His Majesty the King, represented of course by the Imperial government. That power has not been exercised for many years. In fact, at the imperial conference of 1926, and later in 1930, iit was formally declared that this power no longer constitutionally exists, and that the imperial parliament has no constitutional right to disallow laws of the parliament of a dominion.
I would not say the same condition would apply to provincial legislation, but it has often been stated by the courts that within the sphere of their own jurisdiction the provincial legislatures are sovereign. I do not think that in a federation such as this the power of disallowance could easily be exercised by the central government. I believe the provincial legislatures feel that they are still supreme and sovereign within the sphere of their jurisdiction.
I understand the act has been assented to by the lieutenant governor. If, as the hon. member suggests, it is ultra vires, then the courts will so rule. The courts will declare that it is ultra vires, and it is better that the courts so declare than that the Minister of Justice do so, because there would be no appeal from disallowance by the minister. On the other hand there would be appeal from a court decision, and there would be a final judgment as to whether or not it is within the powers of a province to legislate in the matter.
A little further on he says:
The hon. member spoke of communism and the way to fight it. He asked what our stand against communism would be. I am pleased that the debate gives me an opportunity to express my views as to the doctrine of revolutionary communism. I have never concealed my views on the subject. I am opposed to everything that they teach and preach. I am against their doctrine on moral, religious and sociological grounds. With the exception of a few individuals, I think our whole population is opposed to the spreading of this doctrine. I believe the best way to fight communism is to eliminate the causes of discontent which exist among many classes of our population. We should try to give justice to everyone, to the poor, the same as to the rich, to the humble the same as to the powerful. We should endeavour to eliminate the grievances and abuses which now exist in our system. But while that system may need reforming, we still want to keep it.
I believe that is a good idea. I was very glad to hear the minister say that, and something more a little later in that same speech, but I am sorry that since that time he has turned in the other direction. We find that other powers are crushing Canada to-day, and that the minister, as well as the government, has seen fit to adopt those oppressors. Speaking the other day the hon. member for

Jacques Cartier (Mr. Mallette) said, as reported at page 1(14 of Hansard:
The question of repealing the padlock law should be left to the people of Quebec; this government should not exercise its power of disallowance. If a demand comes from a strong section of the people of Quebec then the matter might be considered. However, one of these days the people of Quebec will have an opportunity to say at the polls whether or not they are satisfied with the government that passed that law, and it will be time enough to deal with the matter then.
I find in talking with a number of hon. members that the same thoughts are expressed by them. I wonder whether these members will tell their leader so, tell him that the will of the people in any province should be supreme, if a law exists for the oppression of the people, that law should stand back and the will of the people take the place of the law.
I believe with several other hon. members that conditions in Canada have got to be changed, conditions all over the world have got to be changed, and if we do not do it peacefully they will have to be changed otherwise. A little over two years ago the people of Alberta decided that a change was necessary and elected a government to make that change, and I believe the change is pretty well in line with the proposals made by the Prime Minister, speaking particularly at Saskatoon on September 21, 1935, when he asked for a sweeping Liberal victory so that they could fight the battle in the new parliament against the money powers. The government of Alberta began and is still continuing that fight against the money power, but we find that this government, under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, has become part of our opposition. While things are not travelling very quickly, there is a fight ahead. The people have been oppressed in the past; they are not going to sit down and take that forever. When people are allowed to starve while there is plenty to eat, plenty to wear and plenty of material with which to build better houses, I think this government should make a start, together with the government of Alberta, and do something to help those who are faced with such serious difficulties.
I have a little verse which I am going to commend to the consideration of hon. gentlemen opposite:
It's All Up To You You are the ones who have to decide Whether you'll do it-or lay it aside.
You are the ones to make up your minds Whether you'll lead or will linger behind, Whether you'll try for the goal that's afar, Or be contented to stay as you are.
Take it or leave it, there's something to do Just think it over, it's all up to YOU!

The Address-Division


Mr. MARTIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Brown). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SENN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Sanderson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McNIVEN (Regina):: I was paired with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Marsh). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Euler). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BROOKS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Patterson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Main motion (Mr. Franeoeur) agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the address be engrossed and transmitted to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of the house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That this house will, on Monday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Then I apologize most humbly to the hon. minister.\nSection stands.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 6 p.m.\nMonday, February 14, 1938']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That this house will, on Monday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved:
That the message of His Excellency the Governor General, together with the estimates presented on February 3. 1938, be referred to the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That standing order 56 be amended by adding the following as section (5):
(5) At the commencement of every session, or from time to time as necessity may arise, the house may appoint a deputy chairman of committees who shall, whenever the chairman of committees is absent, be entitled to exercise all the powers vested in the chairman of committees including his powers as deputy speaker during Mr. Speaker's unavoidable absence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, standing order No. 56 has to do with the office and duties of the Deputy Speaker. The Speaker of the House of Commons Act provides that at the beginning of each parliament the house shall appoint, first, a speaker, and then a chairman of committees. The act also contains provision for the appointment of a deputy chairman of committees, but that right has not

thus far been availed of, and there is at present no rule of the house relating to a deputy chairman of committees.
The circumstance which has brought the matter to the attention of the government at this time is that the Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees, Mr. Sanderson, is likely to be absent from the house until towards the end of March, he having been chosen by the Empire Parliamentary Association as one of the delegates to represent Canada at the 150th anniversary of the founding of Australia. It has been pointed out that if it should so happen that His Honour the Speaker were absent at the same time as the Deputy Speaker, the house might, pending some action formally agreed upon, find it impossible to meet until we succeeded in having either His Honour the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker return to his place.
To avoid a possibility of that kind, and in conformance with the practice followed at Westminster, I have introduced the resolution now before the house. If it is adopted it will make possible the appointment of a deputy to the chairman of committees, and I shall then suggest, for this position an hon. member whose name will, I believe, appeal to all hon. members.
I may say that this resolution does not contemplate the appointment of a deputy chairman for the entire term of parliament, but simply for the session and from time to time as occasion may arise. There are similar orders, not at Westminster only but in the parliaments of the other self-governing dominions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that only one question arises in this matter: is it competent under the statute as it now stands to confer the powers of the Speaker upon a deputy chairman of committees? I am bound to say that I find it difficult to give an affirmative answer to that question. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has pointed out that the Speaker of the House of Commons Act provides for the election of a speaker and that under our standing rule we have a chairman of committees who has exercised the powers of the Speaker when the Speaker has been absent; but I have some doubt that we can name a deputy of the chairman of committees and confer upon him the powers of the Speaker.
I assume the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has given this matter his consideration and has arrived at a satisfactory conclusion, otherwise the resolution would not have been introduced. It seems to me the safe

The Deputy Speaker
course to pursue would be to have the chairman of committees, when parliament meets, tender his resignation for the session, and then elect a chairman of committees. That would obviate any possible difficulty that might arise with respect to conferring the powers of the Speaker upon a deputy chairman of committees. This is the only observation I have to make, and I shall be glad to hear whether the Minister of Justice has satisfied himself on this point.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I may say to my right hon. friend that I really believe this is a regular method of procedure during the absence of the Deputy Speaker. The question has been considered by the department and we could find no other way of dealing with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, with your consent I shall put again to the Minister of Justice the method which I conceive to be the safe way of dealing with this. I do not believe he got my observation, because he was reading the statute at the time.
I say we should ask the chairman of committees to resign his office for the session, or declare the office vacant by reason of his absence; then by motion of this house we could elect one of our members as chairman of committees. It will be remembered that we had the same difficulty in connection with the oaths act and that we had to go to the imperial parliament for the necessary legislation. Our constitutional statute certainly does not provide for the appointment of a deputy chairman of committees and his being clothed with the powers of the Speaker. With respect to committees, it is a simple matter; with respect to the Chair, it is difficult and complicated. I mention this only because I am. unable to find any constitutional authority to deal with it. I think the safe course would be as I have indicated. It is certainly not contemplated that the chairman of committees shall be absent; it is contemplated that he will be here, and when he is within the country I personally would think that the effect of this would be to vacate the office for the session.
I thank the Minister of Justice for his courtesy in permitting me to make this statement after he had made his.


Ernest Lapointe: The suggestion of my right hon. friend would meet the case except that it would mean the reappointment of the Deputy Speaker when he returns home.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Ernest Lapointe: I can only repeat that this matter has been considered
51952-24J
by the Clerk of the House and the law officers of the department and the decision was that this would provide a satisfactory manner of dealing with it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That Mr. J. Frederick Johnston, the member for the electoral district of Lake Centre, be appointed deputy chairman of committees of the whole house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934 (part V, sick mariners and marine hospitals), in respect to the levy and collection, and in certain cases the remission, of ship dues.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937, to empower the governor in council to authorize the minister to enter into a contract for the extension of the Trans-Canada Lines of aircraft beyond the confines of Canada.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
[Stage Direction]
Canada Shipping Act-Munitions
That it is expedient to introduce a measure conferring authority upon a transport commission (the board of railway commissioners to be known as such) to license, regulate and control the transport of passengers and goods by railways, ships and aircraft, and to fix licence fees and transportation tolls and charges and regulate and control other matters incidental thereto.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to regulate the inspection and sale of binder twine and salt, to establish weight of bushel for certain commodities commonly sold by the bushel and to authorize the appointment of inspectors and analysts.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.
He said: This bill was prepared for last session, but as that session was shortened on account of the coronation and the imperial conference proceedings it became impracticable to introduce it then.
It will be recalled that during last session parliament amended section 290 of the Customs Act in order, among other things, to modernize and make more effective the long standing power to control the export from Canada of arms and munitions of war, including articles capable of being converted thereinto or made useful in the production thereof. That amendment was the result of careful inquiries conducted by the government into the proceedings of the committee of the Geneva disarmament conference which had studied the international traffic in arms and munitions. The actual practice of other

countries in the same field was also considered. Last year's legislation, so far as the control of exports is concerned, placed Canada in line with many other countries throughout the world, including Great Britain and the United States and western European countries.
In pursuance of that legislation the government, also in line with the practice of the countries mentioned, has established a licensing system covering a specified list of arms, ammunition and implements of war. This list is in general conformity with a list which was compiled by the committee of the disarmament conference and with similar lists adopted by other countries. The result is that none of the arms or other articles specified in the list can be exported from Canada without a licence issued by the Department of National Revenue. The applicant for such a licence is required to give full information regarding the proposed export, and upon his furnishing this information the licence is issued, except in cases where a duly authorized restriction has been placed upon exports to the proposed destination. The result of such licensing systems established by various countries is that information becomes readily available as to the extent and character of the trade in arms.
In further pursuance of last year's amend- , ment of the Customs Act, an order in coun- I cil was passed at the end of July, 1937, specifically prohibiting the export to Spain of this list of arms, munitions and implements of war; so that no licences can be granted for such exports to Spanish territory. As is well known, twenty-seven European countries were engaged in an effort to carry out a non-intervention agreement respecting the Spanish conflict. This agreement, whatever may be said as to evasions of it, contemplated that the countries concerned should refrain from supplying arms and implements of war to either side of that conflict. It is understood that the broad aim of the agreement is to prevent other countries from becoming embroiled and thus to prevent the conflict from spreading, while it was also hoped to shorten the conflict. Canada is not a party to the non-intervention agreement; but it is no part of Canadian policy to intervene in the Spanish conflict, and it was undersirable to leave Canada in a position of seeming to sanction activities which might to some extent defeat or run counter to the purposes of the agreement and to the general policy of neutrality. Accordingly, the above mentioned order in council of July last was passed. It will be recalled that earlier in the year the United States government had also prohibited the

Canada Shipping Act-Munitions
export of a similar list of arms and implements of war to Spain or Spanish territory. The United States also is not a party to the non-intervention agreement.
The expediency of the present bill also arises from the general situation as explained above. More immediately its preparation was suggested by various incidents affecting shipping which have occurred from time to time since the beginning of the Spanish conflict.
When the bill is carefully examined,, however, in relation to our existing legislation and to the actual state of Canadian shipping, it will be found that its practical effect has only a narrow scope. The bill gives power to exercise a certain control over the activities of Canadian ships-that is to say, ships on Canadian	registry-which	might become
involved in some incident of an international conflict. In this connection two situations have to be considered. The first is where a ship carries arms or munitions of war shipped from a Canadian port and destined for countries or regions which are in a state of war or conflict. Practically speaking, that situation can already be completely controlled under section 290 of the Customs Act as amended last session; because, whenever a proper case arises, shipments of such goods from Canadian ports, whether by ships on Canadian registry or on any other registry, can be prevented under the power to prohibit exports from Canada. The second situation is where a Canadian ship trading abroad might, at some foreign port, accept for carriage a cargo of such warlike articles for carriage to some foreign country or region other than those engaged in war or conflict. That is a situation which it is possible for Canada to control, since Canada possesses jurisdiction over the activities of her own merchant ships wherever they may be. It is that situation which the bill, therefore, is primarily intended to cover, although incidentally, to be consistent, it includes a like power over Canadian ships trading from Canadian ports. It may further be noted that in actual fact Canada has no great merchant marine engaged in trade between foreign ports and other foreign ports.
But while, as noted, the bill may have a narrow practical effect, it is considered useful to have this precautionary power on the statute books in case necessity arises and in order to be able, if desirable, to ensure that Canada may not run counter to some international policy adopted by other countries with which Canada may agree.
The broad object might be regarded as twofold: To be able in appropriate cases to avoid what might be taken as a Canadian
public policy of intervention in some conflict, and to be able to prevent Canadian registered ships, for their own sake, from getting into difficult situations.
It may be noted that this proposal is in line with measures taken by other countries. In December, 1936, the United Kingdom parliament adopted similar legislation known as the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of munitions to Spain) Act, 1936. The scheme of the present bill gives a general power of control in such situations rather than a power confined to one particular situation. Under the United States neutrality legislation a similar kind of control over United States shipping is provided.
The bill provides for a new section-No. 703A-to be inserted in our basic shipping legislation, that is, the Canada Shipping Act, 1934. Under subsections 1, 2 and 3 the governor in council may by regulation designate the territory in a state of war or armed conflict to which the section is to apply, and the arms, ammunition or other materials which are to be affected, and thereupon it will be unlawful for a Canadian ship to carry such articles from a foreign port, or from a Canadian port either to the area of conflict. Subsections 4, 5, 6 and 7, together with other penalty sections of the basic Canada Shipping Act, provide for such matters as the definition of the indictable offence, the jurisdiction of the exchequer court and certain other courts, the powers of certain officers, and generally speaking the means for enforcing the purposes of the proposed new section.
The newspapers have perhaps given some erroneous impressions as to the scope and purpose of the bill. Some reports seem to give the impression that the bill means that the government intend to embark upon some new policy in connection with the international situation. As noted above, however, the bill was prepared last session and did not get introduced for lack of time. It is, in a sense, supplementary to the purpose of the amendment to section 290 of the Customs Act passed last session, and its preparation was suggested by certain shipping incidents arising from the Spanish conflict. As also noted above, the practical effect and scope of the bill are probably very narrow but it nevertheless seems a useful precaution, and it puts Canada in line with other countries.
One report indicated that, in defining the articles to be affected, the bill considerably extended the definition of such articles which was included in the amendment to section 290 of the Customs Act last year. This is not so, as can easily be seen by comparing subsection 3 of section 1 of the present bill with
[Stage Direction]
Canada Shipping Act-Munitions
paragraph (b) of section 290 of the Customs Act as amended. The definitions are the same. Section 290 of the Customs Act provides that the governor in council may-
(b) prohibit, restrict or control the exportation, generally or to any destination, directly or indirectly, or the carrying coastwise or by inland navigation, of arms, military, naval or air stores, or any articles deemed capable of being converted thereinto or made useful in the production thereof, or provisions or any sort of victual which may be used as food by man or beast.
Thus it will be seen that the definition of the articles affected by the present bill is precisely the same as the definition employed last year in amending section 290 of the Customs Act to describe the articles whose export from Canada might be controlled.
It has to be borne in mind always that the present bill is only a measure to provide powers. The bill itself prevents nothing. Like section 290 of the Customs Act it simply provides a precautionary power to take certain action in the future if the interests of Canada should appear to warrant such action. The insertion of the words in question cannot be taken to mean that the government have in mind any situation which would warrant making use of them in present circumstances.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Inasmuch as our rules
provide that on the second reading of a bill the principle of it only shall be discussed, and the details contained in the sections should not be considered, I content myself with saying that the principle is the control, so far as our jurisdiction may enable us to exercise it, of the shipment of munitions of war in Canadian vessels. That is as far as it goes, and I am afraid that a great many words are used in the section to accomplish very little. As the minister himself knows, whatever benefits may accrue lie within a very narrow base. There are some details of the measure which require amplification and explanation, but everyone is agreed, I believe, that we should have the power, and that will expedite the passage of the bill through this chamber, because no one will deny that parliament should authorize somebody to have the necessary control of a matter of this kind. If the Customs Act as amended last year is not broad enough to deal with it, we should of course proceed with this amendment of the shipping act; but I question very seriously, for reasons that are obvious, the extent to which the powers can be exercised.
]Mr. Howe.]
The real crux of the matter lies in the fact that a single section might have covered all that is contemplated, because the governor in council is the motive power behind any action that may be taken. Within its jurisdiction and within the rules and regulations and orders in council passed by it must be found any value or benefit that may attach to this measure. The explanations in the subsections are only an amplification of the power that is to be exercised after the governor in council has made such provisions for the operation of the act as are regarded by the government of the day as being necessary.
I have some questions to ask the minister in respect to the question involved. He indicated a moment ago that there had been no matters arising in this country with respect to the Spanish conflict. I think he will find on investigation that from Paris were sent cables, to which a negative answer was given by the government here, as to the shipment of certain articles of trade and commerce from Canada to Spain. My memory does not serve me at the moment as to which one of the belligerents they would go to, but certainly a negative answer was given as to permission for the handling of certain traffic which was offered, involving some millions of dollars, and the commodities in question were not shipped from this country. I recall that vigorous complaints were made, that this should have been prevented. Perhaps some details will be given when the matter is in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 1-Prohibition of shipment of articles of war to countries in a state of war.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Can it be said that that is quite what this section says? The ship now is out of Canada and out of Canadian waters; she is in the Mediterranean; how can we reach that ship there and in what manner would we enforce our fiat with respect to the matter, assuming that the governor in council has declared that some section or area in the Mediterranean is an area to which the act applies?


Mr. HOWE:: A Canadian ship is always under the jurisdiction of the laws of Canada. If a ship breaks the law by carrying war materials from a Mediterranean port to a country at war it will be subject to the penalties provided by the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has not followed me. The ship is laden with munitions in France and sails for the Mediterranean;

Canada Shipping Act-Munitions
she arrives in the Mediterranean and begins to discharge her cargo of munitions. She may never come back to a Canadian port.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, our officers are Canadian seamen. We could at least penalize the officers. That is, we could strike them off the register. Some time or another a Canadian ship surely must come back to Canadian shores.


Richard Bedford Bennett: She need not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But in any case the seamen are subject to the law. It is the same, I suppose, as with any criminal; he may evade the policing authority; he may never be called to answer for his crimes. So it would be in the case of a Canadian ship that never comes back to Canada. Nevertheless I believe her officers and crew would find it necessary at some time to make use of their Canadian articles.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The minister has admitted that from a practical standpoint the scope of this bill is not very great. Could the minister give us some information as to what ships of Canadian registry are now engaged in the transatlantic or transpacific trade?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have two ships on the west coast from Vancouver to the Philippines and China and Japan, and we have a fleet between Canada and the West Indies on the east coast. That is all that occurs to me at the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are they on Canadian registry?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the two Canadian Pacific ships are. The two running to Australia are on Australian registry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And those on the Atlantic are on British registry?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. GREEN:: Could the minister tell us how this could be used in respect to the fighting in China? For instance, could the Empress boats out of Vancouver be prevented from carrying munitions from the Philippines to Hongkong?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The two ships registered in Canada could be prevented from carrying munitions or supplies, anything that the governor in council designated as prohibited material.


Howard Charles Green: Could they also be prevented from carrying from, say Manila to Hongkong?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is really the purpose of the bill. There are other ways of preventing those ships from carrying munitions from
Canada to China; they could be prevented under the Customs Act. But this amendment would give us power to prohibit those ships from carrying from Manila to China.


Howard Charles Green: So that when this amendment goes through the government will have power to prevent shipment of munitions from Vancouver to China?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Exactly. We have that power now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not under this section but under the Customs Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, under the Customs Act.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Do I understand that the two ships referred to on the Pacific are the Canadian Pacific Empress boats?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are the Empress of Russia and the Empress of Asia.


Mr. HEAPS:: Have we the power to prohibit the shipment of arms from Canadian ports to any country that we wish?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Any country where a conflict is taking place and which the governor in council may designate as a prohibited area.


Howard Charles Green: Then there is no question that under the present act it would be possible for the government to prevent shipment of arms and munitions to China?


Clarence Decatur Howe: From Canada?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, or prevent them from being picked up at Manila and taken on to Hongkong?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under this bill we can prevent them from being picked up at Manila and taken on, yes. Under the Customs Act we can prevent them from being shipped from Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: On any ships?


Clarence Decatur Howe: On any ships, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister is in error in saying that we can prevent them from being shipped on a ship at Manila. Our arm does not extend to the Philippine port of Manila. Obviously if they were laden on the ship by workmen at Manila we could not stop them. We would have to name that as a prohibited territory to begin with and then we could not touch the loading; we could touch only the ship after she got into our jurisdiction. The law of the community or port would govern with respect to any proceedings taken against the ship. If the ship were libelled there she would have to be libelled in accordance with the law of that community; she could not be libelled under the Canadian law. Our arm does not extend to touch any-

Canada Shipping Act-Munitions
thing in that port once she is in the port or within the three mile limit. What we could do is punish someone, because the ship is of Canadian register, but we cannot interfere with the loading or unloading in that port, that not being a port in which a conflict is being waged.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Surely that is as far as we can go.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are doing what we can, what is within our powers.


Major James William Coldwell: This bill is of limited scope. It is in a sense discriminatory against just two ships on the Pacific, for example. Does the government contemplate using the Customs Act to cover other ships not registered in Canada and place them on the same footing in regard to the export of munitions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are doing that almost every day. The section passed last year is being applied to Spain at the present time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Do I understand from what the minister has just said that quite a large number of shipments have been prevented from leaving this country under the provisions of the act of last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps more indirectly than directly. The fact that the power is there probably stopped a good many shipments.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I understood the minister to say that shipments had been stopped almost every day under the Customs Act.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I think what the minister said is that the provisions of the Customs Act are being applied. Naturally, when shipments to Spain are prohibited under order in council, persons in this country do not try to make such shipments.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, have many shipments been prevented from going to Spain as a result of the legislation passed a year ago?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That comes within the jurisdiction of the Department of National Revenue. I cannot answer the question definitely, but I am under the impression that no one has tried to make such shipments. Efforts to ship to Spain have been insignificant or non-existent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the point raised by the leader of the opposition be met if in 703A (1), instead of the phrase "transshipped on the high seas," a more general or comprehensive phrase were used such as "transshipped anywhere"?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the point there is that to be under our control it must be on the high seas. As the leader of the opposition

said, if it is in a foreign port it is under the control of the government of the country in which the port is situated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then we get into an argument. The phrase "territorial waters" does not mean the same for all countries. In some instances it is three miles; in others, twelve miles. Moreover, for some countries, the phrases "territorial waters" and marginal seas are not identical.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is, I think, covered by the words "territorial waters." The section contemplates three things. One of them I find difficult to follow. First, the article shall not be discharged at any port or place in any territory designated by the governor in council for the purposes of this section. The second is, "or within the territorial waters." The third is, "on the high seas." They are all covered. But what I find it difficult to understand is this:	We say that no such article
consigned to or destined to any such port shall be taken on board or carried in any such ship. I would think that the language used should have been that so far as the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction it shall be so, as is frequently done. It looks strange for us to say that no one in one of these foreign ports can load goods into or discharge goods from a ship to which our arm cannot reach, except as the people or the ship may come back within this jurisdiction. If I may say so without being offensive, it really is meaningless as it reads, because no purpose can be served by enacting a prohibition against something being done in Manila, for instance, when Manila is within the legislative jurisdiction of another country and we cannot exercise any power with respect to that ship in that port. The fact that she is registered in Canada does not give us jurisdiction over the ship tied up at the dock in a foreign port. She has become subject to the local or domestic law of the port.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) sitting beside the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) knows of a cage that engaged the attention of eminent judges for a long time concerning the jurisdiction of the local authorities and the British authorities, the ship being registered in England, in connection with a particular crime. In this case we certainly cannot prohibit the loading of anything on that ship in a foreign port. We can say that if a ship under Canadian registry does something, we may punish the owner; and the crew itself is subject to certain international obligations-I did not want to get into that phase of the matter-provided for by the convention which we signed some years ago, which was approved by this house. The sailor

Canada Shipping Act-Munitions
on that ship who is a Canadian has, by convention between all the maritime countries, of which we are one, an international status when he goes into a foreign port. That was dealt with in the last parliament.
My difficulty is that this does not mean anything. It is a prohibition in terms, in words, incapable of being made effective by any action of ours. I was suggesting that foreign people might think we were endeavouring to exercise too wide a jurisdiction, and it might be desirable to add such words as "as far as the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction." Then we would not give offence to foreign countries, nor could it be successfully contended that we had endeavoured to exercise a jurisdiction which we did not possess, that is, a jurisdiction over the ship tied up to a dock in a foreign port.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that there is in connection with our legislation a presumption which goes to remove the fears the right hon. gentleman has expressed, that the section as drawn has a distinct meaning, in that we can enforce it as against British subjects, or Canadian subjects at all events, and that we do not purport to exercise jurisdiction which we do not possess over anyone in a foreign port. We merely prohibit the doing of certain things. If our Canadian citizens infringe upon our laws, then, as the section now stands, when they return I would think they can be punished.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since the Statute of Westminster we have a wider power, and that presumption no longer obtains.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is another point. I am somewhat at a loss to know why we should be asked to pass this bill. As I understood the Minister of Transport, we have no boats plying between here and Spain, and the Minister of National Revenue says he cannot recall any instance in which advantage was taken of the amendment to the Customs Act. I cannot then see any necessity, as far as Spain is concerned, of putting this supplementary legislation on the statute books. The Minister of Transport seemed to me to convey the impression that this empowering legislation was sought merely because of the situation in Spain. If we are to contemplate this being used on the Pacific, then it seems .to me we should have some sort of statement from the government as to the reason for this legislation. The governor in council has been given authority under the Customs Act to prohibit anything being shipped to Spain.


James Lorimer Ilsley: To any country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; Spain has
been designated.


James Lorimer Ilsley: By order in council.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is what I thought I said.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not by the legislation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; by order in council Spain has been designated. Why should we not have China or Japan designated as another country?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a matter of policy.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so; but I think at this stage, when we are asked to give supplementary powers, we should know what is the policy of the government with respect to this matter. Apparently it is only the ships on the Pacific that will be affected by this legislation; two Canadian Pacific ships are the only ships that will be affected.


James Lorimer Ilsley: At the moment, but this may last a long time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know it is general legislation which empowers the governor in council to take action, but we should not be asked to load the statute books with useless legislation. Does the government propose to designate Japan as one of the countries to which arms may not be sent? I think we should know that. Only if the government propose to do that has this legislation any value at this time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I ask a question? Does the hon. gentleman advocate the naming of both Japan and China as countries to which exportations should be prohibited?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know that there is any particular reason why I should be called upon to declare what government policy should be.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I thought the hon. member
would not answer that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister thought I would not answer that? I will answer it. The minister does not answer. I thought the minister would not answer; and the government does not appear to be answering. As far as I am concerned Japan is an aggressor nation, and I think morally we are bound to refuse to ship materials of war to an aggressor nation. China is in an altogether different position. Apparently the minister and the government do not want to answer that question. I do not think we should be called upon to put this legislation on the statute books unless we know whether it is going to be used.

Canada Shipping Act-Munitions


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
to my hon. friend that, as he is aware, as far as the conflict in Spain is concerned several nations have been represented on a non-intervention committee which has been endeavouring to prevent a spread of the conflict in that country. They have all agreed upon nonintervention as far as Spain is concerned. While not represented on the committee of non-intervention Canada has deemed it desirable to ally herself with these other countries in the general attitude which has been taken towards the conflict in Spain. There is not thus far among the nations a similar non-intervention policy with regard to the Sino-Japanese conflict. There has not even been a declaration of a state of war. Other nations have not joined together in any declaration of concerted non-intervention in that field. When other nations have united on a policy of non-intervention, that, it would seem, would be the time for this country to consider whether or not it should adopt a similar policy.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the
Prime Minister if we have not signed solemn treaties under which we obligate ourselves to go to the help of a country that is being attacked? And may I ask a second question:	Must Canada always wait until other
nations take action, especially when Canadian affairs are concerned?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think we need to wait, but I think we are wise to take cognizance of our obligations in the light of the world situation as it is to-day.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then the obligations do not mean much, do they?


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend advocate Canada taking part in that war?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not advocate that. I advocated refusing to give assistance to an aggressor nation that is mercilessly attacking another nation.


Major James William Coldwell: If my recollection
serves me right-I have not the documents before me-I think on October 5 or 6 last the League of Nations, of which we are a member, called upon its constituent members to give moral support to China in its struggle, and more recently we have had another pronouncement of the same kind. Again, speaking from memory, I believe at the Brussels conference Canada was pointed out as the nation which was supplying a large percentage of the raw material for Japan.
[Mr. Woodsworth.J
If we are a signatory of the League of Nations and we have moral obligations, it seems to me-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where does
the hon. member get the information he has just given, with respect to Canada supplying Japan? I believe he mentioned the Brussels conference.


Major James William Coldwell: I believe the statement was made by the Chinese delegate to the nine-power conference held at Brussels about six or seven weeks ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to see the statement before attempting to answer it.


Major James William Coldwell: I should be glad to look it up, and send it to the Prime Minister.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the Prime Minister also be prepared to tell us what happened at Brussels?


Ernest Lapointe: Not during the debate on this bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has the report of the Brussels conference which was laid on the table of the house. That report contains the information given to the world as to what happened there. I shall be glad to answer any questions I am in a position to answer with respect to the conference, but I cannot tell the hon. member about everything that happened there.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was referring to the attitude taken by Canada at that conference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the proper time I shall answer any questions as to Canada's attitude. I doubt if this is the appropriate time.


Major James William Coldwell: May I follow up what I was saying by asking the minister if this legislation, which applies to only one set of circumstances, and is discriminatory against Canadian shipping, ought not to be paralleled by a declaration of the kind proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, so that the provision could be applied equally to all shipping engaged in the transportation of goods which may be used for war purposes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is complementary legislation. As I said in my speech on second reading, Great Britain has legislation, in exactly similar terms, applying to the Spanish conflict. The United States has a measure exactly the same as this, in general terms. While the present measure applies to only a very few ships at this time, it would at least

Canada Shipping Act-Munitions
have the effect of preventing ships from being placed under Canadian register to engage in the type of trade we are trying to prevent.


Howard Charles Green: Is the power under the
section wide enough to prevent a shipment of munitions to Japan? I notice that subsection 2 (a) reads:
(a) Designate any territory or territories in which there is a state of war or armed conflict-
And so on. That would not apply to shipments to Japan, because there is not a state of war in that country.


Ernest Lapointe: But there is armed conflict.


Howard Charles Green: The belief of the government is that this section is wide enough to enable them to prevent shipments to Japan, under present circumstances?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can say generally, that if the government passes an order in council stating that there is armed conflict in a certain area, this measure would apply immediately.


Howard Charles Green: And the minister would consider that there is sufficient power under the section to permit .designating Japan as a territory to which shipments should not be made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, undoubtedly.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Does the word " munitions " include machinery for the manufacture of munitions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Subsection 3 contains these words:
... or any articles deemed capable of being converted thereinto or made useful in the production thereof

This undoubtedly covers machinery.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Prohibition of the shipment of munitions would also mean prohibition of the shipment of lathes for the manufacture of shells, equipment for weighing powder and equipment for placing the powder in cartridges?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I would say so, under the words I have quoted. If the government decided that any article was being used in the production of munitions of war, shipments could be prohibited.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It seems to me that this measure is more or less a gesture on the part of the government to show what it may do under given circumstances. No doubt it vests in the government great responsibilities. If it so wished the government could, perhaps without the consent of parliament, say that
a certain area is in a state of armed conflict and, if it wished, could go to the support of one side and refuse to go to the support of the other. For instance, if the government desired, with respect to the present Sino-Japanese conflict it could either adopt a state of complete neutrality or support one side or the other.
As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the government has given no inkling or indication to the committee as to its stand on that very important question. In Canada to-day there is an overwhelming sentiment against the action of Japan in China. I believe if the government, under the power granted by the present measure, would declare that Japan is an aggressor nation, and take the bold step of refusing to supply her with the necessaries of war-always assuming that, as has been said, large quantities are being sent to that country-I believe a great body of public opinion would support the government's action. I know it must face difficulties presented by those people who are engaged in a profitable trade between Canada and Japan. I believe, however, that sentiment in Canada is so overwhelmingly against the attitude of Japan as an aggressor nation, and against the tactics that country has employed against a peaceful people, that the government would do well to take the bold step of prohibiting shipments of goods from Canada to Japan.


Mr. FINN:: Would the minister give the name of the ships running to the West Indies? I believe he mentioned two ships in the West Indies trade, and two on the Pacific coast.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe the hon. member must have misunderstood me. There are about ten running to the West Indies, including the Canadian National fleet of Canadian register.


Mr. STIRLING:: Under subsection 2 (a) would it be possible to designate Portugal as a territory in which there is a state of war or armed conflict, civil or otherwise?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does the hon. member ask if we could now designate Portugal in that manner?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is there a state of armed conflict in Portugal?


Grote Stirling: No, but it is a territory adjacent to one in which there is armed conflict and from which, for all I know, it might be possible to pass munitions on to either of the parties which are fighting.

Canada Shipping Act-Munitions


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe if it could be established that a regular route was being made across Portugal, and that munitions carried in Canadian ships were transshipped through Portugal to Spain, there would be reason to forbid the use of those territorial waters.


Mr. MacINNIS:: There is not a state of armed conflict in Italy to-day, but it has been proved and is a well known fact that with the consent of the Italian government Italian armed forces are taking part in the struggle in Spain.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The same is true of Russia.


Angus MacInnis: I am not concerned with that at the present time; but if the hon. member wishes to raise the point he may do so, and it can be settled later. Could this legislation or the legislation passed during last session be applied to Italy?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not the amendment made during the last session before me, and before making an answer I should like to have it. Looking at the legislation now in hand I should think that if there is not a state of armed conflict or war existing in Italy the present measure would not apply.


Grote Stirling: Then, what about Portugal?


Angus MacInnis: And there is no state of armed conflict in Japan. Under those circumstances it could not apply to Japan.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would not think that that would be the case. Japan is sending armed troops into another country and I would think that this legislation would properly apply to her.


Angus MacInnis: Italy is doing the same thing.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If Italy is doing the same thing, that would be a question of fact to be determined. The hon. member for Yale made reference to Portugal. Reference has been made to the Customs Act. If the Department of National Revenue in the administration of that act has any reason to believe that there is an indirect routing of goods to Spain through Portugal, there are ample powers in the act to refuse a permit for the shipment of such goods.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be under the Customs Act, not this act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not because Portugal is at war, but because Spain is at war and a shipment to Portugal might be considered as in effect a shipment to Spain.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I realize that during a discussion on a bill of

this kind is not the proper time to press the government for a declaration of foreign policy. At the same time I feel it is not proper to place legislation of this kind upon the statute books without the fullest discussion. Undoubtedly the government ought, in an emergency, to have the power of effectively controlling the actions of its nationals in shipping goods whether under the Customs Act or under the proposed legislation. But at the present time, there is no emergency although of course there might be in the indefinite future. Perhaps we ought to give emergency powers of this land looking to some indefinite future; but consider the existing situation. A war has been going on in China for some months; we are met here at the beginning of the session and apparently the government is not proposing to do anything with regard to that particular situation. I take it that that was the meaning of the declaration by the Prime Minister.
In spite of that, the government is now asking us to give it powers which will enable it, by order in council, in effect to determine the foreign policy of Canada. I do not think that is democratic. I have no objection to this legislation in itself, as it may be used in an emergency, but I say that when an international situation exists such as does exist to-day the government ought not first to refuse to give any information as to its foreign policy and then in this indirect manner ask parliament for powers which would permit it to commit the country in a roundabout way to a line of action which might involve war.
I am not accusing the government of wanting to go to war; I am accusing them of failing to live up to the solemn obligations which Canada has made; I am accusing them of taking to themselves by means of legislation of this kind the power to control our foreign policy without consulting parliament. This: is not just the occasion when I would have chosen to bring this matter before parliament, but I feel that the government should take us a little more into their confidence and explain just what their policy is likely to be under the provisions of this legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: What are the solemn obligations to which my hon. friend refers?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Kellogg pact and our membership in the League of Nations, both very solemn obligations.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend name one nation in the world

Canada Shipping Act-Munitions
that is applying sanctions at this time? Does he suggest that Canada alone should apply sanctions, even though it might lead to war?


James Shaver Woodsworth: An hon. member beside me suggests that according to the newspapers New Zealand, quite a small nation, has taken this action on her own.
I suggest that Canada has a big responsibility in this regard, as much of the war material which is being shipped to Japan comes from Canada. I do not think I can accept a code of morals that affirms that we shall not do anything until somebody else does it. I submit that we are guilty-I use the word advisedly-of assisting an aggressor nation to kill men, women and children in China. I do not see how Canada can escape the moral responsibility for that kind of thing.
The Department of National Defence is presenting estimates with which to build fortifications on the Pacific coast.


Ernest Lapointe: And the hon. member is opposed to that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not discussing that question just at the moment. What are these fortifications to be placed there for? In order to defend us from possible attack by Japan. If airplanes or warships come to the coast of British Columbia and attack this country with bombs and shells we know that those bombs and shells will have been made from materials supplied by this country. I urge that that is a crazy situation. Even though we have no sense of responsibility for the women and children of China, for our own sakes we should prevent one more ounce of war material going to Japan-and this whether or not any other nation takes similar action. I think I have the right to urge that the government give us some assurance that such action *will be taken. The government should not refuse to take any action and then at the beginning of the session ask us to pass a bill, in itself good enough, which gives them power to deal with important questions of foreign policy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, may I say to my hon. friend that the government is just as concerned as he is about the well-being and welfare of the women and children in the orient, in Spain or in any other part of the world. But what this government is particularly concerned about is the wellbeing and welfare of the Canadian people. If my hon. friend wishes to know in a word what the policy of this country is with respect to matters affecting war, let me tell him that it is to seek in every possible way to avoid taking any step which may be responsible for this country either directly or indirectly being drawn into war or bringing itself or other countries into a world conflict. What it does or refrains from doing to-day with respect to world affairs is with a view to discharging its obligations in the light of the existing world situation and in the light of what other nations are doing or refraining from doing. To the best of its judgment the government is following a course which will serve to keep Canada strictly neutral and enable her, when opportunity presents itself, to cooperate with other nations in helping to bring to a conclusion, more speedily than might otherwise be possible, any existing international conflict.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Even if the Prime Minister takes the view that we should exercise no discrimination; that we should regard China and Japan as being on an equality, will he tell me why the government should not take the same action in the case of the Sino-Japanese affair as they took in the case of Spain?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can answer my hon. friend by saying that much the same reasons that have actuated the United States, that have actuated Great Britain, that have actuated France and that have actuated other countries of the world in their attitude to the Sino-Japanese conflict have actuated Canada in its attitude. We are aware of the tremendous possibilities of danger involved in taking certain courses of action, and we are taking every possible care to avoid them.


Robert Emmett Finn: The hon. leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party spoke of ships, but there are ships other than those owned by the Canadian government going to the West Indies. There belong to the Canadian Pacific Railway two ships of Canadian registry and under private ownership. I well remember my hon. friend stating in the house that he saw no sound reason why Japanese, Chinese and Canadians should not go to school together and get married, or why they should not be allowed to grow up together in this country. I ask him now, if his policy had been carried out, what would be the influence of the Japanese upon a Canadian girl who married a Japanese living on the Pacific coast?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know what that has to do with the matter. I have never advocated mixed marriages.


Robert Emmett Finn: The hon. member's statement can be found in Hansard, that he saw no sound reason why Japanese, Chinese and Canadians should not all go to the same schools in the province of British Columbia.
Rules of the House


James Shaver Woodsworth: They do now.


Robert Emmett Finn: Then I say that is absolutely the trouble. Why does not my hon. friend urge that the Japanese should be put out of the schools, just as the United States has said that Japanese fishing boats travelling along the Pacific coast of the United States shall no longer be permitted to receive information and to map out the country, with the idea of using force later. To permit it would be against the finer civilization that this continent desires to have.
The right hon. leader of the opposition was on very sound ground this afternoon. Any hon. gentleman who is a member cf the legal profession knows that a ship on tb~ high seas is governed by the law of the flag she flies at her stern, and that when she gets into a foreign port she is subject to the statutory laws of that country and can be held and sold, and may never return to the country from which she came.
I am sure there is no one in the house more desirous of protecting the finer humanity, not only of Canada but of the civilized world, than the Prime Minister of Canada to-day, and I believe also the right hon. leader of the opposition; but I would point out, and in no critical spirit, that this amendment to the shipping act passed in 1934 deals only with war materials transshipped on the high seas, and if we want to do a real job we should provide that war materials shall not leave any of our ports. Then they could not arrive at any foreign destination, or be used to kill people, nor could they be transshipped on the high seas. The amendment which it is proposed to insert in the Canada Shipping Act reads:
No article to w'hich this section applies shall be discharged at any port or place in any territory designated by the governor in council for the purposes of this section or within the territorial waters adjacent to such territory from a ship registered in Canada, and no such article shall be transshipped on the high seas from any such ship into any vessel bound for any such port or place, and no such article consigned to or destined for any such port or place shall be taken ou board or carried in any such ship.
I may be wrong, but if we are going to get to the bottom of the world situation to-day, and if Canada is to carry on peacefully as outlined by the Prime Minister a few moments ago-and I believe every hon. gentleman, with that finer sense of humanity which should be in the human heart, will support him in that-we should go to the bottom of the situation by providing a law so ironclad that it will be impossible to ship from Canada war materials, and we would not then be
[Mr Finn.]
worried about transshipments on the high seas or the ports the vessels were going to, or whether the ship would come back to Canada to be penalized.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Robert Emmett Finn: I desire to say to the hon. Minister of Transport that I was hardly off my feet when he made his motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: It is six o'clock.


Robert Emmett Finn: Then I apologize most humbly to the hon. minister.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 6 p.m.
Monday, February 14, 1938